*****************************************************************
08/15/05 **** RADIATION BULLETIN(RADBULL) **** VOL 13.188
*****************************************************************
RADBULL IS PRODUCED BY THE ABALONE ALLIANCE CLEARINGHOUSE
*****************************************************************
Send News Stories to news@energy-net.org with title on subject
line and first line of body
NUCLEAR POLICY
1 Xinhua: US to work with EU-3 on Iran nuclear issue
2 Daily Times: Tehran warns US over nuclear threat
3 IHT: Russia's aging subs, Iran's nuclear program, Japan and nuclear
4 IRNA: IAEA silent on source of contamination of Iran's centrifuges -
5 Reuters: Pakistan opposes use of force against Iran
6 Reuters: Larijani takes over as Iranian atomic negotiator
7 Washington Institute: Iranian Media Reactions to the Nuclear Impasse
8 NYT: Iran's New Leader Turns to Conservatives for His Cabinet -
9 IPS-English NORTH-SOUTH KOREA: Most South Koreans will take
10 BBC: Russian fleet in Crimean doldrums
11 Times of India: The great nuclear handshake
NUCLEAR REACTORS
12 [NukeNet] Dr Caldicott On How Nuke Plants Add To Global
13 US: Safety, jobs at issue in Exelon deal
14 US: Activist to Contest Merger Transfer of Three Mile Island
15 US: [NukeNet] Climatic [Global Warming] Tipping Point? Effects On
16 US: [NukeNet] From Dr. Arjun Mahkijani On Global Warming/Nuclear
17 US: Clarion-Ledger: Nuclear energy 'best choice' by far
18 US: PBP: Nuclear energy back in vogue, but waste disposal a super-he
19 US: Reuters: Arizona Palo Verde 1 nuke seen back later this week
20 US: Reuters: FPL Fla. St Lucie 2 nuke exits outage, up to full
21 US: Reuters: Progress N.C. Brunwswick 2 nuke up to 97 pct power
22 Reuters: Bruce Ontario Bruce 7 nuke exits outage
23 US: KPHO Phoenix: Palo Verde Generators start crawl from Mexico
24 US: Puget Sound Business Journal: Nuclear power rallies -
25 Deccan Herald: India to produce 40,000 MW nuclear power in 10 yrs
26 News & Star: Museum idea for nuclear reactor
NUCLEAR SECURITY
NUCLEAR SAFETY
27 [NukeNet] Japanese uranium-contaminated soil
28 ADH: Nuclear family: Atomic vets band together in search of benefits
29 London Times: A-bomb's damaging fallout - Comment -
NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE
30 [NukeNet] Yucca Mountain Items
31 C&EN: YUCCA RADIATION LIMITS PROPOSED
32 Independent: Britain's biggest low-level nuclear dump a 'safety risk
33 US: LA Daily News: Perchlorate cleanup put in motion
34 US: AU ABC: Uranium mining debate will subside, company says.
35 US: IVDB: Group still pressing for info on certain materials -
36 North-West Evening Mail: Sellafield N-site set to be split up
37 US: San Luis Obispo Tribune: Nuclear dump site far from opening, exp
38 AU ABC: NT Parliament moves to oppose nuclear dump
PEACE
US DEPT. OF ENERGY
39 Las Vegas Review-Journal: Report: DOE hasn't fully studied how
40 DOE: Correction on Expression of Interest Regarding the Scope of an
41 Tri-City Herald: Bad decisions remain on site council horizon
42 PISJ: Letters to the Editor Plutonium
43 The State: Study finds agency should de
*****************************************************************
*****************************************************************
FULL NEWS STORIES
*****************************************************************
*****************************************************************
1 Xinhua: US to work with EU-3 on Iran nuclear issue
www.xinhuanet.com
www.chinaview.cn 2005-08-16 06:07:01
WASHINGTON, Aug. 15 (Xinhuanet) -- The United States
reiterates on Monday that it will work closely with the EU-3 -
Britain, France and Germany - to resolve Iran's nuclear issues.
"The US approach to this issue is to work very closely and
in a supportive manner with the EU-3 countries...to get Iran to
abide by its international commitments, including to the
commitment it made in the Paris Accord," State Department
spokesman Sean McCormack said.
"If the IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) does not
find that Iran has lived up to its commitments, then we expect
the next step would be to go to the Security Council... That's
the route that we're working on," McCormack said.
The State Department spokesman made the remarks two days
after US President George W. Bush said he could consider using
force as a last resort against Iran if it refuses to comply with
international demands to halt its nuclear program.
In an interview with Israeli TV, Bush said that if diplomacy
on Iran's nuclear issue fails, "all options are on the table."
"The use of force is the last option for any
president...we've used force in the recent past to secure our
country," Bush said.
After rejecting the European offer, Iran resumed uranium
conversion at its nuclear facility in Isfahan on Aug. 8. The
IAEA responded with a resolution calling on the Iranians to
again put the process on hold.
The United States accuses Iran of trying to produce nuclear
weapons, but Tehran insists its nuclear program is entirely
peaceful. Enditem
Copyright ©2003 Xinhua News Agency. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
2 Daily Times: Tehran warns US over nuclear threat
| Tuesday, August 16, 2005
* Asefi says Bush should know Iran’s capabilities are much
greater than America’s
* President Ahmadinejad unveils hardline cabinet
TEHRAN: Iran’s ultra-conservative President Mahmood Ahmadinejad
unveiled a new hardline cabinet on Sunday as Tehran warned the
West not to resort to bullying over its nuclear programme.
Among the key appointments submitted to parliament for approval,
Ahmadinejad proposed Ali Saidloo as oil minister of the OPEC
member, and conservative MP Manoushehr Mottaki as foreign
minister. Saidloo, Ahmadinejad’s successor as mayor of Tehran,
is a relative unknown in national Iranian politics, while
Mottaki has served as ambassador to Japan and Turkey.
Iran bluntly told US President George W Bush that it would
respond to any attack, and warned that it could consider ending
a freeze on uranium enrichment, a process that can make fuel for
a nuclear bomb. “Bush should know that our capabilities are much
greater than those of the United States,” foreign ministry
spokesman Hamid Reza Asefi told reporters. “We don’t think that
the United States will make such a mistake.” The US president on
Friday refused to rule out the use of force against Iran over
its resumption of limited nuclear activities last week, saying,
“All options are on the table.”
His stance was also opposed by Germany, one of the three
European countries, which have been negotiating with Iran over
its nuclear work, with Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder saying
military options “don’t amount to anything.”
But fellow negotiator Britain, the United States’ closest ally,
faced anger in Tehran over its role in the talks, with some
Islamist students pelting the embassy with stones and tomatoes.
“We must occupy the embassy and get rid of the English spies,”
chanted the crowd of demonstrators. The standoff between Iran
and the West reached crisis point last week when a Tehran
defiantly resumed uranium conversion, the initial stage in the
nuclear fuel cycle, despite international warnings.
The International Atomic Energy Agency’s board subsequently
called on Iran to halt the work and ordered the UN watchdog to
report back on September 3 on Tehran’s compliance with
international safeguards. Asefi said the resumption of uranium
conversion work at a facility in the central city of Isfahan,
which converts uranium ore into feed gas used in enrichment, was
“not negotiable”.
He said the Iranian regime had not yet reached a consensus on
enrichment, a process which makes fuel for nuclear reactors but
can also be the core of an atomic bomb. “But the attitude and
the actions of the Europeans in the next few days will be the
determining factor,” he said.
Iran had suspended its nuclear activities in November for the
duration of negotiations with the so-called EU-3 of Britain,
France and Germany over its nuclear programme. Iran vehemently
denies it is seeking the bomb and says it has the right to
nuclear technology under the Non-Proliferation Treaty of which
it is a signatory.
The nuclear issue is likely to dominate Ahmedinejad’s new
21-member government, which was presented to parliament on
Sunday ahead of a confidence vote due to be held within a week.
Atomic negotiator: Ali Larijani, a conservative with close ties
to Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, has formally taken
over as Iran’s chief nuclear negotiator, state television
reported on Monday.
Larijani, a former head of state radio and television, takes
over from cleric Hassan Rohani at a tense period, with Iran’s
nuclear programme on the brink of referral to the UN Security
Council for possible sanctions. “In a decree from President
(Mahmoud) Ahmadinejad, Ali Larijani is appointed secretary of
the Supreme National Security Council,” state television said.
Daily Times - All Rights Reserved
*****************************************************************
3 IHT: Russia's aging subs, Iran's nuclear program, Japan and nuclear arms
- Editorials & Commentary - International Herald Tribune
TUESDAY, AUGUST 16, 2005
Russia's aging subs
Senator Richard Lugar's article "Aging Soviet subs are still a
threat" (Views, Aug. 13) prompts a suggestion.
India wants to purchase new submarines to replenish its depleting
fleet, but its acquisition plan is stalled by budgetary
constraints. A few of Russia's newer general-purpose nuclear and
conventional subs could be leased to India after upgrading by the
U.S. naval stockyards.
In this way, without spending any additional funds, America could
take care of more Russian submarines, counterbalance China's
expanding naval presence and solidify the recent U.S.-India
strategic alliance.
Arun Khanna, Indianapolis
Iran's nuclear program
The United States suspects Iran of pursuing nuclear weapons in
defiance of international law. But America's hands are hardly
clean when it comes to the rule of law.
Article 6 of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty requires all
signatories - including the United States - to "pursue
negotiations in good faith" leading to "cessation of the nuclear
arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament."
That was in 1970, when the United States had 3,800 nuclear
weapons, fewer than half of what it has today.
Iran should be allowed to enrich uranium for peaceful purposes on
the condition that it submit to intrusive UN inspections, and
that the United States begin multilateral negotiations on a
treaty to ban nuclear weapons.
Ray Perkins Jr., Webster, New Hampshire
Japan and nuclear arms
It is regrettable that while the Japanese victims of the atomic
bombs and their left-wing fellow travelers continued to protest
the bombings and are calling for an abolition of global nuclear
armaments, they have never attempted to reflect upon the cause of
this disaster, just blaming the Americans ("An anniversary to
forget," by Joichi Ito, Views, Aug. 8).
Furthermore, they have never taken any realistic initiative to
prod the government to work for world peace. It was Britain,
France and Germany that succeeded in persuading Libya to abandon
its nuclear arms, and that similarly are negotiating with Iran.
As for the ongoing talks with North Koreans, our prime minister
and the public alike seem to attach greater importance to the
abduction of a handful of citizens rather than the liquidation of
nuclear arms that are threatening the security of Japan's 120
million people.
Masato Tada, Tokyo
Moral values in America
The moral fiber of the '60s and '70s, which David Brooks
disparages ("America's moral revival," Views, Aug 9), was
nevertheless firm enough to put away a president whose
transgressions pale beside the daily diet of dishonesty served up
by the present incumbent.
The world used to look to the United States as a standard-bearer
for honesty, a sense of service, conviction and courage. No
amount of social-indicator cherry-picking will disguise the
current inconspicuousness of these moral virtues in America.
David Lane, Banyuls-sur-Mer, France
Herald Tribune All rights reserved
*****************************************************************
4 IRNA: IAEA silent on source of contamination of Iran's centrifuges -
Vienna, Aug 16, IRNA
Iran-Centrifuge-Austria
While a number of diplomats based at the International Atomic
Energy Agency (IAEA) have declared that the source of
contamination of centrifuges in Iran is foreign, officials from
the nuclear watchdog agency have refrained from making any
comment.
IAEA spokesman Peter Rickwood told IRNA in Vienna Monday that
the agency will not comment before IAEA Director General
Mohammad Elbaradei has submitted his report to the governing
board.
He added that the resolution of the IAEA emergency session has
called on Elbaradei to hand in a report to the board of
governors on the Iran nuclear activities and Iran's compliance
with the resolution by September 3.
"We will wait until that time," he added, saying that it is not
clear that the outcome of these tests will be incorporated in
the Elbaradei report.
Rickwood said that it is expected that in addition to the
written report by Elbaradei another report on Iran nuclear
activities will also be submitted before September 19 which is
the next IAEA governing board session.
Some diplomats have said that the outcome on the tests carried
out by IAEA experts has confirmed that the sources of uranium
with high degree of enrichment found in Iran is from foreign
equipment imported to the country.
Tehran has previously brought up the issue that the centrifuges
brought from Pakistan were contaminated and now the IAEA has
confirmed the notion.
The issue of contamination of the centrifuges in Iran is one of
the two remaining outstanding issues pertaining to the case on
Iran's nuclear activities.
If the nuclear watchdog agency confirms the reports by the
diplomats one of the doubts will be considered as resolved.
*****************************************************************
5 Reuters: Pakistan opposes use of force against Iran
Mon Aug 15, 2005 8:51 AM ET
ISLAMABAD, Aug 15 (Reuters) - Nuclear-armed Pakistan said on
Monday it was opposed to the use of force against Iran to press
it to give up its nuclear programme, saying that would destablise
the region.
U.S. President George W. Bush said last week he could consider
force against Iran as a last resort.
U.S. ally Pakistan, which borders Iran, said it supported
negotiations between Iran and the European Union and hoped for a
peaceful settlement of the dispute.
"We are against the use of force because we believe force is not
going to resolve any problem. It is going to further destablise
this region," Pakistani foreign ministry spokesman Muhammad Naeem
Khan told a weekly briefing.
"We believe that all parties need to fulfil their obligations.
We also feel Iran has a legitimate right, under the NPT, for the
peaceful use of nuclear energy," he said, referring to the
Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
Washington accuses Tehran of seeking nuclear weapons. Tehran
insists its ambitions are limited to seeking fuel for nuclear
power stations.
Iran angered the Europeans and the United States last week by
resuming uranium conversion at its Isfahan plant despite U.S. and
EU calls that it not restart work there.
© Reuters 2005.
All Rights Reserved.
*****************************************************************
6 Reuters: Larijani takes over as Iranian atomic negotiator
Mon Aug 15, 2005 6:35 AM ET
TEHRAN, Aug 15 (Reuters) - Ali Larijani, a conservative with
close ties to Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, has formally
taken over as Iran's chief nuclear negotiator, state television
reported on Monday.
Larijani, a former head of state radio and television, takes
over from cleric Hassan Rohani at a tense period, with Iran's
nuclear programme on the brink of referral to the U.N. Security
Council for possible sanctions.
"In a decree from President (Mahmoud) Ahmadinejad, Ali Larijani
is appointed secretary of the Supreme National Security Council,"
state television said.
Iran has rejected a resolution from the International Atomic
Energy Agency calling on it to reverse immediately its resumption
of uranium conversion -- a process that can lead to the
production of atomic reactor fuel or bomb grade material.
Washington accuses Tehran of seeking nuclear weapons. Tehran
insists its ambitions are limited to seeking fuel for nuclear
power stations such as the one it is building with Russian help
at the Gulf port of Bushehr.
European diplomats have expressed fears over the replacement of
the pragmatic Rohani.
Reformists criticised Larijani's stint as head of state media
for censoring their views and for excessive religious
programming. When he stepped down from that post last year, he
became an aide to the Supreme Leader.
He voiced an uncompromising line on the Islamic Republic's
atomic programme, saying that taking European Union incentives in
return for giving up the nuclear fuel cycle would be like
exchanging "a pearl for a candy bar".
Larijani, the scion of an influential hardline family, was the
official presidential candidate of the conservative camp, but won
little public support, coming sixth out of seven candidates with
about six percent of votes cast in a June election.
© Reuters 2005.
All Rights Reserved.
*****************************************************************
7 Washington Institute: Iranian Media Reactions to the Nuclear Impasse
By Sana Nourani
August 15, 2005
Iran's hardline establishment often declares that all Iranian
citizens are united in their determination to see Iran exercise
its "right" to nuclear power and "self-sufficiency" -- that is,
operation of the complete fuel cycle. But are all Iranians
really so enthused by the national nuclear program and heedless
of international repercussions? What follows is a collection of
Iranian reactions to the recent nuclear impasse.
Conservative or Hardline Newspaper Editorials.
On August 10, the editors of Resalat wrote that Iran has a
"legitimate right to uranium enrichment and a complete nuclear
fuel cycle." The European Union's (EU) "political weakness" is
demonstrated by the fact that the United States bullies it to
adopt "unreasonable demands." The editorial continues, "Such
conduct indicates that America's political spitefulness and its
dual behavior concerning the Iranian nuclear case is the main
problem, and that the issue cannot be resolved while these
contradictions and dual behaviors continue."
Jomhuri-ye Islami editorialized on August 8 that accepting the
European package would be an "eternal shame and disgrace." The
editorial went on to argue that neither Europeans nor Americans
can be trusted as long as they refuse to accept Iran's "lawful
right to nuclear technology." Westerners hate a self-sufficient
Iran and wish to "suppress Islam." "They are not to be trusted,"
the editorial continues, "because they will never accept seeing
Iran gaining access to nuclear technology; and in fact, they do
not want to see Iran becoming self-sufficient in any sphere of
activity. What they want is for Iran to be an underdeveloped and
dependent nation, with no option but to submit and give in to
foreign domination."
An August 4 editorial in Ya Lesarat ol-Hoseyn accused the
Europeans of delaying their promised concessions package until
new president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad took power in order to blame
Iran's rejection on his supposedly extremist stance. "[B]y
suggesting illusive classifications such as hardliner and
moderate, or flexible and inflexible, they want to somehow turn
the nuclear debate into an internal issue," the editorial
argued. "The few dastardly betrayers of homeland who … speak of
the need to submit to the pressures of the West … are just like
those traitors in the period of nationalizing the oil industry."
The Tehran Kayhan's radical firebrand editor Hoseyn
Shari'atmadari wrote on August 7, "Contrary to what is being
remembered as absolute and accepted reality, the Islamic
Republic of Iran is not a member of the NPT [Non-Proliferation
Treaty] and the IAEA [International Atomic Energy Agency] cannot
and is not allowed to inspect and express opinion about the
nuclear facilities of our country with reference to the NPT.…
But what is expected from the honorable president is to give the
rude Europeans his firm answer, so that they will never forget
that they are dealing with a Muslim and devoted nation, not the
princes of Pahlavi!"
Moderate Newspaper Editorials
E'temaad's editors argued on August 10, "This position of
Europe, which is also supported by the United States, is
undoubtedly regarded as interference in the internal affairs of
Iran as an independent political unit in the world, and
certainly the leaders of the country will not submit to it under
any condition. The statements of the Iranian officials in recent
days clearly reveal that Iran is interested in continuing
negotiations with Europe, provided Europe takes a step forward
without any preconditions and recognizes Iran's right to
enrichment."
On August 7, Iran News wrote, "The [EU] incentives look
positive, but the point is that the Europeans are bent on
bringing Iran's uranium conversion and enrichment processes to a
halt.... One could be optimistic about the Europeans'
recognition of Iran's right to peaceful nuclear technology, but
the question is why they have pushed the Islamic republic to
regain its sovereign rights through nondiplomatic means up to
now.... The proposals look alluring, but they are deceitful."
Liberal or Reformist Newspaper Editorials
Tehran Sharq wrote August 9 that a "critical day" confronts
Iran, and the nation now needs "collective wisdom" and
democratic principles if it is to stand up against a superpower
for the sake of national security. "Today, Iranian diplomacy
needs democracy more than ever before. Even the establishment's
leading critics will show support for the system while national
security is at risk, providing that the collective wisdom of the
people's true representatives is employed in the
decision-making.… Stabilizing the role of collective wisdom in
the nuclear talks, engaging in direct and outspoken dialogue
with the entire nation on the issue and including all assets
(including dissidents) in the decision-making process will play
as great a role as the efforts that are made to attract the
trust of the Europeans, or in the final reckoning, the
Americans."
The August 8 Aftab-e Yazd published a compilation of readers'
comments. One reader stated that Assembly of Experts head
Ayatollah Ali Meshkini ought to explain what he means when he
says that the "nation" has declared its desire for a renewal of
nuclear activities. How did he go about discerning the views of
the nation, the reader asked. In a similar compilation on August
6, a reader found a contradiction between the government's
official line that nuclear power is sought for peaceful,
scientific purposes and Muhammad Javad Larijani's statements
that Iran has a right to nuclear deterrence. What, the reader
asked, is the real nuclear policy?
Blogs
An estimated 75,000 of Iran's 4 million Internet users publish
blogs. Many of these writers avoid the nuclear issue altogether,
focusing instead on cultural and economic topics. However, one
well-known political blogger based in Tehran who goes by the
name of "Mr. Behi" at http://mrbehi.blogs.com, wrote: "[W]hy not
[use] the options provided by Europe to both get nuclear
technology and get rid of all this clashes [sic] that might get
us into another period of sanctions? Iran is insisting that it
want to be independent in the cycle but in what price?"
Hossein Derakhshan, whose blog at http://hoder.com is one of the
most widely read and respected by Iranians, wrote an article on
October 21, 2004, explaining why so many Iranians appeared to
back Iran's nuclear stance: "[I]f people were aware of how
easily this technology, if not curbed by the UN, could be used
by the regime to produce nuclear weapons, and how such power
could weaken the already humble foundations of democracy in Iran
by giving more military power to the most radical and
fundamentalist parts of the regime, they'd hardly be backing it
as they do now -- if we accept that they really are." Derakhshan
then posted a poll asking respondents whether they felt that
Iran should possess nuclear weapons. Of the 831 who replied, 46
percent said Iran should possess nuclear weapons only if it is
under the control of a democratic government, while 33 percent
rejected nuclear weapons outright.
Surveys
A more scientific survey of Iranian attitudes was conducted by
phone between May 26 and June 4 by the Tarrance Group for the
Iran Institute for Democracy. When given a choice between
nuclear technology and modernizing their petroleum
infrastructure, 53 percent chose the first option. However, 60
percent agreed with the international community's worry of
terrorists obtaining weapons of mass destruction. And a
plurality of 42 percent said that the Islamic Republic's access
to nuclear weapons would add to their anxiety and discomfort;
only 37 percent said it would not. Among those aged sixteen to
twenty-four, 50 percent declared their anxiety at the thought.
In short, the Iranian people's feelings about a national "right"
to nuclear technology and a complete fuel cycle are more nuanced
than the hardliners in Tehran claim them to be.
Sana Nourani is a research intern at The Washington Institute.
The Washington Institute for Near East Policy · 1828 L Street NW
Suite 1050 Washington DC 20036 Tel: 202-452-0650 · Fax:
202-223-5364 · Contact Form · © 2005 All rights reserved
*****************************************************************
8 NYT: Iran's New Leader Turns to Conservatives for His Cabinet -
New York Times
+ Reprints By Published: August 15, 2005
TEHRAN, Aug. 14 - Iran's new president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, on
Sunday nominated a cabinet dominated by conservatives as
officials warned that Iran would not give in to pressure from
the West over its nuclear program. Skip to next paragraph
[Readers]
Vahid Salemi/Associated Press
About 300 Iranian students and supporters of the supreme leader,
Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, protested Western demands that Iran give
up its nuclear program in a rally at the British Embassy in
Tehran Sunday.
Mr. Ahmadinejad's selections for his 21-member cabinet provide
the first window into the policies that he may pursue in the
next four years.
He had promised to establish a moderate government that would
focus on the fair distribution of wealth and the eradication of
corruption and poverty. But his candidates are largely from
conservative backgrounds, and many of them are close to Iran's
supreme religious leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.
The proposed interior, cultural and intelligence ministers are
well-known conservatives. Their nominations suggest that Mr.
Ahmadinejad intends to restrict some of the social, cultural and
political freedoms that were granted under the former president,
Mohammad Khatami.
Some of the others are not well known, but according to
background information carried by the ISNA news agency, a number
have been members of the conservative Revolutionary Guards.
Parliament must approve the cabinet, in a vote expected to be
held in the coming days. But there is little doubt that the new
president's choices will be approved.
Iran also warned the West on Sunday that it would not negotiate
over its uranium conversion plant in Isfahan, where it resumed
work last week after rejecting an offer from European
negotiators for a package of inducements to halt its nuclear
program.
The United States contends that Iran is trying to pursue a
clandestine program to build nuclear weapons. Iran contends that
its program is for peaceful purposes.
"The Isfahan issue is over," said Mohammad Saidi, deputy chief
of Iran's Atomic Energy Organization, state television reported
Sunday.
"What is left on the table for discussion is Natanz," he added,
referring to the nuclear site where Iran can conduct the more
delicate process of uranium enrichment. The process can lead to
making nuclear fuel, or if enriched to higher levels, to making
nuclear weapons. "We definitely have plans for Natanz in the
near future," he said.
Iran's departing Foreign Ministry spokesman, Hamidreza Assefi,
also said Iran had plans to resume its enrichment program. But,
he said, "Europe's behavior will heavily influence the decision."
Nearly 300 Islamist students staged a demonstration outside the
British Embassy in downtown Tehran on Sunday. Protesters who
bombarded the embassy with stones and tomatoes chanted, "Iran
must resume enrichment." Britain, France, Germany and Europe had
been negotiating with Iran over the program.
Iran rejected a proposal from Europe this month to abandon its
enrichment program in return for economic, technological,
political and security incentives, and it resumed work at
Isfahan. The International Atomic Energy Agency, the United
Nations' nuclear monitoring agency, could send the case to the
Security Council for possible sanctions but so far has approved
a resolution calling on Iran to halt its nuclear work.
Manouchehr Mottaki, who was nominated for the post of foreign
minister, is close to conservatives in Parliament, where as a
member he has criticized Iran's policies in its talks with
Europe. He is a former ambassador to Japan and Turkey.
But analysts in Tehran said that because Ayatollah Khamenei
makes foreign policy, Mr. Mottaki lacked the authority to make
major changes. "He might come with an agenda to make foreign
policy about 10 percent more hard-line," said Nasser Hadian, a
political science professor at Tehran University. "But he showed
in his TV debates" with one of the nuclear negotiators "that he
is not such an extremist."
Mostafa Pourmohammadi, nominated to run the Interior Ministry,
was deputy minister to a former conservative intelligence
minister, Ali Fallahian, who suppressed cultural and political
liberties. He has close ties to Ayatollah Khamenei.
Hossein Mohseni Ejehei, a cleric proposed for the post of
intelligence minister, was the leader of the special court of
clergy and, as a judge, sent advocates of change to prison.
Hossein Saffar Harandi, nominated as culture minister, is a
former senior member of the Revolutionary Guards who advocates
conservative policies as a newspaper columnist.
"This is a cabinet that wants to create terror and fear," said
Mostafa Tajzadeh, an advocate of change who was deputy interior
minister.
"The first message after you hear their names is that political
and cultural liberties are going to be restricted," he added.
"But it all depends on how political parties can keep society
alert."
Mr. Ahmadinejad nominated no women for his cabinet, although
some conservative women in Parliament were expecting to win
cabinet seats. Mr. Khatami had no women in his cabinet, but two
women were among his several vice presidents.
Mr. Tajzadeh also said that judging from the cabinet list, Mr.
Ahmadinejad appeared to be distancing himself from supporters
who hoped he would improve economic opportunities for the
average Iranian.
The New York Times
*****************************************************************
9 IPS-English NORTH-SOUTH KOREA: Most South Koreans will take
Date: Mon, 15 Aug 2005 16:36:09 -0700
version=3.0.4
X-Spam-filter-host: darwin.ctyme.com - http://www.junkemailfilter.com
AP IP HD DV
NORTH-SOUTH KOREA: Most South Koreans will take Pyongyang's side against
U.S.
Att.Editors: The following item is from the Emirates News Agency (WAM)
SEOUL, Aug. 15 (WAM) - Some 65.9 per cent of South Koreans responded they
would take North Korea's side if it was at war with the U.S., while 21.8 per
cent said South Korea must stand with the U.S. with the rest remaining
undecided in a recent poll conducted by South Korea's leading vernacular
daily 'Chosun Ilbo'.
When asked where they would like to live if they had to go abroad, not
one cited the Stalinist country. Instead, 17.9 per cent of respondents named
Australia, 16.8 per cent the U.S. and 15.3 per cent Japan.
Fourteen nations including equally uninviting Iraq and Iran did better
than North Korea by attracting one respondent each.
A 'Chosun Ilbo' survey of Koreans between 16 and 25 to mark 60 years
since liberation from Japanese colonial rule finds the younger generation on
the whole pragmatic and uninterested in ideology. The first survey of the
generation born in the 1980s shows a marked contrast between their attitude
and their parents' to the nation and the former colonial power.
The survey shows that the nation is a source of pride for the younger
generation while the older generation associates it with toil and suffering.
The survey by Gallup Korea of 833 individuals born between 1980 and 1989
also found a marked shift in attitude to North Korea and the South's
traditional ally, the U.S.
Prof. Gang Won-taek of Soongsil University interpreted the results as
showing that the young generation views North Korea as a struggling
neighbour and relative rather than an enemy. He said young people's
attitudes toward the North should be regarded as pragmatic nationalism and a
rejection of ideology.
Japan was the younger generation's third favorite nation in which to
live. Some 36 per cent of the younger generation said they felt goodwill
toward the former imperial power, while a Gallup poll in December found only
25.7 per cent of over-50s with any goodwill toward Japan. In group
interviews, most of the young respondents said that when they think of
Japan, they think of video games or animated films.
The young were proud of their country's achievements, with 67.8 per cent
believing Korea was among the world's top 10 developed nations or would join
them over the next decade.
The survey was conducted August 3-4. The margin of error is 3.4 per cent.
(WAM)
*****************************************************************
10 BBC: Russian fleet in Crimean doldrums
Last Updated: Monday, 15 August 2005
[Fleet on display]
Some want to see an end to Russia's naval presence in Crimea
Once the pride of the Soviet navy, Russia's Black Sea Fleet can
still put on an impressive display.
But it could soon be fighting for its own survival, the BBC's
Helen Fawkes reports from Sevastopol, in Crimea.
Thousands of Ukrainians lined the harbour at Sevastopol to watch
the powerful show of strength in a demonstration battle for the
public by the fleet, which is based in Crimea.
A fighter jet swooped low over the southern tip of Ukraine to
attack a giant warship from the Russian navy.
The vessel returned gunfire and green torpedoes cut through the
water towards advancing enemy boats.
Racing across the water on a small speedboat, the fleet
commander, Rear Admiral Alexander Tatarinov, inspected the
vessels.
"Our sailors and marines must show people what they can do. It
makes me really proud when people can see what we are capable
of," he said.
But the future of the Russian Black Sea Fleet is in doubt.
'New danger'
Moscow employs more than 25,000 personnel and has almost 200
ships in Crimea. This is one of Russia's biggest naval bases.
The Black Sea Fleet was divided up between Russia and Ukraine
following the collapse of the USSR. A bilateral agreement means
that Russia is allowed to have a naval base here until 2017.
Terrorists want cause a lot of problems for both the US and
Russia, and so the role of the Russian Black Sea Fleet here in
Crimea is very, very important Igor Mazuk
Some Ukrainian politicians are now saying that it must withdraw
after that date.
The headquarters of the Russian Black Sea Fleet are in Sevastopol
and all over the city there are signs of its naval heritage.
Back in Soviet times it was considered so top secret that this
area was closed to the public. Now pleasure boats take tourists
on trips around the bay.
Igor Mazuk proudly points out ships which belong to the Russian
Black Sea Fleet.
For 40 years he worked on nuclear submarines.
He was one of the survivors from the K-19 disaster at the height
of the Cold War, when a number of submariners died in order to
prevent a nuclear accident at sea.
"We face a new danger," the retired colonel says.
"The heart of terrorism is not far from the Crimea. Terrorists
want to cause a lot of problems for both the US and Russia, and
so the role of the Russian Black Sea Fleet here in Crimea is
very, very important."
On shore, Russian pop music is pumped out of the many of the
crowded bars.
Crimea used to be part of Russia; it was only in the 1950s that
became part of what is now Ukraine. Many people here still feel
Russian and speak Russian.
"The Russian Black Sea Fleet belongs in Crimea. It should be able
to stay here," says Oleg, a 19-year-old sailor.
But Ukrainian students who want to see an end to the Russian
military presence held small protests in Crimea last month.
Less influence
President Viktor Yushchenko also appears unhappy about Ukraine's
agreement with Russia. His election following the "Orange
Revolution" dramatically altered his country's relationship with
Moscow.
Mr Yushchenko favours closer ties with Nato and Europe.
"The Black Sea Fleet's situation has become a problem for the
Ukrainian government," says Valentin Badrak, a military analyst
in Kiev.
[sailor on duty]
Sevastopol, once a secret base, has strong naval traditions
"The new authorities are considering whether there should be a
withdrawal of the Russian Black Sea Fleet because the base could
stand in the way of Ukraine joining Nato."
Uncertainty over its future is causing concern for the Kremlin.
This comes at a time when Russia's military influence in the
former Soviet Union is being reduced.
Moscow has recently started to close its bases in Georgia. If
Russia had to pull out of Ukraine it would be another humiliating
blow.
Publicly, the Kremlin is not considering this as an option, but
there are indications that it is looking at alternatives. Mr
Yushchenko is so determined to resolve the issue that he wants to
settle the matter 12 years before the contract is due to end.
The details of a new agreement could be revealed soon, as the
presidents of Ukraine and Russia are expected to meet in the next
few weeks.
b
*****************************************************************
11 Times of India: The great nuclear handshake
K SUBRAHMANYAM
[ MONDAY, AUGUST 15, 2005 12:00:00 AM ]
Many people in India charge that Prime Minister Manmohan Singh
did not get all that he should have in the Washington summit.
Similarly, there are voices in Washington which complain that
India got all it wanted without giving anything worthwhile in
return. Bargain theorists would say that when there is equal
dissatisfaction on both sides, it is a good bargain. When one
nation gets everything in its wish list without conceding
anything in return to the other, it is known as unconditional
surrender and happens only at the end of a war which is lost. In
other cases of interactions between nations, there is a give and
take.
Indo-US relations for the last 58 years were in the nature of
one between 'estranged demo-cracies'. Though the Clinton visit
in 2000 began a thaw, on the nuclear issue Washington was
dominated by non-proliferation jehadis like Strobe Talbott. One
should not forget that in 1998 Clinton conceded during his visit
to China that Beijing had legitimate interests in South Asia.
Though the Chinese proliferation to Pakistan was well known,
non-proliferation fundamentalists like Strobe Talbott, Robert
Einhorn and others did not condemn China. They were of the view
that India, placed between a proliferating China and its ally,
proliferating Pakistan, should not have conducted nuclear tests,
should not have developed the Agni missile, and should cap
plutonium production in other words remain a regional power
hyphenated with Pakistan and dominated by China in a unipolar
Asia.
Then came the Bush administration which dumped all
non-proliferation extremist fundamentalism, recognised India's
centrality to an Asian balance of power and the US need to have
India as a partner, which would contribute to the US being the
best place to do business. These views of the US, developed and
matured during first months of George Bush's second term, were
communicated to India only in March 2005. The summit was fixed
for July 18. The US offer to revise its nuclear policy to enable
India to have access to international civil nuclear technology
came as a surprise to New Delhi.
During the NSSP discussions when A B Vajpayee was prime
minister, India's attempt was restricted to getting fuel for
Tarapur in exchange for placing some Indian reactors under
safeguards. That itself would have necessitated separation
between civil and non-civil nuclear reactors. The present US
policy is a phenomenal advance over the position negotiated by
the NDA government.
This occurred because of new insights developed by the US
leadership on Indo-US engagement. In the context of the need to
dehyphenate India and Pakistan on the nuclear issue, it becomes
necessary to identify India as a responsible nu- clear power
with advanced technology. Pakistan cannot be called a
responsible nuclear power with the A Q Khan albatross hanging
around its neck. Recognising India as just a nuclear weapon
state would have led to pressure on the US to in-clude Pakistan
in that definition. Besides, that recognition has to come from
the NPT community as a whole.
The more important issue for India is to get rid of technology
denial of various kinds and not merely seek recognition under a
treaty which India has, as of now, no intention to sign. As a
result of the US move, Russia and the UK have lifted nuclear
sanctions on India. The US has also removed Indian reactors from
the list of banned entities. Irrespective of what happens in the
US Congress, India is now in a position to obtain civil nuclear
technology from Russia and in all probability from France. The
very separation of civil and military nuclear reactors is
recognition of India's military nuclear status in the eyes of
the IAEA.
This is only the beginning of the engagement with the US.
President Bush visits India in 2006 and there will be many more
occasions to enhance engagement at various levels. Large credit
for these developments must go to the NDA government.
It is unrealistic to expect 57 years of estrangement to turn
overnight into one in the same category as Britain or Israel. It
took some 15 years after Henry Kissinger's visit to China for
nuclear relations to develop between US and China. India's
political parties, media and academia should show diplomatic
maturity in weighing the gains and losses in the evolution of
our foreign policy.
Copyright © 2005 Times Internet Limited. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
12 [NukeNet] Dr Caldicott On How Nuke Plants Add To Global
Date: Mon, 15 Aug 2005 16:52:42 -0700
WHITE_PHRASE autolearn=unavailable version=3.0.4
X-Spam-filter-host: darwin.ctyme.com - http://www.junkemailfilter.com
NukeNet Anti-Nuclear Network (nukenet@energyjustice.net)
"Individuals have international duties which
transcend the national obligations of
obedience.Therefore [individual citizens] have the
duty to violate domestic laws to prevent crimes
against peace and humanity from occurring" --
Nuremberg War Crime Tribunal, 1950
"the West won the world not by the superiority of
its ideas or values or religion but rather by its
superiority in applying organized violence.
Westerners often forget this fact, non-Westerners
never do." - Samuel P. Huntington
Greatest Threat To Life On Earth:
http://www.heatisonline.org
http://www.envirovideo.com [Space
Weaponization, Nuclearization Videos, More]
Once a sunset industry, the uranium lobby paints a
green dawn
August 12, 2005
Nuclear propaganda is as fallacious as the
rhetoric of the tobacco companies, writes Helen
Caldicott.
Global warming has been a great gift to a nuclear
industry that was on its knees. Its reputation was
so dismal that Wall Street investors gave it a
wide berth, its only salvation the public teat on
which it sucked at the rate of billions of dollars
a year.
In this shaky condition the industry recognised a
lifeline when it saw it and suddenly it has found
its green soul. A sophisticated propaganda machine
has shifted into high gear to convince easily
duped politicians - including the Minister for
Science, Brendan Nelson, a doctor who should
understand the medical consequences - and the
public that nuclear power is the clean answer to
the world's energy problems because it is emission
free.
Millions of dollars are being spent in the US by
the Nuclear Energy Institute on advertisements
featuring joyful children playing and working at
their computers, while headlines trumpet:
"Nuclear: electricity and clean air today and
tomorrow." The copy says: "Kids today are part of
the most energy-intensive generation in history.
They demand lots of clean electricity."
AdvertisementAdvertisement
Of course, these ads are deceitful. The truth is,
nuclear power, far from being clean, adds
substantially to global warming while exposing
neighbouring communities to emissions of
carcinogenic radioactive gases. Does this sound
and light show seem reminiscent of the tobacco
industry in its heyday?
These ad campaigns are ones of desperation. After
the fiascos of Three Mile Island and Chernobyl the
nuclear industry in the US lost billions of
dollars. The construction of dozens of plants was
cancelled while others were plagued by massive
cost overruns from long delays. Risk-averse
investors have shied away from it ever since.
Not to be deterred, and armed with its new green
image, the industry is now angling for huge
government hand-outs. A subsidy of $US13 billion
($17 billion) embedded in a new US energy bill
covers tax credits, loan guarantees, a liability
cap of $US580 billion to cover nuclear meltdowns,
money for research and development for new
reactors, and $US1.25 billion for nuclear-powered
hydrogen cars. Hidden subsidies include
preferential tax treatment and decommissioning
funds.
This is nothing new. Historically in the US,
nuclear power has been totally dependent on the
federal umbilical cord. Between 1948 and 1998 it
received subsidies of $US70 billion, while $US26
billion went to oil, coal and natural gas, only
$US12 billion to renewables - wind, solar, hydro
and geothermal - and $US8 billion to
energy-efficiency technologies. An editorial in
The New Scientist notes that when realistic
construction and running costs are factored in,
the price of nuclear energy is more than doubled.
This estimate excludes the cost of managing
pollution, accidents, insuring nuclear reactors or
protecting them from terrorists.
Now let's turn to global warming, which some
well-intentioned but naive scientists say can only
be solved by the use of nuclear power.
First, the extraction of uranium for nuclear-power
production is very energy-intensive, as is uranium
enrichment. In the US the enrichment facilities
are powered by two old 1000-megawatt coal-fired
plants that pump out large quantities of carbon
dioxide. These facilities are responsible for the
release of 93 per cent of the ozone-depleting,
global-warming CFC114 gas produced every year in
the US, although this is banned under the Montreal
Protocol.
Nuclear power produces substantial amounts of
carbon dioxide - a third of the amount produced by
a gas-fired plant, but as the quantity of
high-grade ores declines more fossil fuel will be
needed to extract uranium from low-grade ores,
meaning the whole nuclear fuel cycle will
eventually use more calories of energy than it
will produce. Furthermore, construction of
reactors, and storage and transportation of
nuclear waste also use fossil fuel and are very
energy intensive.
Finally, uranium supplies are finite. Consider
this: if all electricity production was replaced
by nuclear power today, there would be just three
years' supply of uranium in the world to draw on.
Yet the radioactive legacy would bequeath
epidemics of malignancy and genetic disease to
future generations as nuclear waste leaked into
the ecosphere.
Remember "cigarettes don't cause cancer"? The
nuclear industry's global warming rhetoric is
equally fallacious and equally dangerous.
Dr Helen Caldicott is founder and president of the
Nuclear Policy Research Institute.
_______________________________________________________________________
Subscribe/Unsubscribe Here: http://www.energyjustice.net/nukenet/
Change your settings or access the archives at:
http://energyjustice.net/mailman/listinfo/nukenet_energyjustice.net
*****************************************************************
13 Safety, jobs at issue in Exelon deal
Date: Mon, 15 Aug 2005 16:51:57 -0700
SP_HAM_SUPER,WHITE_PHRASE autolearn=ham version=3.0.4
X-Spam-filter-host: darwin.ctyme.com - http://www.junkemailfilter.com
Safety, jobs at issue in Exelon deal
PUC will hear testimony on proposed acquisition in September.
By Jon Rutter
Sunday News
Published: Aug 13, 2005 11:32 PM EST
LANCASTER COUNTY, PA - Jobs, utility rates and public safety will be among
the issues on the table this fall when the Pennsylvania Public Utility
Commission considers the proposed acquisition of Public Service Enterprise
Group Inc. by Exelon Nuclear.
Besides Three Mile Island Unit One in Middletown and Peach Bottom Atomic
Power Station in York County, Exelon operates the Limerick Generating
Station in Montgomery County. The $12 billion stock transfer would create
the nationąs largest power generation company.
Sources said more than 20 intervenors are scheduled to present expert
testimony during a PUC hearing next month in Philadelphia.
Many of the parties will be opposing the transaction or asking the
commissioners to impose conditions on it, according to Irwin łSonny˛
Popowsky, the state consumer advocate.
Popowsky said the merger poses fundamental questions about the impact on
competition and the potential for rate hikes. Meanwhile, he said, labor
unions are concerned about possible wage and benefit losses while
environmentalists worry that staffing cuts could jeopardize public safety
and the environment.
Kellie Szabo, who spoke for Exelon from its Chicago headquarters, said
earlier this month that any change in staffing łwould not have any impact on
safety˛ or the environment.
łI can say emphatically that safety is the first priority˛ for the company
at all of its power generating plants, she said.
łThere are no reductions scheduled˛ at TMI or Peach Bottom, she added.
PUC held public input hearings on the merger proposal last month.
Spokeswoman Jill Helsel said the commission will decide by the end of the
year whether to OK the utilitiesą plans.
Big deal
While much is riding on the PUC, the deal must also be approved by the Board
of Utilities in New Jersey, where 400 nuclear power plant job cuts were
announced recently.
According to published reports, Newark-based PSEG would phase out half the
jobs through voluntary buyouts at its Salem and Hope Creek nuclear plants
and cut the rest through attrition and layoffs.
The reductions were expected to be completed before the acquisition. PSEG
and Exelon together will shrink its workforce by about five percent to
roughly 28,000 employees, said Scott J. Rubin, an attorney who represents
the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers and other labor unions
throughout Pennsylvania.
Rubin said Pennsylvania will lose some 250 jobs, including 100 from
Philadelphia-based PECO Energy, a subsidiary of PSEG.
Nuclear watchdog Eric Epstein of Three Mile Island-Alert contends that TMI,
the site of a partial meltdown accident in March, 1979, and Peach Bottom
cannot afford to lose any more permanent employees.
Because Exelon cut more than 200 workers after its operator, AmerGen Energy,
took over TMI Unit 1 from GPU Nuclear in 1999, Epstein claims łtheyąre
already understaffed˛ and ill-prepared to cope with emergencies. In July,
the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission issued violations after discovering
that half of Three Mile Islandąs 364 emergency responders had missed a
required annual refresher course.
Industry officials have said that the lapse was a technical oversight, and
that workers could have handled any actual emergency.
Also last month, the PUC voted to remove Epstein as an intervenor in the
merger case because he does not live in PECO service territory. But Epstein
said TMI-Alert is intervening before the NRC to oppose the transfer of
licenses from AmerGen and Peach Bottom to Exelon.
Each corporate realignment has distanced the link between the power plants
and their controllers, Epstein said. łI never think itąs a good idea for the
owner of a nuclear plant to reside in a different area code.˛
*****************************************************************
14 Activist to Contest Merger Transfer of Three Mile Island
Date: Mon, 15 Aug 2005 16:53:00 -0700
autolearn=unavailable version=3.0.4
X-Spam-filter-host: darwin.ctyme.com - http://www.junkemailfilter.com
----------
Activist to Contest Transfer of Three Mile Island
As Part of the Exelon-PSEG Merger*
August 15, 2005
Contact:
Eric Epstein: (717)-541-1101 ericepstein@comcast.net
(Harrisburg, Pa) - Eric Epstein, Chairman of Three Mile Island Alert,
Inc., a safe-energy organization founded in 1977, filed a Request for a
Public Hearing
at the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) relating to the
Application for Approval of the Indirect License Transfer of Three Mile
Island Nuclear Station, Unit-1 to Exelon.
Epstein stated, łThe NRC must examine the implications of reduced
staffing, higher capital rates, and increased economic pressures on Exelon
Generation.˛ Epstein added, łThe Commission must go beyond a cursory review
of unsustained growth projections and rigorously examine the financial
assurances provided by AmerGen.˛
Epstein formally requested a public hearing under the auspices of
the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board.
_____
* Enclosed please find łEric Joseph Epsteinąs, Pro se, Request for a
Public Hearing on the Application for Approval of the Indirect License
Transfer of Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit 1 Facility Operating
License No. DPR-50 NRC Docket No . 50-289˛ pursuant to 52 Pa. Code S 5.71,
to intervene under the 10 CFR NRC, Section 50: 80 § 2.309.
Attachment Converted: "c:\program files\eudora\attach\Epstein Request for TMI Hearing.doc"
*****************************************************************
15 [NukeNet] Climatic [Global Warming] Tipping Point? Effects On
Date: Mon, 15 Aug 2005 16:51:51 -0700
version=3.0.4
X-Spam-filter-host: darwin.ctyme.com - http://www.junkemailfilter.com
NukeNet Anti-Nuclear Network (nukenet@energyjustice.net)
http://www.heatisonline.org/contentserver/objecthandlers/index.cfm?id=5402&method=full
And how would/will[?] this effect nuclear
reactors, nuclear waste and possibly lead to
nuclear terrorism and nuclear war, especially in
regions such as Pakistan/India and the Middle
east? They are very related issues as the ultimate
subsidy [the environment] breaks down and leads to
social, economic and political dislocation and
mass turbulance. Everything is interconnected.
_______________________________________________________________________
Subscribe/Unsubscribe Here: http://www.energyjustice.net/nukenet/
Change your settings or access the archives at:
http://energyjustice.net/mailman/listinfo/nukenet_energyjustice.net
*****************************************************************
16 [NukeNet] From Dr. Arjun Mahkijani On Global Warming/Nuclear
Date: Mon, 15 Aug 2005 16:52:01 -0700
version=3.0.4
X-Spam-filter-host: darwin.ctyme.com - http://www.junkemailfilter.com
NukeNet Anti-Nuclear Network (nukenet@energyjustice.net)
----- Original Message -----
From: "Arjun Makhijani" arjun@ieer.org >
http://www.ieer.org
I have done quite detailed work on the issue of
global warming and the
role of nuclear power. If one reagards capital as
limited -- in other
workds, if one asks how best to reduce greenhouse
gas emissions for a
given amount of money -- nuclear power is not a
good option even if one
ignores the other issues. Combination of natural
gas, wind, and
efficiency are the bast for the short and medium
term and combination of
efficiency, wind, and renewable derived hydrogen
are best for the long
term.
Nuclear power should be phased out along with a
steep deline in oil and
coal use.
Please see
http://www.ieer.org/ensec/no-5/index.html for one
analysis.
Also see my report Securing the Energy Future of
the United STates at
http://www.ieer.org/reports/energy/bushtoc.html
Arjun
_______________________________________________________________________
Subscribe/Unsubscribe Here: http://www.energyjustice.net/nukenet/
Change your settings or access the archives at:
http://energyjustice.net/mailman/listinfo/nukenet_energyjustice.net
*****************************************************************
17 Clarion-Ledger: Nuclear energy 'best choice' by far
[The Clarion-Ledger: Mississippi's News Source]
Mississippi News | Opinion
August 15, 2005
Guest columnist Ruth Pullen seems to believe that unless
everything can stand on its own in a competitive market, then it
should fail ("Myths indicate nuclear power not best choice,"
Aug. 8). If we applied this same litmus test to things like
telecommunications, interstate construction and national
defense, I shudder to think what the implications would be.
No doubt, if these standards were applied to "renewable sources"
like wind, solar, and biomass, they would certainly fail. Even
with massive government subsidies to the tune of $18 per
megawatt hour, these renewable sources cannot compete.
At present, 80 percent of the nation's electricity comes from
either fossil fuels or nuclear energy. How can we meet the
nation's energy needs while reducing our dependence on fossil
fuels without nuclear energy?
Each year, the burning of fossil fuels pours more and more
pollution into the atmosphere resulting in thousands of deaths
from mining accidents and respiratory distress. According to
many scientists this also brings us much closer to the point of
no return in global warming.
But, the good news is that we do not have to choose between
plentiful, inexpensive energy and global warming. The technology
to produce energy in a clean and efficient manner nuclear
energy has been used and steadily improved over the last 50
years.
The nuclear industry is the only form of electrical generation
required to contain its waste. Since a small amount of uranium
about the size of the tip of your little finger has the energy
equivalent of about 2,000 pounds of coal, the amount of waste it
produces is extremely small, and since it remains solid, it is
easily contained.
Last year, in Mississippi alone, nuclear energy avoided the
emission of 47,800 tons of sulfur dioxide, 16,300 tons of
nitrogen oxide, and 9.4 million metric tons of carbon dioxide.
What's more amazing is that used nuclear fuel should not be
called "waste," since approximately 95 percent of the energy is
still contained in it. It should be reprocessed and recycled as
fuel for future energy supplies.
Ruth Pullen is right: It's only "myths" that indicate nuclear
power is not the best choice. However, the facts indicate that
nuclear power is a far better choice than the alternatives.
Perhaps this is why so many environmentalists including Dr.
James Lovelock and Greenpeace founder Patrick Moore have
publicly voiced their support for nuclear energy.
Michael Stuart
Public information officer
North American Young
Generation in Nuclear
Beaverdam, Va.
Copyright ©2005 Clarionledger.com All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
18 PBP: Nuclear energy back in vogue, but waste disposal a super-heated issue
www.palmbeachpost.com
By Kristi E. Swartz
Palm Beach Post Staff Writer
Monday, August 15, 2005
It's been in the national doghouse since the 1979 accident at
Three Mile Island in Pennsylvania, but today, nuclear power is on
the way back.
"Nuclear power is one of America's safest sources of energy,"
President Bush said in June during a visit to a Maryland nuclear
power plant. "It is time for this country to start building
nuclear power plants again."
Last week, Bush signed into law a national energy policy that
provides financial incentives and lawsuit protection for new
nuclear power plants, which should spur development in an
industry that hasn't seen a new plant start up since June 1996.
With oil and natural gas prices soaring to record highs on a
daily basis, some say it can't come too soon.
"We're going to need as much new generating capacity as we can
get, and from all sources, and that includes nuclear," said
Mitch Singer, a spokesman for the Nuclear Energy Institute, an
industry trade association.
But critics say there's one major problem with nuclear power:
The highly radioactive waste created as a result of fission, the
atom-splitting process that releases the energy of nuclear
power.
"We have no idea what to do with it," said Brendan Hoffman,
campaign organizer for Public Citizen, a Washington-based
nonprofit watchdog group.
How utilities handle nuclear waste became an issue again earlier
this month as a result of renewed attention to a series of
incidents in the late 1970s and early 1980s at Florida Power &
Light Co.'s St. Lucie Nuclear Plant on Hutchinson Island.
Documents compiled in preparation for a court case early next
year showed that workers at the plant sent radioactive waste to
regular landfills, among other places.
FPL spokeswoman Rachel Scott said the waste was sent to a
state-licensed farm field for nonradioactive sludge disposal.
But the parents of two children afflicted with cancer have sued
FPL, linking the waste disposal to the illnesses. One child,
Ashton Lowe, died from brain cancer at age 13 in 2001. The
other, Zachary Finestone, 11, was diagnosed with cancer in March
2000.
Nuclear waste includes the used fuel, stored in rods, as well as
anything that was in a radiation control area and might have had
a chance to become contaminated.
Disposal a federal duty
One-third of a nuclear reactor's fuel, known as high-level
waste, is removed every 24 months during routine maintenance.
The used fuel rods are cooled off in water and then are placed
in dry-storage areas.
Everything else is known as low-level waste and may include
things such as protective clothing, laboratory supplies and
tools. This type of waste can be stored on site for a while, but
then it is incinerated or compacted to reduce its volume to a
tenth of its original size.
It then is shipped to waste sites in Salt Lake City or Barnwell,
S.C.
"When the utilities signed up to get into the nuclear business,
the government made a commitment that it would take the fuel off
of their hands," said Shane Johnson, acting director of the
nuclear energy department at the U.S. Department of Energy. "The
biggest issue from the utilities' point of view is: Is the
government going to meet its commitment?"
Scott at FPL said the problem with having adequate space to
store waste has been political, not technical. For example,
customers who receive electricity from nuclear power pay a small
monthly charge for the Nuclear Waste Fund, which is designed to
finance disposal sites, she said.
"The whole process has been stalled, but steps are being made in
the right direction," Scott said.
Huge Nevada site on hold
The government's biggest answer to the nuclear waste problem is
a massive disposal site at Yucca Mountain in Nevada, which is
expected to open in 2012. But the site has proved controversial
since it was proposed, and the heightened threat of terrorism
has made opponents even more vocal.
"The day that Yucca Mountain opens, it's going to be pretty much
full," said Holly Binns, the clear air and energy advocate for
the Florida Public Interest Research Group. "They should be
building containment facilities that are on site so the waste
doesn't have to be transported on our railways, highways, barges
and through ports, all of which has some level of potential
danger."
Singer, the Nuclear Energy Institute spokesman, counters that
Yucca Mountain, which can hold 120,000 tons of spent nuclear
fuel, is the best solution. At the same time, nuclear plants
aren't running out of storage room, he said.
"We're very, very confident in the security of where the spent
fuel is on the plant side as well as on the transportation
side," he said.
New plant applications filed
Meanwhile, three national consortiums of utility companies have
formed recently, including NuStart Energy Development LLC, of
which FPL is a member.
NuStart, a group of eight utilities, is looking for two sites
somewhere in the country to build nuclear reactors, which could
cost $2 billion apiece. The consortium and the U.S. Department
of Energy are splitting the $520 million it takes to prepare the
applications for the licenses to build and operate the plants.
"FPL is very supportive of the nuclear industry's effort to
explore the development of new nuclear power plants," Scott
said. "We are very proud of our safety and reliability record in
the operation of our plants, and we certainly would like to see
new nuclear added to our portfolio in the near future."
Three companies have filed permit applications to build plants
in Mississippi, Virginia and Illinois, and other companies have
contacted the office at least informally, said Roger Hannah, a
spokesman with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's Region II
office in Atlanta. His office is charged with reviewing the
safety, environmental and security requirements for any proposed
nuclear plants.
"Any new plant that would be built would be built by a utility
that already owns at least one nuclear plant," Hannah said.
FPL, owned by FPL Group Inc. of Juno Beach, operates two nuclear
reactors at its St. Lucie plant as well as two nuclear reactors
at its Turkey Point plant in Miami-Dade County. FPL Energy, a
nonregulated subsidiary of FPL Group, operates a nuclear plant
in Seabrook, N.H., and holds a majority interest in a
598-megawatt nuclear power plant just north of Cedar Rapids,
Iowa.
But for some, the more the nuclear industry grows, the unsolved
problem of nuclear waste swells along with it.
"We really need to step back and realize the more we promote
this industry, the more these technologies will spread, the more
waste will spread," said Hoffman of Public Citizen. "As you
continue to generate it, it is an infinite problem."
Johnson, the DOE director, said the government will fulfill its
promise to handle nuclear waste. Like it or not, nuclear power
will play a bigger role in the nation's energy matrix.
"As a rule of thumb, there is going to be new nuclear in the
future," Johnson said.
Copyright © 2005, The Palm Beach Post. All rights reserved.
By using PalmBeachPost.com, you accept the terms of our visitor
*****************************************************************
19 Reuters: Arizona Palo Verde 1 nuke seen back later this week
Mon Aug 15, 2005 10:59 AM ET
NEW YORK, Aug 15 (Reuters) - The operator of the Palo Verde
nuclear power station in Arizona hopes to have the 1,243-megawatt
unit 1 back in service later this week, a spokeswoman for the
plant said Monday.
The unit shut on Aug. 12 due to a problem with an emergency
diesel generator.
The 3,875 MW Palo Verde station is located in Wintersburg in
Maricopa County, about 50 miles west of Phoenix. There are three
units at Palo Verde: the 1,243 MW unit 1, the 1,335 MW unit 2 and
the 1,247 MW unit 3.
Units 2 and 3 continued to operate at full power and 99 percent,
respectively.
One MW powers about 800 homes, according to the North American
average.
Phoenix-based energy company Pinnacle West Capital Corp.'s
(PNW.N: Quote, Profile, Research) regulated Arizona Public
Service subsidiary operates the station for its owners.
The owners include APS (29.1 percent), the Salt River Project
(17.5 percent), Edison International's (EIX.N: Quote, Profile,
Research) Southern California Edison Co. subsidiary (15.8
percent), El Paso Electric Co. (EE.N: Quote, Profile, Research)
(15.8 percent), PNM Resources Inc.'s (PNM.N: Quote, Profile,
Research) Public Service Co of New Mexico subsidiary (10.2
percent), Southern California Public Power Authority (5.9
percent) and the Los Angeles Department of Water & Power (5.7
percent).
© Reuters 2005.
All Rights Reserved.
*****************************************************************
20 Reuters: FPL Fla. St Lucie 2 nuke exits outage, up to full
Mon Aug 15, 2005 7:25 AM ET
NEW YORK, Aug 15 (Reuters) - FPL Group Inc.'s (FPL.N: Quote,
Profile, Research) 839-megawatt unit 2 at the St. Lucie nuclear
station in Florida exited an outage and ramped up to full power
by early Monday, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission said in a
report.
Operators at the Florida-based company shut the unit Aug. 11
after the feed water level started to drop after a breaker
problem affected a motor that provides feed water. The feed water
pumps move water from the condenser to the steam generators,
which turn the water into the steam used to turn the turbine.
The 1,678 MW St. Lucie station is located on Hutchinson Island
in St. Lucie County about 120 miles north of Miami. There are two
839 MW units 1 and 2 at St. Lucie.
Unit 1, meanwhile, continued to operate at full power.
One MW powers about 800 homes, according to the North American
averages.
FPL Group's regulated Florida Power & Light Co. (FP&L)
subsidiary, which owns all of unit 1, operates the station for
its owners. FP&L (85.1 percent), Florida Municipal Power Agency
(8.8 percent) and Orlando Utilities Commission (6.1 percent) own
unit 2.
FPL's subsidiaries own and operate more than 31,000 MW of
generating capacity across the United States, market energy
commodities, and transmit and distribute electricity to more than
4.2 million customers in Florida.
© Reuters 2005.
All Rights Reserved.
*****************************************************************
21 Reuters: Progress N.C. Brunwswick 2 nuke up to 97 pct power
Mon Aug 15, 2005 7:23 AM ET
NEW YORK, Aug 15 (Reuters) - Progress Energy Inc.'s (PGN.N:
Quote, Profile, Research) 900-megawatt unit 2 at the Brunswick
nuclear power station in North Carolina exited an outage and
ramped up to 97 percent of capacity by early Monday, the U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission said Monday in a report.
On Friday, the unit was operating at 1 percent of capacity.
The company shut units 1 and 2 at Brunswick on Aug. 6 to fix a
problem with the plant's emergency diesel generators and conduct
other work. Unit 1 returned to service late last week and was
operating at full power early Monday.
The 1,838 MW Brunswick station is in Southport in Brunswick
County about 160 miles south of Raleigh. There are two units at
the station: the 938 MW unit 1 and the 900 MW unit 2.
One MW powers about 800 homes, according to the North American
average.
Progress Energy operates the station for its owners Progress
(81.7 percent) and North Carolina Eastern Municipal Power Agency
(18.3 percent).
Progress Energy's subsidiaries own and operate more than 24,000
MW of generating capacity and transmit and distribute electricity
to more about 2.9 million customers in North Carolina, South
Carolina and Florida.
© Reuters 2005.
All Rights Reserved.
*****************************************************************
22 Reuters: Bruce Ontario Bruce 7 nuke exits outage
Mon Aug 15, 2005 8:20 AM ET
NEW YORK, Aug 15 (Reuters) - Bruce Power's 790-megawatt unit 7
at the Bruce B nuclear power station in Ontario returned to
service by early Monday, the Ontario Independent Electricity
System Operator said in a report.
The company shut the unit on May 7 for planned maintenance and
inspection.
The 4,692 MW Bruce station is located in Tiverton on the shores
of Lake Huron, about 155 miles (249 km) northwest of Toronto.
There are two 750 MW units 3 and 4 at the A station, and three
790 MW units 5, 7-8 and one 822 MW unit 6 at the B station.
With the return of unit 7, all of the units were operating at
high power early Monday.
One MW powers about 800 homes, according to the North American
averages.
Separately, Bruce Power reached a tentative agreement with a
provincial negotiator in March for the potential restart of the
two 750 MW units 1 and 2 at the A station.
The government is still considering the terms of the agreement.
Bruce Power's board has already approved of the agreement.
The former province-owned energy company Ontario Hydro shut
units 1 and 2 in 1997 and 1995, respectively, because they needed
extensive upgrades. The units entered service in 1977.
The return of units 1 and 2 would replace about 20 percent of
the province's 7,500 MW of coal-fired generation, which the
government wants to shut between 2007 and 2009 for pollution and
health-related reasons.
Bruce Power is a partnership owned by uranium miner Cameco Corp.
(CCO.TO: Quote, Profile, Research) (31.6 percent), energy company
TransCanada Corp. (TRP.TO: Quote, Profile, Research) (31.6
percent), BPC Generation Infrastructure Trust, established by the
Ontario Municipal Employees Retirement System (31.6 percent), the
Power Workers' Union (4 percent) and the Society of Energy
Professionals (1.2 percent).
© Reuters 2005.
All Rights Reserved.
*****************************************************************
23 KPHO Phoenix: Palo Verde Generators start crawl from Mexico
August 15, 2005
PHOENIX Drivers are advised to avoid a king-size caravan carrying
nuclear-plant equipment through southern Arizona this week.Two
gigantic flatbed trucks are each carrying an 806-ton steam
generator.
They're already headed north through Mexico from Puerto Peqasco
(pee-KAHS-co), where they were delivered by barge.
At a snail's pace, the convoy will travel along Arizona 85
from Lukeville to Gila Bend, then on local roads west of 85
heading north toward the plant.
The convoy is expected to reach the border as early as today, but
will take another two weeks to reach Palo Verde near Tonopah
(tone-AH'-pah).
D-P-S officers will be on the scene far ahead and behind the
caravan to advise motorists to detour the area.
Copyright 2005 Associated
All content © Copyright 2001 - 2005 WorldNow and News 5. All
Rights Reserved.
*****************************************************************
24 Puget Sound Business Journal: Nuclear power rallies -
2005-08-15
Story From the August 12, 2005 print
Deirdre GreggStaff Writer
Engineer Jim Miller hasn't worked on siting a nuclear power plant
in decades. But today the CEO of engineering-and-earth-sciences
firm GeoEngineers Inc.sees a bright future for the nuclear
industry.
Miller is working to position his Redmond-based company at the
forefront of what he hopes will be a renaissance for nuclear
power in the United States. He took one trip last month and
plans several more to meet other companies interested in doing
work for nuclear power plants.
GeoEngineers is one of several Northwest companies hoping to tap
into the controversial and high-stakes nuclear-power market,
which seems poised for an upsurge after stalling in the 1970s.
Most observers don't think Washington state is likely to welcome
nuclear power plants any time soon. But proposed power plants on
the East Coast and in other countries could mean big
opportunities for several highly specialized companies in
Washington.
No new nuclear plants have been built in the United States in
more than 30 years. But many observers think that may change
because of several trends.
Global energy demand, already high, is expected to keep growing
rapidly, by more than 50 percent over the next 20 years,
according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration.
Meanwhile, fossil fuels such as natural gas are getting
increasingly expensive. And public resistance to nuclear power
seems to be declining.
There's also the passage of the massive federal energy bill,
signed into law Aug. 8, which offers billions of dollars in
incentives, liability protections and research dollars to the
nuclear industry.
Finally, a handful of prominent and respected environmentalists,
citing the threat of global warming, is saying the
once-unspeakable: Nuclear power should be considered part of the
energy mix. The mainstream environmental community remains
firmly opposed, but such defections mark a significant departure
for a movement that was once rock-solid in opposition to nuclear
power.
"What's driving the resurgence in the U.S. is the realization
that if we are serious about reducing greenhouse gas emissions,
we have to find a way of generating sizable amounts of power
without burning fossil fuels," Miller said.
The federal energy bill is expected to help jump-start the
nuclear power industry through four key provisions, said Steve
Johnson, senior executive vice president with Boise-based
Washington Group International, a huge construction and
engineering company that has worked with every U.S. producer of
power from nuclear plants.
The bill's provisions include:
* A 20-year extension of the Price-Anderson Act, which
indemnifies companies that design and build nuclear power plants.
* $1.2 billion to fund research on next-generation nuclear
power plants.
* Up to $2 billion to offset the costs of regulatory or legal
delays in the permitting and construction of new nuclear power
plants -- up to $500 million each for the first two new plants,
and up to $250 million for the third, fourth, fifth and six
plants built.
* A production tax credit of 1.8 cents per kilowatt hour for
the first eight years of a new nuclear power plant's operations.
Meanwhile, the push for new nuclear power plants is on. Alabama,
Louisiana and Mississippi are offering tax breaks and other
incentives to the NuStart Energy group, a consortium of 11 large
utility companies interested in developing nuclear power. NuStart
and other utilities hope to select sites and land permits within
the next couple of years and have new power plants on line within
10 years.
The industry will probably grow faster outside the United States,
with more than 100 proposed power plants around the world,
Johnson said. Plans include 24 proposed plants in India, 18 in
China, 19 in Russia and 11 in Japan.
Washington Group and San Francisco-based Bechtel, the nation's
largest nuclear power contractor, will likely have prominent
roles in building new power plants in the United States.
And new plant construction could mean big business for
Washington's specialty firms and subcontractors such as Miller's
firm.
Miller, who started his career in nuclear power plant siting in
the early 1970s, thinks the 250-person GeoEngineers firm could
help with siting decisions and permits by studying seismic
activity and environmental impacts associated with construction
of nuclear power plants.
He said nuclear power plants would require experts in many other
areas, including ground and surface water hydrology, biology and
endangered species, demography and land-use planning, power
transmission planning and design, public relations and disaster
planning.
In addition to GeoEngineers, several other Washington companies
or operations expect an upswing in the nuclear power industry,
with possible business benefits for them. Those companies
include:
* Seattle-based AeroGo Inc., a 51-employee company that for
20 years has built products that help move and position heavy
components such as generators, fuel rods and other equipment for
the nuclear power industry
* Kirkland-based Lancs Industries, a 70-employee company that
got its start decades ago working with nuclear-power submarines
in Kitsap County. Lancs makes products such as radiation
shielding and protective clothing for every nuclear power plant
in the United States, said owner Timothy S. Wiest.
* Seattle-based Measurement Systems International, a
62-employee company that makes and sells industrial-scale
weighing systems to nuclear power plants worldwide.
* Paris-based nuclear energy giant Areva Group, which owns a
625-employee nuclear fuel plant in Richland, Wash. The plant was
once owned by a Bellevue-based Siemens subsidiary. Site manager
Ron Land expects that Areva as a whole will benefit hugely from
an upswing in the nuclear power industry, with parts of the
company building new power plants in the next few years.
Energy Northwest, which operates the state's only nuclear power
plant, the Columbia Generating Station near Richland, doesn't
have plans to built an additional nuclear power plant, said
spokesman Brad Peck.
But Peck thinks public support for nuclear power is growing
nationwide. He points to polls conducted by the Nuclear Energy
Institute in May 2005, which found that 70 percent of the 1,000
people surveyed supported nuclear power.
Washington State University Professor Eugene Rosa said public
opposition to nuclear power has softened, although he's not
convinced that the public really supports the industry.
One surprising reason for a decline in public resistance may come
from the environmental movement. Several prominent and respected
environmentalists have said they are open to nuclear power, if
not outright supportive.
Noted ecologist James Lovelock in 2004 announced support for
nuclear power. He was joined by Patrick Moore, co-founder of
Greenpeace, and Whole Earth Catalog founder Stewart Brand.
Other key environmentalists have said nuclear power might be
worth another look, including author Jared Diamond, World
Resources Institute president Jonathan Lash, and British bishop
and longtime environmental leader Rev. Hugh Montefiore.
"Coal is the enemy," says Roel Hammerschlag, environmentalist and
executive director of the Seattle-based Institute for Lifecycle
Environmental Assessment. He describes himself as open-minded on
nuclear power, calling it perhaps "the lesser of two evils."
Hammerschlag said he believes the potential negatives of nuclear
power may be less than what he sees as the certain catastrophe of
global climate change.
Local environmental leaders know and respect Hammerschlag's work,
but don't draw the same conclusions. Among other concerns, they
point to the unresolved issue of radioactive waste disposal.
After decades of wrangling, a plan to bury waste under Yucca
Mountain in Nevada is still tied up in the courts.
"We can't trade in one environmental problem for another," said
Nancy Hirsch, policy director for the Northwest Energy Coalition.
Kathleen Casey with the Sierra Club agrees.
"It would make a lot more sense to us to put more money toward
renewables and conservation," Casey said. "At the end of the day,
nuclear energy means a lot of expenses, a huge security risk and
an environmental mess for tens of thousands of years."
Contact: dgregg@bizjournals.com 206-447-8505x114
© 2005 American City Business Journals Inc.
email: seattle@bizjournals.com
bizjournals| Contact Us | Site FAQ
*****************************************************************
25 Deccan Herald: India to produce 40,000 MW nuclear power in 10 yrs
Pearls of wisdom
"You'll never have a quiet world till you knock the patriotism
out of the human race."
- George Bernard Shaw
New Delhi, (UNI)
Terming India's nuclear energy agreement with the United States
as a major success, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh today said the
country could generate 40,000 MW nuclear power in the next ten
years following removal of constraints in the atomic energy
programme.
''In my visit to the United States, we have managed to reduce
some of the constraints which have been hampering the growth of
our nuclear energy programme and in the next 10 years, in
addition to the 1,50,000 MW of capacity being added in the
thermal and hydro sectors, another 40,000 MW could be generated
through nuclear energy,'' he said.
The Prime Minister was speaking after unfurling the national
flag at the Red Fort on the Independence Day here.
While stressing the importance of improving and creating more
infrastructure for the country's economic development, Dr Singh
said shortage of electricity was a major inconvenience and there
was need to ensure rapid power generaton.
Apart from the ambitious plan to boost power generation, the
government has also drawn up an elaborate plan to modernise
Railways, ''so that our Railways become one of the best in the
world,'' he said.
Mr Singh said a dedicated freight corridor was being developed
between Delhi-Kolkata and Delhi-Mumbai with an investment of
over Rs 25,000 crore. Besides, the development of the national
highways was progressing at a rapid pace. The work on an
additional 30,000 km of highways has begun and soon six-laning
of the Golden Quadrilateral will start, said the Prime Minister.
There has also been tremendous progress in civil aviation, and
world class airports were being constructed in many cities.
Besides ports are being modernised and many new ones are under
construction, he said.
The Prime Minister stressed the need for balanced regional
development while creating more infrstructure.
''In this new phase of development, we are acutely aware that
all regions of the country should develop at the same pace. It
is unacceptable for us to see any region of the country left
behind other regions in this quest for development,'' he said,
adding that ''we will also focus on the development of our
border areas. We will ensure that these regions are provided
basic infrastructure such as roads, electricity and telephone
connectivity in the next three to four years.''
Copyright 2005, The Printers (Mysore) Private Ltd., 75, M.G.
Road, Post Box No 5331, Bangalore - 560001
Tel: +91 (80) 25880000 Fax No. +91 (80) 25880523
*****************************************************************
26 News & Star: Museum idea for nuclear reactor
Published on 15/08/2005
['Calder Hall: Preserved state awaiting removal of fuel ' /]
Calder Hall: Preserved state awaiting removal of fuel
ONE of the oldest nuclear reactors, at Calder Hall in Cumbria,
could be turned into a national heritage site.
The reactor, opened by the Queen in 1956, ceased operating in
2003 after almost 50 years in service.
The site is earmarked to be dismantled by the recently-created
Nuclear Decommissioning Authority (NDA), along with other civil
nuclear facilities.
But the NDA says it is considering preserving the reactor as part
of a future visitor attraction.
When it began producing electricity, Calder Hall, located on the
existing Sellafield site, used then-cutting edge magnox
technology.
But by the end of the century, its 196 megawatt capacity was
considered too small to be viable, long term.
It eventually closed in March 2003 with the then-operator,
British Nuclear Fuels Limited (BNFL), blaming the move on
depressed electricity prices.
A spokesman for the NDA said: “The reactor and its associated
turbine hall are currently in a preserved state awaiting the
removal of the nuclear fuel.
“It should be considered a significant part of the UK’s
industrial heritage. The design and condition of the reactor and
turbine hall are such that it would be possible to convert them
into a museum for future generations to visit. We believe that
such a museum, together with the Sellafield visitor centre and
possibly a national nuclear archive, could form a valuable asset
to the future of west Cumbria.”
He said the RDA was now commissioning a study of the costs and
feasibility of preserving Calder Hall’s number one reactor.
*****************************************************************
27 [NukeNet] Japanese uranium-contaminated soil
Date: Mon, 15 Aug 2005 16:52:44 -0700
SP_HAM_SUPER,SUBJ_GROUP,WHITE_PHRASE autolearn=unavailable
version=3.0.4
X-Spam-filter-host: darwin.ctyme.com - http://www.junkemailfilter.com
NukeNet Anti-Nuclear Network (nukenet@energyjustice.net)
On August 9th Japan's Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science
and Technology (MEXT) and Japan Nuclear Cycle Development Institute
(JNC) formally announced at a full meeting of the Yurihama Town Council
that it is their intention to ship 290 cubic meters of
uranium-contaminated soil to the US.
It is expected that a contract will be signed mid August with a US
refining company to take and process the soil. The company's name has
not yet been revealed.
The shipment is expected between the end of August and the middle of
September. MEXT's representative said that US government approval has
been obtained.
See the following page for background information:
http://cnic.jp/english/newsletter/nit107/nit107articles/ nit107uraniumsoil.html
Philip White
Citizens' Nuclear Information Center
3F Kotobuki Bdg, 1-58-15, Higashi-Nakano, Nakano-ku, Tokyo 164-0003
Phone: 81-3-5330-9520
Fax: 81-3-5330-9530
http://cnic.jp/english/
cnic@nifty.com
_______________________________________________________________________
Subscribe/Unsubscribe Here: http://www.energyjustice.net/nukenet/
Change your settings or access the archives at:
http://energyjustice.net/mailman/listinfo/nukenet_energyjustice.net
*****************************************************************
28 ADH: Nuclear family: Atomic vets band together in search of benefits
Albany Democrat-Herald:
[democratherald.com]
Last modified Monday, August 15, 2005 1:29 PM PDT
LEBANON — Navy veteran Fred Schafer of Lebanon spends a lot of
time these days trying to locate and then counsel members of the
Armed Forces who were exposed to radiation during their military
service.
Their exposure to ionizing radiation has resulted in a myriad of
health problems for many of them, he said. Schafer and others
are pushing the government to publicly acknowledge its role in
exposing service members to radiation and to accept
responsibility for their health care.
"We feel it's time we got some benefits," said Schafer, 63, a
former fireman on ships that refueled destroyers and cruisers
near Christmas Island, south of Hawaii.
Schafer said he was on board ships that circled the area when
bomb tests were conducted.
"During all of those atomic explosions, we experienced fallout,"
he said. "They would give us dark glasses to wear, and we
wouldn't be able to see our hands in front of our faces. But
when a bomb went off it was like a giant X-ray of the man in
front of us. We could see right through him."
Schafer maintains that his rheumatoid arthritis can be traced to
those days on his ship when he was exposed to radioactivity.
"The government made us guinea pig participants in those tests,
but then they never ordered any follow-up testing to see what
effect the tests had on us," he said. "The government didn't
want to admit that the testing had any effect on service people
because then they would have to pay out health care benefits."
It is just now that the government is beginning to acknowledge
what it has done, Schafer said. Things are starting to happen.
The 73rd Oregon Legislative Assembly passed a resolution
designating July 16 of every year as Atomic Veterans Day.
"If it were not for the Internet, this group wouldn't be as
strong as it is," he said. "Every time an article like this
appears, I get between five and 10 calls from people who didn't
know we existed."
According to the National Association of Atomic Veterans Web
site, about a million service members were first-hand
participants in atomic weapons detonations from the Trinity
Blast of July 16, 1945, at Alamogordo, N.M., to the Nuclear Test
Ban Treaty of 1963.
The Web site notes that troops, ships and various types of
equipment were placed from several hundred yards to several
miles from the center of each detonation to register the effect
on people and machinery.
- BY CATHY INGALLS
ALBANY DEMOCRAT-HERALD
Copyright © 2005 • Lee Enterprises
*****************************************************************
29 London Times: A-bomb's damaging fallout - Comment -
thetimes.co.uk
August 16, 2005
By Oliver Kamm
THE 60TH anniversary of the defeat of Japanese aggression enables
us to thank those survivors who accomplished it. To the Campaign
for Nuclear Disarmament, on the other hand, it represents an
opportunity to inculcate into schoolchildren a tendentious
political message.
CND has produced a Hiroshima Education Pack nominally about the
dropping of the A-bombs on Japan in August 1945 but giving no
indication of the historical debates over that decision. Its
treatment of the subject consists in denouncing as a “lie” the
notion “that the US dropped the nuclear bombs in order to
minimise casualties, claiming that a ground war would have killed
many more people”.
The rest of the pack includes a selective history of CND,
denunciations of the alleged bellicosity of the current US and UK
governments, and a candid admission addressed to CND supporters
that “the 60th anniversary of Hiroshima and Nagasaki is an
important opportunity for us to raise awareness amongst the
general public of the horrifying reality of nuclear war and the
need to join CND’s campaign”. There are also role-playing games
that, in specifying that “students should be organised in
mixed-ability groups to support each other”, charmingly recall an
educational idée fixe of a bygone age.
CND’s sole cited source for its historical claims is a
long-debunked thesis of 40 years ago. Recent historical research
supports what CND denounces as lies. In 1997, D. M. Giangreco,
of the US Army Command and General Staff College, concluded
after exhaustive research of the primary sources that “the
estimate that American casualties (in a ground invasion of
Japan) could surpass the million mark was set in the summer of
1944 and was never changed”. In 1998, the Japanese historian
Sadao Asada demonstrated, after assessing newly released
documents about the surrender, that the dropping of both bombs
was crucial in strengthening the position of those within the
Japanese Government who wished to sue for peace.
Hiroshima and Nagasaki were terrible acts of warfare undertaken
to avoid the certainty of far greater casualties on all sides.
The charge that the bombs were dropped for cynical reasons of US
realpolitik is ahistorical. CND’s dissemination of it to
schoolchildren in order to buttress its current campaigns is
intellectual irresponsibility of a high order.
Copyright 2005 Times Newspapers Ltd.
*****************************************************************
30 [NukeNet] Yucca Mountain Items
Date: Mon, 15 Aug 2005 16:52:08 -0700
WHITE_PHRASE autolearn=ham version=3.0.4
X-Spam-filter-host: darwin.ctyme.com - http://www.junkemailfilter.com
NukeNet Anti-Nuclear Network (nukenet@energyjustice.net)
http://www.mothersalert.org/lowlevelrad.html
[Low Level Radiation Links]
http://www.mothersalert.org/gofman.html
By any reasonable standard of biomedical proof,
there is no safe dose, which means that just one
decaying radioactive atom can produce permanent
mutation in a cell's genetic molecules [Gofman
1990: "Radiation Induced Cancer from Low-Dose
Exposure"]. For alpha particles, the logic of no
safe dose was confirmed experimentally in 1997 by
Tom K. Hei and co-workers at Columbia University
College of Physicians and Surgeons in New York
[Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
[USA] Vol. 94, pp. 3765-3770, April 1997,
"Mutagenic Effects of A Single and an Exact Number
of Alpha Particles in Mammilian Cells."]
The fact that ionizing radiation is a mutagen
was first demonstrated in 1927 by Herman Joseph
Muller, and subsequent evidence has shown it to be
a mutagen of unique potency. Mutation is the basis
not only for inherited afflictions, but also for
cancer.
Eminent nuclear chemist and cardiologist Dr.
John Gofman
wrote the following letter, May 11, 1999:
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, BERKELEY
BERKELEY, CALIFORNIA 94720
LETTER OF CONCERN
To Whom It May Concern,
During 1942, I led "The Plutonium Group" at the
University of California, Berkeley, which managed
to isolate the first milligram of plutonium from
irradiated uranium. [Plutonium-239 had previously
been discovered by Glenn Seaborg and Edwin
McMillan]. During subsequent decades, I have
studied the biological effects of ionizing
radiation---- including the alpha particles
emitted by the decay of plutonium.
By any reasonable standard of biomedical proof,
there is no safe dose, which means that just one
decaying radioactive atom can produce permanent
mutation in a cell's genetic molecules [Gofman
1990: "Radiation Induced Cancer from Low-Dose
Exposure"]. For alpha particles, the logic of no
safe dose was confirmed experimentally in 1997 by
Tom K. Hei and co-workers at Columbia University
College of Physicians and Surgeons in New York
[Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
[USA] Vol. 94, pp. 3765-3770, April 1997,
"Mutagenic Effects of A Single and an Exact Number
of Alpha Particles in Mammilian Cells."]
It follows from such evidence that citizens
worldwide have a strong biological basis for
opposing activities which produce an appreciable
risk of exposing humans and others to plutonium
and other radioactive pollution at any level. The
fact that humans cannot escape exposure to
ionizing radiation from various natural
sources ---which may well account for a large
share of humanity's inherited afflictions- is no
reason to let human activities INCREASE exposure
to ionizing radiation. The fact that ionizing
radiation is a mutagen was first demonstrated in
1927 by Herman Joseph Muller, and subsequent
evidence has shown it to be a mutagen of unique
potency. Mutation is the basis not only for
inherited afflictions, but also for cancer.
Very truly yours,
[signed]
John W. Gofman, M.D., Ph D
Professor Emeritus of Molecular and Cell
Biology
--------------------------------------------------
----------------------------
Mothers' Alert Home | More Information | Actions
| News | Email | Search
http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/stories/sun/2005/aug/11/519192130.html?"yucca%20mountain"
Printable text version | Mail this to a
friend
--------------------------------------------------
------------------------
August 11, 2005
Nevada officials, scientists continue to
spar over Yucca radiation standard
By Suzanne Struglinski
SUN WASHINGTON BUREAU
WASHINGTON -- Health physicists and
radiation experts say the new proposed radiation
standard for Yucca Mountain poses no significant
health threats.
But Nevada officials say the government
would unfairly put future residents living near
Yucca at higher risk for cancer and other
radiation-related illnesses than residents of
other states.
The Environmental Protection Agency on
Tuesday renewed a debate -- and sparked a
controversy that likely will land in court --
about just how much radiation could acceptably
leak from the proposed nuclear waste repository at
Yucca, 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas.
The EPA announced that it had set a
radiation-release standard designed to protect
Nevadans for 1 million years -- an unprecedented
scientific effort for the agency.
The EPA proposed a "two-tiered" rule. One
tier sets a standard for up to 10,000 years at 15
millirem, roughly equivalent to a chest X-ray.
That means the repository would be required to
contain radiation for 10,000 years so that people
living near Yucca would not receive a higher dose
than 15 millirem in one year from the waste stored
inside Yucca's underground tunnels.
The second tier would set a standard for
10,000 years to 1 million years at 350 millirem.
That's unacceptably high, Nevada officials say.
"This is 350 millirem of involuntary
exposure equal to about 35 chest X-rays a year,"
said attorney Joe Egan, who handles Yucca issues
for the state. "Pregnant women aren't supposed to
get any. This is a departure from all principles
of radiation science."
Egan argues that the current regular
allowable "public dose" from a nuclear power plant
or other facility using radioactive materials is
100 millirem per year, based on recommendations by
the National Council on Radiation Protection and
Measurements and rules adopted by the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission.
This alone makes the EPA's standard three
times higher than what is deemed acceptable now,
Egan said.
He said a low-level radioactive waste dump
has a 25 millirem limit out to peak dose -- the
time the radiation levels would be at their
highest. Low-level waste is "far less dangerous"
than what would be stored in Yucca, and it has a
stricter standard, he said.
"This is increasing the level of risk to
Nevadans," Egan said.
The exposure may not be enough to kill
someone outright, but it could lead to serious
illnesses over time, he said.
A person receiving 350 millirem in
additional radiation exposure is put at higher
risk than others, Egan said.
"It is a very significant increase in risk,"
he said.
Rod McCullum, senior project manager for
waste at the Nuclear Energy Institute, the nuclear
industry's interest group, agreed that the agency
standard is higher than what would be allowed from
a nuclear power plant, but he said it is not a
fair comparison.
"It's comparing apples to oranges over
time," McCullum said. "Everything is known with a
nuclear power plant. There is a known quantity.
There is nothing else in the world that is
regulated for 1 million years. It is not a
legitimate analogy."
And while the proposed standard of 350
millirem for Yucca is more than three times the
100 millirem standard for nuclear power plants,
the difference does not automatically translate
into severe health problems, experts said.
Controversy exists over what level of
radiation exposure would cause cancer. Some
scientists argue that no level of radiation is
safe, while others say small doses are good for
you, said Richard Morin, chairman of the American
College of Radiology Medical Physics Commission.
"Three-hundred-fifty millirem falls into an
area with no conclusive scientific data that it
would cause health problems," said Morin, who is
the Brooks-Hollern professor at the Mayo Clinic in
Jacksonville, Fla. "That level is certainly
consistent with natural background radiation."
Americans on average receive "background"
radiation from a number of sources, including the
cosmic rays from outer space, the earth, rock and
radon gas often found in homes.
Several radiation experts, as well as EPA
officials, point to the average 700 millirem of
background radiation that people receive in the
high-elevation city of Denver.
That's about the same level as what the EPA
has said would be acceptable near Yucca after
10,000 years -- roughly 350 millirem in normal
background radiation and 350 millirem from Yucca.
Phillip Patton, a UNLV assistant professor
of health physics, noted there is no abnormal rate
of cancer in Denver.
"By increasing our background radiation, we
would be no different than if we all moved to
Denver," Patton said. "It seems 350 millirem would
cause no problems."
Ralph Andersen, NEI's Chief Health
Physicist, said he has worked around radiation
most of his life and would not be concerned about
a 350 millirem exposure. He would not consider the
level unsafe for his family either. He said he
might try to avoid it, but he also would not pick
up and move out of Colorado or other places with a
high background level of radiation just because of
exposure.
"I don't think people look at that as a
dangerous level of radiation," he said.
Nuclear power plants or radioactive medical
facilities no longer in use have a public exposure
range of up to 500 millirem per year for up to
1,000 years, Andersen said. That rule has already
been approved and is used by the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission so the proposed Yucca limit
could not be harmful, he said.
Andersen said exposure to 350 millirem could
add incremental risk for people living around the
repository but that no studies have shown cancer
caused at that level. It is usually only seen at
higher levels, he said.
The long-term effects of radiation are
harder to argue and harder to measure, Patton
said.
It is unethical to purposely expose someone
to radiation to measure the risks, so there is a
limited amount of data, experts said.
Experts say the more exposure people have to
radiation, the more likely it is to cause cancer,
but the exact level at which radiation triggers
cancer is not known, Morin said.
Peter Caracappa, a radiation safety officer
and a research associate at Rensselaer Polytechnic
Institute in New York, said there is a debate over
the true effect of radiation at certain levels.
"This is not a line between safe and not
safe," Caracappa said. "It is a continuous risk
exposure."
Although there is no threshold, Caracappa
said, the level is much higher than the 350
millirem the EPA would allow at Yucca.
"You are not talking about high levels of
radiation," said Carol Kornmehl, a radiation
oncologist, speaking of the 350-millirem level.
"This is not a high exposure, it is not likely to
cause health problems."
Kornmehl said a CAT scan to the chest can
expose a patient to 760 millirem. The same test to
the abdomen and pelvis has 2,760 millirem.
Kornmehl, author of "The Best News About
Radiation Therapy," said the standard proposed for
Yucca is "probably acceptable," but that the
government needs to explain to the public what the
350-millirem radiation level means.
Morin said a 100,000 millirem single
exposure to the eyes could cause cataracts and
200,000 millirem single exposure would redden skin
and make a person ill.
Morin said international flight crews can
receive more than 350 millirem in a year and some
patients are exposed to that amount for certain
procedures.
"A radiation worker in a plant can get 5,000
millirem per year," Morin said.
Nevada's Egan counters that a plant worker
is there voluntarily, knows the risks and is
compensated well for his or her work associated
with that risk, while the EPA standard puts people
involuntarily at risk.
Egan points out that in finalizing the
initial radiation standard, which a court threw
out last year, EPA acknowledged that the National
Academy of Sciences recommended a 2 to 20 millirem
limit per year for an unspecified amount of time.
"How is 350 'based upon and consistent with'
this recommendation?" Egan asked.
The court required EPA to make a new
standard based on the National Academy of Sciences
recommendation, as Congress stated in the Energy
Policy Act of 1992.
--------------------------------------------------
------------------------
Printable text version | Mail this to a
friend
Las Vegas SUN main page
Problems or questions
Read our policy on privacy and cookies.
Advertise on Vegas.com.
All contents © 1996 - 2005 Las Vegas Sun,
Inc.
Nevada's Largest Website
http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/stories/sun/2005/aug/10/519184494.html?"yucca%20mountain"
August 10, 2005
Editorial: A miracle -- overnight
LAS VEGAS SUN
The Environmental Protection Agency spent
just a little more than a year in revising its
radiation standard for Yucca Mountain. This short
period of time is ridiculously inadequate for such
a life-and-death determination. Yucca Mountain, in
a desert area 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas, is
where Congress and President Bush have chosen to
bury the nation's high-level nuclear waste.
Construction on underground tunnels and burial
vaults is under way by the Energy Department,
which hopes to have a license to operate the
repository by at least 2015.
The original radiation standard was a
proposed maximum amount of radiation that would be
allowed to escape from the repository each year
over a period of 10,000 years. The standard was
created by calculating how well the waste would be
protected from the outer environment once it was
buried under the mountain's thick rock in man-made
casks. A federal court, basing its decision on a
recommendation by the National Academy of
Sciences, ruled last year that the proposed daily
maximum amount of escaping radiation should be in
place far longer than 10,000 years.
On Tuesday the EPA came out with its
revision. The new standard retains the proposed
maximum Yucca-related exposure for 10,000 years,
which is 15 millirems per person per year (a
single chest X-ray is 10 millirems). But in an
effort to comply with the court order, the EPA
announced that it was adding another proposed
radiation standard for the next 990,000 years.
During this period, the standard would be 350
millirems per person per year. The EPA says this
second standard is equivalent to the natural and
man-made radiation that people absorb each day.
This second standard also requires the Energy
Department to study what could happen to Yucca
Mountain over 1 million years in terms of
destructive events such as earthquakes, volcanic
eruptions, climactic changes and corrosion of the
mountain and the man-made structures that would
contain the waste.
In announcing the new standard, the EPA was
affirmative in its belief that it could be
achieved. "It is an unprecedented scientific
challenge to develop proposed standards today that
will protect the next 25,000 generations of
Americans," said Jeffrey Holmstead, the EPA's
assistant administrator for air and radiation.
"EPA met this challenge by using the best
available scientific approaches and has issued a
standard that will protect public health for a
million years."
Well, pardon our skepticism. The EPA has
been around now for 35 years and in all that time
hasn't even learned how to protect the public from
dirty air and water. So how could it learn, in
just over a year, how to protect the public from
Yucca Mountain's radiation for an extra 990,000
years? And how can it expect the Energy Department
to protect people in the distant future from
cataclysmic events affecting the mountain? We hope
the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, which will rule
on the new radiation standard, comes around to
sharing our skepticism.
--------------------------------------------------
------------------------
Printable text version | Mail this to a
friend
Las Vegas SUN main page
Problems or questions
Read our policy on privacy and cookies.
Advertise on Vegas.com.
All contents © 1996 - 2005 Las Vegas Sun,
Inc.
Nevada's Largest Website
http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/stories/sun/2005/aug/10/519185187.html?"yucca%20mountain"
August 10, 2005
EPA proposal gives Yucca a boost
Nevada officials vow to challenge radiation
standard
By Benjamin Grove
and Suzanne Struglinski
SUN WASHINGTON BUREAU
WASHINGTON -- The Environmental Protection
Agency gave Yucca Mountain a burst of momentum on
Tuesday when it issued a revised radiation-release
rule that Nevada officials say is dangerously lax.
Energy Department officials said the
proposed nuclear waste repository could meet the
standard and they hope the new rule will help put
the beleaguered project back on track.
But Nevada officials vow to again take the
fight over radiation standards to court.
"If this bogus new standard, or anything
close to it, ends up being adopted by EPA, Nevada
will sue them again," Attorney General Brian
Sandoval said.
The proposed new standard actually offers
future generations less protection from radiation
than the old one and does not mesh with a federal
court's requirement for a new standard, Nevada
officials and Yucca critics said.
Gov. Kenny Guinn called it "junk science at
its worst."
"I can't imagine how they could have done
anything to make themselves more vulnerable in the
court of law as well as the court of science,"
Guinn said.
The Environmental Protection Agency on
Tuesday proposed regulations that limit the amount
of radiation that could be safely emitted from the
proposed underground repository for high-level
nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain, 90 miles
northwest of Las Vegas.
The agency in 2001 established a 15-millirem
radiation exposure limit for up to 10,000 years,
which means a person living in the immediate
vicinity of Yucca could receive that much
radiation in a year -- roughly equivalent to a
chest X-ray.
But delivering a major setback to Yucca last
year, a federal court threw out that standard,
saying it was not "based upon and consistent with"
recommendations by the National Academy of
Sciences, as Congress required.
The court said the academy rejected 10,000
years "as a proper benchmark but EPA used it
anyway." The academy said the standard should go
out to the "peak dose," when the radiation levels
would be at their highest. This could occur about
100,000 years or more into the future.
That left two courses of action for Yucca to
proceed: Congress could allow the agency to create
a standard outside of what the academy wanted, or
the EPA could revise the standard to bring it in
line with the academy's recommendation.
The agency proposed a "two-tiered" rule
Tuesday. One tier maintains the 15-millirem
standard for up to 10,000 years, and the other
limits exposure to 350 millirem per year for
10,000 to 1 million years.
The rule is not final. It will go through a
60-day public comment period before a finished
rule is published and implemented by the agency.
Energy Department officials seemed content
with the standard.
"The department believes this is a standard
that can be met," Energy Department spokesman
Craig Stevens said. "This is a positive step in
the process."
The radiation standard is important because
the Energy Department must prove that Yucca can
meet the standard in order to obtain a license
from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The NRC
ultimately will determine whether Yucca can meet
the standard, and whether Yucca can be licensed as
a safe repository site.
The next step now for the department is to
submit a license application, which it aims to do
early next year. The NRC could take up to four
years to review and approve the license before
construction could begin. Yucca is not expected to
begin accepting waste until 2012 at the earliest.
Nevada cannot challenge the new standard in
court until it becomes final, but state officials
will use the time to prepare a challenge, Nevada
senior deputy attorney general Marta Adams said.
"It's amazing how much this deviates from
what the NAS requires," Adams said.
Among the complaints of Yucca critics and
Nevada officials is that the EPA is proposing a
more lax standard at the time when the
repository's radiation levels would be at their
highest -- after 10,000 years. Nevada believes the
waste storage containers and other man-made
elements will fail by that time and the rock will
not offer enough protection to contain radiation.
Joe Egan, a lawyer who handles Yucca issues
for the state, said the EPA gave no justification
for a standard that increases 23-fold between
10,000 and 10,001 years, except that the
performance of the repository is uncertain.
"What does that have to do with how much
radiation a human should get?" Egan said. "They
fit the rule to meet the repository."
Jeffrey Holmstead, EPA's assistant
administrator for air and radiation, said EPA
officials had carefully reviewed the federal court
ruling and were "quite confident" that their new
standard would hold up in court if Nevada
officials challenge it.
As part of its deliberations, the EPA
considered current levels of background radiation
in a number of major U.S. cities, he said.
Currently, U.S. citizens receive various levels of
"background" radiation from a number of sources,
mostly natural sources, depending on where they
live and their lifestyles.
People can receive radiation from natural
sources that include the sun, soil, rocks, even
food and other people. Radon gas is a common
source of radiation often found in homes. People
also get doses from man-made sources such as
X-rays. A chest X-ray emits about 10 millirem of
radiation and a mammogram about 30 millirem,
Holmstead said.
People receive about 350 millirem a year on
average, Holmstead said.
People living in the high-elevation city of
Denver receive about 700 millirem of radiation a
year, Holmstead said. In part relying on that
statistic, the EPA deemed it "acceptable" for a
person living near Yucca to receive roughly 350
millirem in background radiation, plus an
additional 350 millirem from Yucca, Holmstead
said.
Egan said this means the federal government
is saying Nevadans can get twice the background
levels of radiation than the rest of the country.
Holmstead said the EPA had avoided trying to
set a radiation standard beyond 10,000 years in
its first attempt in 2001 because it was so
difficult to set standards that far into the
future.
The EPA spent seven years researching and
developing the standard released in 2001. It took
just over a year to release a revised standard.
Devising a new 1 million-year standard was
"a real scientific challenge," but the EPA issued
it in order to respond to the court's direction,
he said.
"The time frame we're dealing with here is
really unprecedented," Holmstead said.
When pressed on how the public could have
confidence in the standard, Holmstead said, "We do
the best job we can based on all the science we
have."
The radiation standard's 10,000-year
compliance period would begin when Yucca is filled
to capacity, currently set at 77,000 tons, and
sealed, which could be roughly 50 years after it
begins collecting waste.
A 60-day public comment period begins
immediately. There will be two public comment
hearings in Nevada and one in Washington,
Holmstead said. Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid,
D-Nev., and Sen. John Ensign, R-Nev., had asked
for three hearings in Nevada and a 180-day comment
period.
Some nuclear power industry officials, as
well as state officials in states with nuclear
waste piling up at power plants, were initially
pleased with the EPA standard.
"On the surface, it gives the DOE the
opportunity to move on with the license
application," said Martez Norris, executive
director of the Nuclear Waste Strategy Coalition,
another coalition of state government agencies and
nuclear utilities. "It's a very positive sign."
Energy Department officials likely will not
be surprised or troubled by the 350-millirem
standard, said Charles Pray, Maine state nuclear
safety advisor and a former Energy Department
official. Department officials all along have
anticipated that they might have to meet a
two-tiered standard, said Pray, who is also
co-chairman of the Yucca Mountain Task Force, a
coalition of state regulatory agencies and nuclear
industry officials advocating for Yucca.
"I think the science and the technology are
there" for Yucca to meet the post-10,000-year
standard, Pray said.
Brian O'Connell, director of the nuclear
waste program at the National Association of
Regulatory Utility Commissioners, agreed Yucca
should be able to meet the 350-millirem standard.
"It looks comfortable for compliance,"
O'Connell said. "I'm glad it's not 15 millirem for
a million years."
But Guinn and Sandoval argued that the
standard suggests that it is acceptable for
Nevadans to receive twice a normal radiation
dosage.
"For the first time ever in the world, it
seeks to establish the level of 'natural
background radiation' received by Americans as a
tolerable threshold for additional radiation from
man-made sources," they said in a news release.
Sandoval said, "In a snub to the scientific
community and a federal appeals court in
Washington, the EPA today issued a proposed
standard for the licensing that is 100 times more
lenient than what the government permits for
releases from nuclear power plants."
The two Republican state officials said
Nevadans could suffer 100 more times radiation
exposure than what the federal government now
permits for residents living near nuclear power
plants. They said it is "by far the most lenient
radiation protection standard proposed for any
nuclear waste disposal project in the world."
Reaction from Nevada's congressional
delegation was swift and shrill.
"I am appalled at the complete arrogance of
the EPA in announcing these standards," Ensign
said. "We've been down this road before. The
federal appeals court already determined that the
10,000-year standard violated the law. This new
standard is no better, and the EPA has provided no
scientific basis for the 350 millirem figure."
"I am astounded that the EPA actually put
those recommendations on paper," Reid said. "What
the agency released today is nothing more than
voodoo science and arbitrary numbers."
The post-10,000-year standard is not
grounded in science, Rep. Jim Gibbons, R-Nev.,
said.
"EPA has an obligation to protect public
safety today, tomorrow, and in a million years,"
Gibbons said. "Yet, the EPA thought it would be OK
to increase its radiation standard from 15
millirem to 350 millirem -- a 23-fold increase
when the clock hits 10,000 years and 1 day simply
because we don't know what the future holds."
Gibbons noted the contrast in the EPA
previously arguing for a very low standard for
arsenic in drinking water because scientists do
not know what level of arsenic is safe.
"They have failed us," Gibbons said of the
EPA, during an appearance on Las Vegas ONE, Cox
cable channel 19.
Rep. Jon Porter, R-Nev., asked, "Where's the
proof that an additional 350 millirem per year of
radiation won't have a negative impact on a human
being? That contravenes 50 years of radiation
science."
Reid and Berkley also alleged that the EPA
had issued its standard as part of a Bush
administration effort to jump start the stalled
Yucca program.
So did Arjun Makhijani, president of the
Maryland-based Institute for Energy and
Environmental Research, noted that the Energy
Department in 1999 told Nuclear Waste Technical
Review Board, a congressionally mandated watchdog
group, that the maximum dose from Yucca would be
200 to 300 millirem per year several hundred
thousand years into the future. That's
conveniently just under the 350-millirem level,
Makhijani noted.
"The dose limit seems designed to protect
the industry's interest in a bad site, rather than
public health," said Makhijani, who supports
geologic disposal of nuclear waste, but believes
Yucca is a bad site. "This is one more example of
what I have called the 'double-standard standard.'
When Yucca Mountain cannot meet the rules, the
federal agencies change the rules to fit Yucca
Mountain."
A 350-millirem level is still dangerous,
Makhijani said. He said a person exposed to 350
millirem per year every year for 70 years would
run a 1-in-40 chance of getting cancer. He called
the EPA standard the worst single action the
agency has taken since he began analyzing the
agency nearly 25 years ago.
--------------------------------------------------
------------------------
Printable text version | Mail this to a
friend
Las Vegas SUN main page
Problems or questions
Read our policy on privacy and cookies.
Advertise on Vegas.com.
All contents © 1996 - 2005 Las Vegas Sun,
Inc.
Nevada's Largest Website
http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/stories/sun/2005/aug/09/519178960.html?"yucca%20mountain"
August 09, 2005
New EPA radiation standard is called
outrageous
EPA says revised limits would protect public
for 1 million years
By Suzanne Struglinski
SUN WASHINGTON BUREAU
WASHINGTON -- The Environmental Protection
Agency's change in its radiation protection
standard, announced this morning, is shocking and
outrageous, members of Nevada's team opposing the
Yucca Mountain nuclear dump said.
The EPA is keeping the 10,000-year radiation
protection standard for the proposed dump at Yucca
Mountain, 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas, while
creating a different exposure limit after 10,000
years, for up to 1 million years.
One part of the new proposed standard has a
15 millirem radiation exposure for up to 10,000
years, the same limit a federal court threw out
last year. Another part of the standard limits
exposure to 350 millirem per year for 10,000 to 1
million years, according to the Environmental
Protection Agency.
The proposed standards "limit the maximum
radiation from the facility so that people living
close to Yucca Mountain for a lifetime during the
1 million-year time frame will not receive total
radiation any higher than natural levels people
currently live with in other areas of the
country."
Joe Egan, a lawyer who represents Nevada on
Yucca issues, said he was shocked by the new
numbers.
"That is far more outrageous than anything
we even expected," Egan said. "If more than 15
millirems is harmful now, it is going to be
equally harmful 50,000 years from now. People
aren't just going to develop an immunity to
radiation."
Nevada Nuclear Projects Agency Director Bob
Loux said the new standard was "outrageous"
because 350 millirem is so high.
EPA spokesman John Millett said the 350
millirem standard was an appropriate number given
the uncertainties of calculating radiation
standards so far into the future.
Other Nevada officials initially withheld
comments. They said they wanted a chance to
examine the EPA's proposal.
Attorney General Brian Sandoval said the
state must "have the opportunity to review" the
proposed standard to see "if it meets scientific
muster."
He noted the EPA originally said the 10,000
years was a safe standard, but a federal appeals
court found it violated the law. Gov. Kenny Guinn
is expected to issue a statement later today about
the EPA announcement.
Egan said it will be up to Sandoval to
decide what legal option to pursue, but he would
not be suprised if more litigation came out of
this.
Egan said the proposed standards are worse
than those suggested in a study done by the
Electric Power Research Institute earlier this
year. The state strongly objected to the study.
EPRI is an energy and environmental research
group that promotes the benefits of nuclear power.
Its study advocated that the federal government
keep the 10,000-year standard as it stands now and
consider the uncertainties that exist when trying
to measure things out beyond that time frame.
It recommended a "two-tiered dose limit,"
which means one level for the first 10,000 years
and a higher one for after that time consistent
with "the increased uncertainty." It did not
recommend a specific dose beyond the 15-millirem
per year limit now, a little more than a chest
X-ray, but the report says a 100-millirem per year
dose would be "considered protective under all
potential exposure situations."
Egan said the 100-millirem recommendation
was bad enough. The proposed standard announced
today is a "lawyer's dream."
"This is a total abdication of science and
the law," Egan said.
A federal appeals court said last year that
the 10,000-year time period previously established
by the agency did not follow the law. That ruling
threw the proposed nuclear waste dump off schedule
until a new standard could be established. The
court said the earlier standard was not "based
upon and consistent with" a National Academy of
Sciences recommendation. Congress wanted the
standard to follow what a panel of the academy's
experts wanted.
The EPA originally set a 10,000-year
radiation standard for Yucca in 2001. Under that
standard, the department would have to prove
people would not be exposed to more than 15
millirems of radiation, a little more than a chest
X-ray, each year for 10,000 years.
The National Academy of Sciences said it
would be better to go to "peak dose" when the
radiation levels would be at their highest. This
could come 100,000 years into the future or more.
Now that the proposed standard is complete,
it will have to go through a public comment period
before becoming final. EPA will have to evaluate
the comments and can make changes before
implementing the final standard.
Rod McCullum, senior project manager for
waste at the Nuclear Energy Institute, could not
comment specifically on what EPA proposed, but
said he had always believed a two-tiered standard
was a "sound, scientific approach."
Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev.,
and Sen. John Ensign, R-Nev., sent a letter to EPA
Administrator Stephen Johnson Monday reminding him
of a promised public hearing in Las Vegas once the
agency issues the rule. The senators also want the
agency to hold hearings in Reno and Amargosa
Valley and want a public comment period of no less
than 180 days.
"Because of the enormity, time span and risk
of the proposed project, any standard must err on
the side of caution in order to guarantee the
protection of public health and the environment
for hundreds of thousands of years," the senators
wrote.
Reid spokeswoman Tessa Hafen said the
senators got EPA to agree to hearings during talks
on Deputy Energy Secretary Clay Sell's
confirmation hearing. She said the office had
heard the proposal would be coming out in the next
two weeks, so they wanted to make sure a formal
request for the meetings had been sent.
In May, the agency said it would put finish
the proposed new standard by September.
Peggy Maze Johnson, director of Nevada-based
Citizen Alert, and Judy Treichel of the Nevada
Nuclear Waste Task Force met with EPA officials a
few weeks ago to discuss how to inform the public
about the new standard, they said.
Johnson said she asked for details about
public protection and the compliance period as
they relate to the new proposed standard, but the
EPA people she met with "sidestepped" her
questions.
The new EPA standard is what Johnson feared,
she said. She and many other Yucca critics
objected to a two-tiered standard.
"We don't believe that it's safe,' she said.
Treichel said that last time opponents gave
comments on a radiation standard, they wanted to
see "zero exposure forever" but instead saw 15
millirem for 10,000 years.
"I am not sure if this would be any
different now," Triechel said.
--------------------------------------------------
------------------------
Printable text version | Mail this to a
friend
Las Vegas SUN main page
Problems or questions
Read our policy on privacy and cookies.
Advertise on Vegas.com.
All contents © 1996 - 2005 Las Vegas Sun,
Inc.
Nevada's Largest Website
_______________________________________________________________________
Subscribe/Unsubscribe Here: http://www.energyjustice.net/nukenet/
Change your settings or access the archives at:
http://energyjustice.net/mailman/listinfo/nukenet_energyjustice.net
*****************************************************************
31 C&EN: YUCCA RADIATION LIMITS PROPOSED
August 15, 2005
Vol. 83, Iss. 33
Volume 83, Number 33 p. 8
NUCLEAR WASTE
EPA says standard will protect Nevadans for a million years, but
state objects
GLENN HESS
The is proposing new radiation exposure limits for the planned
Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository in Nevada that seek to
protect public health for up to 1 million years.
SAFETY CHECK A technician inspects model waste canisters
at Yucca Mountain to gauge the impact of temperature and heat.
DOE PHOTO
Under the standards, people living close to the facility about 90
miles northwest of Las Vegas would not receive total radiation
higher than natural levels that people experience routinely in
other areas of the U.S., EPA says. "It is an unprecedented
scientific challenge to develop proposed standards today that
will protect the next 25,000 generations of Americans," says EPA
Assistant Administrator Jeffrey R. Holmstead.
Nevada officials opposed to the project charge that the proposed
limits are too lax and threaten legal action. "We were
pessimistic about the outcome, given EPA's record of pushing the
repository," says Nevada Gov. Kenny C. Guinn. "But never in our
wildest nightmares would we have anticipated such a ridiculous
standard." Brian Sandoval, the state's attorney general, says
that if the proposed standard "or anything close to it ends up
being adopted by EPA, Nevada will sue them again."
EPA's proposal responds to a year-old federal court ruling that
said the agency's original radiation standard was inadequate. The
revised standard would require the to ensure that people living
near the repository during its first 10,000 years of operation
would be exposed to no more than 15 millirems of radiation
annually. After that period, EPA is proposing a higher dose
limit--350 millirems--equal to natural background levels.
But Sen. John Ensign (R-Nev.) says EPA "has provided no
scientific basis for the 350-millirem figure."
Chemical & Engineering News
ISSN 0009-2347
Copyright © 2005
*****************************************************************
32 Independent: Britain's biggest low-level nuclear dump a 'safety risk'
Online Edition > UK Environment : app2
By Marie Woolf, Chief Political Correspondent
Published: 16 August 2005
Britain's environmental watchdog has concluded that the
country's biggest low-level nuclear dump may pose too great a
safety risk to receive future waste.
The Environment Agency has warned that the nuclear dump at Drigg
in Cumbria, run by British Nuclear Fuels (BNFL) has inadequate
safety plans in place to justify future disposals, including
radioactive material from nuclear plants around Britain.
Inspectors concluded that radiation at the dump could far exceed
acceptable levels in the long term. The agency accused BNFL of
failing to "make an adequate or robust argument for continued
disposals" and warned of future risks. Its report says
"estimates of doses and risks from existing disposals to members
of the public in the future significantly exceed current
regulatory targets."
The assessment of BNFL's safety plan for the plant, which is six
miles from Sellafield, warns that an unacceptable risk could be
posed to future generations. The agency is currently reviewing
the terms of its authorisations to BNFL to operate the site.
BNFL said the report did not question the safety of the site at
present or its management. It said the concerns related to
hundreds of years in the future. "There is time for us to work
with them to address any concerns they might have," a BNFL
spokesman said.
Norman Baker, the Liberal Democrats' environment spokesman, said
the Prime Minister should read the report before considering any
expansion of the nuclear industry: "This may be low-level waste
but it represents high-level risk. Quite clearly long-term
safeguards at Drigg are inadequate," Mr Baker said. "I hope this
report will be read carefully by the cheerleaders for more
nuclear plants."
© 2005 Independent News & Media (UK) Ltd.
*****************************************************************
33 LA Daily News: Perchlorate cleanup put in motion
NWSAntelopeValley
dailynews.com
- Dennis McCarthy
Article Launched: 08/14/2005 12:00:00 AM
By Eugene Tong, Staff Writer
SANTA CLARITA - Local water agencies are stepping up efforts
to clean up perchlorate a rocket fuel chemical left by the
former Whittaker-Bermite munitions plant from local groundwater.
The Castaic Lake Water Agency, the region's prime water
provider, has been working to secure the required state permits
and a settlement from the defunct weapons manufacturer to
contain the pollutant and to restore municipal wells that have
been sealed since 1997 due to contamination.
Ken Petersen, engineering operations manager at CLWA, said the
agency hopes to have the technical fixes in place by the end of
2006.
"We're putting together a plan and going through the CEQA
requirements," he said. The agency board is slated to adopt the
plan in September with a negative declaration no adverse
environmental impact under the California Environmental Quality
Act.
It's a two-step decontamination process. To contain the
pollution plume, which has seeped into the Saugus Aquifer,
officials plan to pump water out of two of the five capped wells
for treatment a project estimated to cost $6.1 million.
Officials also plan to restore water supply by digging two
replacement wells away from the contaminated area, which could
cost $9.2 million.
To finance the cleanup, CLWA and three local water retailers
have pressed the bankrupt munitions company for a legal
settlement. A status conference is scheduled Sept. 8 in U.S.
District Court in Los Angeles, with a mediation with the
Whittaker-Bermite's insurers set later in the month. "As far as
the cleanup plan, the overall plan we're concerned about is
stopping the plume from spreading," said Bill Manetta, manager
of Santa Clarita Water, a CLWA subsidiary involved in the
lawsuit. "Hopefully, the defendants will be paying. If not,
we're going to go ahead and recuperate the costs from the
defendants."
Fred Fudacz, CLWA's attorney, said the ball's in their court.
"There has been a level of frustration," he said. "We've kind of
talked about terms of settlement. It seemed the parties got
pretty close.
"It's a matter of convincing their insurers this is something
they want to fund promptly. ... It's always a problem getting
them to write the check. It just depends if we have to do it the
hard way or the easy way. ... But one way or the other, we're
going to get the money."
The hard way means taking the case to trial currently set for
June 2006.
For nearly 50 years, Whittaker-Bermite used the 996 acres off
Soledad Canyon Road to build and test dynamite, Sidewinder
missiles and small rockets used during World War II, the Korean
War, the Vietnam War and the Cold War.
Manufacturing operations concluded in 1987, but the site is
contaminated with various chemical compounds, including
perchlorate, heavy metal and solvents that have migrated into
the valley's groundwater system. Four municipal wells were shut
down in 1997 after tests revealed high concentrations of
perchlorate, and another well was capped in 2002.
Perchlorate in large doses may interfere with thyroid function,
according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The state
Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment deemed water
with as much as 6 parts per billion safe to drink.
CLWA designed the cleanup process with the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers. Whittaker-Bermite contributed some $5 million to the
study.
Meantime, the rainstorms from January have allowed perchlorate
to seep into a shallow well east of Bouquet Creek and the Santa
Clara River. The well operated by the Valencia Water Co. has
been removed from service.
The well tested at about 10 parts per billion, and treatment
could begin this fall, said Bob DiPrimio, Valencia Water's
president. The proposal has undergone CEQA review, and the state
Department of Health Services is processing the permits.
Whittaker-Bermite is contributing $500,000 to the effort.
"We're on schedule to have the treatment online by October,"
DiPrimio said. "We're still on that schedule."
--
Eugene Tong, (661) 257-5253
eugene.tong@dailynews.com
*****************************************************************
34 AU ABC: Uranium mining debate will subside, company says.
15/08/2005. ABC News Online
The head of the world's largest uranium producer says it could
take up to 10 years to develop a mine in the Northern Territory,
once it makes a discovery.
Canadian-based Cameco president Jerry Grandey says it is
spending $6 million a year on exploring in the NT, mainly in
Arnhem Land.
Mr Grandey last week appeared before a federal parliamentary
inquiry into uranium and called for a clear policy direction for
the industry.
Speaking during a visit to Darwin today to meet with the
Northern Territory Mining Minister Kon Vatskalis in Darwin, Mr
Grandey says he is confident the political debate surrounding
uranium mining will subside.
"This business is plagued by lots of mythology - if you strip
that away and you get to the facts, how's Ranger behaved and
operated over the years, what is the true impact on Kakadu
National Park - all those facts should be open and transparent
and when people look they'll see that it's insignificant," he
said.
Mr Grandey says the political debate in other countries has
long disappeared and Australia is behind.
But he says the lack of debate locally was because low prices
meant there was little push for development.
"So there really hasn't been much of a reason to go through the
debate, so now all of a sudden uranium prices have tripled or
quadrupled, there is a huge potential for uranium development in
Australia and the Northern Territory - that has caused the
Federal Government and the provincial government to begin to
talk about uranium again," he said.
*****************************************************************
35 IVDB: Group still pressing for info on certain materials -
Inland Valley Daily Bulletin -
Sue Doyle
DailyBulletin.com:
Article Published: Sunday, August 14, 2005 -
Group still pressing for info on certain materials By Sue Doyle
Staff Writer NORCO - As the investigation continues, some
residents are finding answers about contamination that the state
believes comes from Wyle Laboratories Inc., while others are
discovering more questions.
For the Austin family, the news is good.
Test results for a seep discovered in December in the family's
back yard came back clean.
The liquid was sampled for trichlorethylene, a cancer-causing
industrial solvent; perchlorate, a chemical used in rocket fuel,
and other matter used at the former testing site for Wyle Labs.
"I was really excited," said Gloria Austin, 49, who lives on
Raquel Road. "It was a relief because we had been waiting so
long to see what was back there."
Wyle Labs, which is based in El Segundo, is under a state
consent order to clean up contamination believed to have spread
from its former facility at 1841 Hillside Ave.
The company developed products for the defense industry and used
the 425-acre Norco facility to test rocket motors and
electronics.
The area qualifies as a Superfund site, a designation declaring
it among the most polluted locations in the nation. The state
Department of Toxic Substances Control is overseeing the cleanup.
Radiological materials used on the site were recently brought
into question by the grass-roots group Involved Neighbors
Seeking Information, Safety and Truth. The group, which formed
in 2001, lobbies local, county and federal officials to focus on
pollution from Wyle Labs.
It is asking about the use and location of 13,000 pounds of
Cesium 137, believed to have been used at the site, according to
a March 1998 Riverside County hazardous material inventory
record that the group collected.
Cesium 137 was used in the 1950s and 1960s for nuclear weapons
testing. Today, the chemical is used in medical therapy for
cancer radiation. It is also an ingredient used in making dirty
bombs.
The group is also questioning Wyle's use of the radioactive
Stronium 90, also on the inventory record.
DTSC has since requested Wyle Labs provide copies of licenses
and correspondence about the material issued from the Department
of Health Services, which is in charge of the state's use,
storage, licensing and disposal of radioactive material.
Group member Betsy Roberts, 57, said there's no paperwork to
show where all the radioactive materials have gone, and she
wants assurance that residents are safe.
"We don't take anything at face value anymore," Roberts said.
"Evidence has shown it's better to get the facts, not just
someone's reassurance that it's all OK."
Meanwhile, intensive drilling for contaminants in bedrock below
Wyle Labs is scheduled to start today.
Drilling was previously planned to start July 25, but the drill
being used was stuck in storms in the Gulf of Mexico. The rig
was transported from Panama, said Jeannie Garcia, DTSC public
information officer.
The department will host an open house and public meeting to
explain the contamination cleanup proposal and to answer
residents' questions about it.
Sue Doyle can be reached by e-mail at
sue.doyle@dailybulletin.comor by phone at (909) 483-9347.
Timeline:
Jul. 25: - No timetable set to finally begin drilling
May. 22: - Animal deaths cause concern
May. 17: - Norco mourns activist’s death
Apr. 27: - Parents want buildings near Wyle Laboratories tested
Apr. 18: - Latest measures show high toxicity
Mar. 17: - Mayor demands Wyle answers
Mar. 16: - Meeting to address Wyle lab findings
Mar. 14: - Wyle pollution spreading
Jan. 11: - Norco residents could fear finding contaminants
Jan. 10: - Study: Perchlorate not so toxic
Dec. 31: - Meetings scheduled on Wyle Laboratories
Dec. 28: - Homeowners near Wyle wonder if they'll ever sell
Dec. 14: - State asked to test Wyle site
Nov. 30: - Norco residents call for answers at Wyle meeting
Nov. 9: - Family stuck with land near Wyle
Sep. 11: - Wyle Labs taint local real estate market
Aug. 3: - Panel discusses Wyle Labs health concerns
Jul. 21: - Judge questions billboard ruling
Jul. 14: - House panel OKs water cleanup bill
Jul. 7: - State orders Wyle cleanup
Jul. 2: - Wyle area test results announced
Jun. 23: - Perchlorate plan rejected
Jun. 22: - Panel OKs perchlorate cleanup funds
Jun. 18: - Bill seeks U.S. help in cleanup of perchlorate
Jun. 16: - Norco residents anxious for probe results
Jun. 15: - Residents want 'deep' Wyle probe
May. 28: - Wyle to test soil at homes
May. 25: - Wyle forum planned
May. 12: - Homeowners join suit against builders on Wyle site
May. 11: - State officials say risk is minimal
Mar. 17: - Residents notified of Wyle meetings via bill
Mar. 9: - Group wants medical testing
Mar. 8: - Poor clean-up could make things worse
Feb. 20: - Norco can't replace group
Feb. 19: - New Wyle group proposed
Jan. 29: - Norco found negligent in handling of Wyle site
Jan. 12: - State claims Wyle findings being reviewed for accuracy
Jan. 8: - State to probe Wyle chemical findings - Scientists to
speak on Wyle Labs cleanup
Dec. 11: - Wyle probe to begin soon
Nov. 25: - Discussion becomes environmental debate
Oct. 21: - Residents want more members on Wyle panel
Oct. 16: - Panel to keep public informed on cleanup at Wylie
Laboratories
Oct. 9: - State EPA to have Wyle plan available to public
Sep. 25: - Firm hired to oversee testing at Wyle
Sep. 17: - Norco group to relay Wyle findings
Aug. 8: - Grand jury looks at Wyle
Jul. 30: - Centex suit denied as class action
Jul. 16: - Norco officials say geologist to be hired to conduct
tests at Wyle Laboratories
Jul. 1: - Protests fail to halt Wyle transfer
Jun. 30: - State agency takes over Wyle probe
Jun. 25: - Lab officials hope to counteract negative publicity
Jun. 12: - Agency official says spread of development triggered
decision
Jun. 9: - Wyle submits cleanup plan
Jun. 1: - Wyle meeting to include development issues
May. 20: - Soil testing near Wyle to begin in weeks
May. 16: - Activists ask for change in government oversight
May. 8: - Agency to test Wyle runoff
May. 7: - Norco City Council hears Wyle testimony
May. 3: - Wyle defends record, actions
May. 1: - Bill may hurt water cleanup
Apr. 25: - Cleanup ordered for Wyle Laboratories - More studies
needed at Wyle site - Leaders at odds over proposed new homes
Apr. 22: - Planning office has little time for environmental
documents
Apr. 21: - Study shows Wyle cancer rates normal
Apr. 14: - Environmental checklist on Wyle Labs site withdrawn
Apr. 8: - Federal EPA promises to assess Norco testing site
Apr. 3: - Official raps Wyle tests Councilman calls for another
look at Wyle
Copyright © 2005 Los Angeles Newspaper Group
*****************************************************************
36 North-West Evening Mail: Sellafield N-site set to be split up
Published on 15/08/2005
THE Sellafield nuclear site could be split up with each piece run
by a different contractor, according to the Nuclear
Decommissioning Authority.
The multi-billion pound organisation intends to put the operation
and management of its 20 UK civil nuclear sites out to tender.
It is hoping to accelerate the clean-up of the country’s
nuclear legacy, at a cost of Ł56bn to the taxpayer.
NDA chairman Sir Anthony Cleaver said: “We have to look at
getting maximum value by a combination of existing understanding
and historical awareness and bringing in new approaches.”
This could mean that Sellafield is operated by a number of
different contractors and there are already plans, in the
NDA’s draft strategy document, for an “industry-wide”
pension scheme to protect workers’ rights.
*****************************************************************
37 San Luis Obispo Tribune: Nuclear dump site far from opening, experts say
| 08/15/2005 |
David Sneed
The Tribune
As the state launched its first major assessment of nuclear
power issues in almost 30 years Monday, experts blasted the
Yucca Mountain waste disposal project and questioned whether the
site will ever open. If such a dump isn't developed, the spent
fuel from Diablo Canyon would continue to pile up at the plant
and would remain there -- potentially for decades into the
future.
A representative of the state of Nevada and a former member of a
California task force on nuclear waste both spoke forcefully on
the subject before members of the California Energy Commission.
A representative of the nuclear industry did not contradict
their points, but said simply that some kind of storage must be
found.
The federal Department of Energy, which is responsible for the
Yucca Mountain project, declined an invitation to attend the
hearings, which will continue into the afternoon and resume
tomorrow.
*****************************************************************
38 AU ABC: NT Parliament moves to oppose nuclear dump
07:00 (ACST)Tuesday, 16 August 2005. 08:00 (AEDT)Tuesday, 16
August 2005. 05:00 (AWST)![]()
Saturday, August 13, 2005
Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal
YUCCA MOUNTAIN: 'Monkey wrench'
Report: DOE hasn't fully studied how to handle damaged fuel assemblies
By STEVE TETREAULT
The Energy Department says it could be 2012 or later before the Yucca
Mountain complex will begin accepting spent nuclear fuel for burial.
WASHINGTON -- Thousands of fuel assemblies containing radioactive nuclear
waste are expected to arrive damaged at Yucca Mountain, including some with
undetected leaks and cracks, posing potential risks to workers and the
public, according to a report prepared for the government.
Handled without special precautions, fuel with damaged cladding that is
extracted from protective canisters and exposed to the air could trigger
chemical reactions, causing gases to escape and fuel pellets to oxidize into
micron-sized dispersible powders.
The released powders would result in "high levels of radioactive
contamination" in fuel-handling areas of the repository complex, Energy
Department and contractor engineers concluded in a study completed in March.
The Review-Journal obtained a copy through the federal Freedom of
Information Act.
Only months before the department has said it may apply for a license to
build a Yucca Mountain complex, the engineers concluded DOE had not fully
evaluated the hazards associated with handling damaged fuel at the site, nor
designed processes for managing it effectively.
Experts outside DOE expressed surprise.
"It is rather late in the day for these people to be thinking about this
stuff," said Arjun Makhijani, a nuclear engineer and president of the
Institute for Energy and Environmental Research. "It is truly astonishing
that they have not thought about this issue thoroughly a quarter of a
century after serious work on repositories began.
"This is a big deal. It throws one more monkey wrench into the process of
what issues are resolved and not resolved."
The Department of Energy wouldn't provide a representative to be interviewed
about the topic but supplied written answers to e-mailed questions.
"There have been a lot of meetings on this," a DOE official said on
condition of not being identified. "You are talking about design, and you
can't have a license application without a design."
The report identified areas where more research was advisable. They include
the rates at which fuel might degrade into powder form, potential worker
doses, and whether under any circumstances oxidized fuel could provoke a
nuclear chain reaction.
"The process for handling failed fuel in damaged fuel cans is not yet
detailed in current design documents, and the related hazards have not yet
been evaluated," the report's authors said.
DOE managers believe the matter can be addressed, "but it gets into cost and
other things -- like time -- depending on the design," an official said.
"They know what to do. It's a question of how they want to do it and what
will be required. And I'm sure the schedule has come up."
DOE officials earlier this year abandoned a 2010 opening date for the
repository, saying it could be 2012 and possibly later before Yucca Mountain
could begin accepting spent fuel for burial.
Among the options DOE is considering, according to officials familiar with
the issue, is adding a pool on the repository grounds so damaged fuel rods
can be handled underwater, as they are at nuclear power plants.
In its written responses, the DOE said it was planning "confinement cells
that include thick concrete walls and air locks to protect the worker and
the public from exposure to radiation."
At a June 6 public meeting in Pahrump, DOE official Richard Craun said
managers were working on designing rooms where oxygen would be pumped out
and replaced with nitrogen to create an inert atmosphere in which to handle
problem fuel.
"As a conservative measure, DOE will handle all assemblies in confinement
cells, whether damaged or not, to ensure the safety of the worker and the
public," the department said in its written replies.
"Operations may occasionally be interrupted to facilitate confinement cell
cleanup. Potential risk to the worker and the public from repository
operations are well within established federal radiation protection
standards."
DOE added it was considering "other design and operational practices that
would further prevent or mitigate the release of radionuclides. DOE is
evaluating the various options described in the report for inclusion in the
license application."
Potential fuel oxidation at Yucca Mountain has become a priority topic that
the Nuclear Regulatory Commission is monitoring as it awaits DOE's
repository licensing request, Tim Kobetz, an NRC senior project manager,
said at an Aug. 4 advisory board meeting.
NRC staff is preparing an evaluation of the issue, anticipating it could be
raised during Yucca license hearings.
"Fuel oxidation is definitely a potential risk," said Marissa Bailey,
engineering section chief in the NRC's division of high-level waste
repository safety. "It is something (DOE) will have to address in the
license application."
Nuclear utilities deal with damaged fuel on a regular basis, and it has been
studied extensively, said Dan Bullen, an engineering risk consultant and
former member of the Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board, which evaluates
Yucca Mountain science.
Even though Yucca Mountain would be a first-of-its-kind facility, Bullen
said, he believed DOE could minimize risks. Over 25 years that fuel would
arrive at the site, the number of damaged assemblies would be small, he
said.
"If they keep it in an inert atmosphere, it will not be a problem; and I
would agree with that," Bullen said. "I don't want to say it is easy, but it
is a realistic engineering approach."
Steve Frishman, a full-time consultant for the state of Nevada, said, "Given
time and enough experimental work, they can probably figure out how to run
an industrial operation which doesn't have the risk of high exposures which
they say are unacceptable.
"But either way, they haven't got enough knowledge of design of fuel
transfer at this point to have a license application in six months," he
said.
Bob Loux, director of the Nevada Agency for Nuclear Projects, said DOE
appears to have overlooked an issue important to safety.
DOE "has not thought through the issues of the surface operations, from what
we've seen," said Loux, who coordinates Nevada's official opposition to the
repository.
If DOE decides to install spent fuel pools, it would open a new set of
questions about earthquake vulnerability, Loux said.
Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., said the report shows evidence of project flaws and
more reasons why it should be ended.
"At no point while moving waste off site, to transportation to proposed
storage, can DOE protect workers and communities from being exposed to
dangerous levels of radiation," Reid said. "New so-called standards were
released this week for supposedly a million years into the future; but
according to this latest report, DOE can't even figure out how to remove the
waste from plant sites safely."
While much public attention has been focused on the projected performance of
an underground Yucca repository over thousands of years, nuclear waste would
be handled routinely at an industrial complex on the east side of the
mountain.
There, waste-bearing shipping casks arriving by train and truck would be
unloaded, unpacked and repackaged into burial containers or aging canisters.
Although the tasks would be handled by machinery and robots, workers would
be present.
Spent fuel assemblies are expected to arrive at Yucca Mountain at a rate of
about 9,000 a year, or 222,000 assemblies over 25 years.
The fuel study said about 4 percent, equating to 8,880 assemblies, "are
expected to have varying amounts of cladding damage that could lead to fuel
oxidation when the assemblies are handled in air."
Each of the damaged assemblies is expected to have an average of 2.2 failed
fuel rods, the study said.
Most of the damaged fuel will be identified through reactor records, "but a
small percentage of assemblies (approximately 0.4 percent or 1,000 fuel
assemblies) is expected to have unknown or undetected cladding damage that
could allow the fuel to oxidize."
During handling operations, a typical assembly is expected to be exposed to
the air for more than 100 hours at temperatures up to 400 Celsius, the study
stated.
"At these times and temperatures, fuel oxidation is expected for failed fuel
during normal waste handling operations," the study stated.
The rate of oxidation would depend on time and temperature.
Frishman said the report appeared to show that damaged fuel cladding at the
400 Celsius temperature could be susceptible to failure after two hours of
exposure to air.
DOE officials didn't comment on that point Friday.
During the oxidation process, the oxidized fuel would swell and could cause
further failure, a process called "clad unzipping."
"The contamination levels and dose rates resulting from normal handling of
commercial spent nuclear fuel are expected to be much higher than
desirable," the study stated. "Oxidized material released from fuel rods
will be difficult to control and account for."
According to government scientists, a preliminary analysis concluded the
amount of oxidized material that would be released would not pose concerns
for criticality, or a nuclear reaction. "However, the uncertainty with
oxidation rates and release fractions needs further evaluation to determine
if this preliminary analysis is conclusive," it said.
Bailey said the potential for criticality "is pretty low, because they are
handling fuel in a dry environment. There is not an issue of criticality."
© Copyright 2005
STEPHENS WASHINGTON BUREAU
================================
Dr Holloway,
(snip)
I am interested in the three articles of yours that I mentioned because they
inform on the topic of global dispersion of manufactured radionuclides (or
their decay daughters).
(snip)
If you could be so kind as to scan your old articles and post them at
DU-watch, as .pdf files, I would be most appreciative. You may even
consider using OCR technology to make them electronically accessible. You
might even consider encouraging your colleagues to democratise their
published but electronically inaccessible findings by doing likewise.
(snip)
------------------------ (paste) ---------------------------------
Date: Sat, 30 Jul 2005 22:17:44 +1000
From: "rrands"
Subject: Numerous publications by R Holloway
Below is a list of numerous publications in the area of radionuclides
in the environment by RW Holloway. The list promises very
interesting reading and I would be most appreciative if Mr Holloway
or anyone else could send me electronic text of:
Uranium and Thorium Abundances Across the Cretaceous-Tertiary
Boundary in Colorado, R.W. Holloway and D.E. Farmer, Chemical
Geology, 89, 201-207, (1990).
The Mean Residence Time of Plutonium in the Troposphere, R.W.
Holloway and D.W. Hayes, Environmental Science and Technology, 16,
172 (1982).
The Ratios of Fission Product Pairs with Similar Half-Lives in
the Atmosphere, R.W. Holloway, N.G. Sumerlin, J.N. Beck and P.K.
Kuroda, Journal of Geophysical Res., 79, 4453, (1974).
*****************************************************************
40 DOE: Correction on Expression of Interest Regarding the Scope of an
FR Doc 05-16130
[Federal Register: August 15, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 156)]
[Notices] [Page 47822] From the Federal Register Online via GPO
Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr15au05-40]
Intended Solicitation for Superconductivity Partnerships With
Industry (SPI) Projects AGENCY: Office of Electricity Delivery
and Energy Reliability, Department of Energy.
ACTION: Correction on notice of inquiry and opportunity to
comment.
SUMMARY: In a release included in the Federal Register on
Tuesday, August 2nd 2005, the Superconductivity Program within
the U.S. Department of Energy solicited comments on a pending
solicitation for Superconductivity Partnerships with Industry
(SPI) Projects.
That notice included an e-mail address for receiving electronic
comments. The included address was incorrect; the correct address
for responses is SPIcomments@tms-hq.com (repeated below).
DATES: Written comments are to be filed electronically by
e-mailing to: SPIcomments@tms-hq.com no later than 5 p.m. eastern
time September 30, 2005. Comments can also be submitted at the
address listed below.
ADDRESSES: Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability,
OE-2, Attention: SPI Comments, U.S. Department of Energy,
Forrestal Building, Room 6H-034, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW.,
Washington, DC 20585. Note that U.S. Postal Service mail sent to
DOE continues to be delayed by several weeks due to security
screening. Submission via FedEx or electronically is therefore
encouraged.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. James Daley, Office of
Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability, OE-2, Attention: SPI
Comments, U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue,
SW., Washington, DC 20585.
Dr. James Daley, Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy
Reliability.
[FR Doc. 05-16130 Filed 8-12-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450-01-M
*****************************************************************
41 Tri-City Herald: Bad decisions remain on site council horizon
Opinions
This story was published Monday, August 15th, 2005
The state's Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council has selected
some good projects to help finance with the $3.5 million pool of
cash set aside to restore the local environment.
But why almost half of the money should go to two projects
outside Benton County remains debatable.
The council is negotiating grants of up to $1.3 million to buy
habitat in Kittitas County and $400,000 to improve fish passage
at Hofer Dam on the Touchet River in Walla Walla County.
Good projects.
Not so good to fund them out of this money.
Consider where the money came from. Bonneville Power
Administration provided the $3.5 million after a
multi-jurisdictional decision was reached to postpone some site
restoration at Energy Northwest's Plants 1 and 4 here.
Note the last word in the sentence above.
The unfinished plants would not be cleaned up as soon as
planned, so mitigation money was offered for the delay.
The site evaluation council's board chairman, Jim Luce, makes
the point that the money involved in the collapse of the former
Washington Public Power Supply System's expansion plans involved
ratepayer money from the entire state. It was not just from
Benton County, where about 51 percent of the mitigation money is
to be spent.
Luce also says of the state Fish and Wildlife agency, which
pushed the Kittitas land purchase: "We pay substantial deference
to them."
Again: That's a great idea. But we're talking here about
mitigation money for leaving two incomplete nuclear reactors in
Benton County. The environmental money ought to be spent here.
All of it.
The signed agreement was that the "bulk" of the money would come
to Benton County, but the council arbitrarily chose to define
"bulk" as 51 percent.
It's a stingy definition.
And it seems designed to accommodate a state agency more than to
mitigate environmental issues in Benton County.
Certainly the designation of funds for the Hanford Reach
Interpretive Center in Richland and the Tapteal Greenway would
be a wise investment of part of the money if both can qualify
under the council's projected requirements.
And the $485,000 spent to help the ridgeline land on Badger
Mountain was an excellent -- and entirely appropriate --
investment.
But the Kittitas and Touchet projects smell more like Fish and
Wildlife had a reasonable desire to fix things there and then
took an unreasonable liberty in trying to get the money from the
wrong place.
The original agreement between the state, Energy Northwest and
Bonneville Power Administration specified the "bulk" of the
money was to be spent in Benton County. It also contained
another clause saying that any deviation from the intent of the
agreement would void it.
That's not what we suggest.
But as one party of the agreement said of the mitigation money,
"If you can't see it (the reactor complex), you shouldn't be
spending money there."
That seems a fair standard to us.
For the council to be spending close to 50 percent of the money
outside Benton County is a huge mistake that the county ought to
work to correct.
© 2005 Tri-City Herald, Associated Press &Other Wire Services
*****************************************************************
42 PISJ: Letters to the Editor Plutonium
Pocatello Idaho State Journal: Your Views:
What great crowds of Idahoans overflowed all the recent
Department of Energy hearings, to stop the politicians' plan to
cluster all plutonium-238 production into Idaho.
The DOE and politicians were humiliated. People ridiculed their
laughable claims of safety from plutonium accidents.
Even in Idaho Falls the crowd was against the plutonium cluster.
Only the high-paid DOE and politicians spoke in favor of this
insanity. DOE's own safety inspector, Tami Thatcher, even
testified how safety is not a priority in Idaho!
Our so-called state watchdog, Kathleen Trever, approved a
cleanup plan, leaving most of the old buried plutonium here.
This new project will open more new plutonium dumps on site,
according to DOE Order 435.1.
I will debate the politicians, Trever or DOE anytime. My DOE
documents prove they are liars. I do not use this word lightly.
These people threaten the health of our children.
Idaho downwinders are still waiting for cancer compensation
while our politicians volunteer us for more front-line nuclear
duty. In fact, the DOE refuses to say whether this
pu-238 will be used for the electric support of the new atomic
weapons, the Bunker Buster. Millions are being spent by our
politicians to "fast track" Nevada test site for preparation for
more atomic testing!
I can send any documents. E-mail me at nifty1@cableone.net. I'll
include a picture of our smiling politicians signing up for
Spaceport, Idaho!
What will stop them from launching plutonium space batteries
from Idaho, hoping another Challenger disaster will never happen
again, once they cluster into Idaho?
Please call your politicians toll-free at 1-877-762-8762. Add
your official comments to DOE toll at (800)-919-3706.
If we do not protect our children, and stop this plutonium
cluster now, it will spawn an evil in Idaho so large, it will be
uncontainable.
Dr. Peter Rickards,
Twin Falls
Karl Rove
This document was originally published online on Monday, August
15, 2005
*****************************************************************
43 The State: Study finds agency should de
08/15/2
By LAUREN MARKOE
Washington Bureau
WASHINGTON The U.S. Department of Energy should postpone plans
to leave nuclear waste in storage tanks at the Savannah River
Site, a new study commissioned by Congress recommends.
Environmentalists are praising the findings by the National
Academy of Sciences, but they predict the Energy Department
wont accept a key recommendation.
Were vindicated; this is what weve been saying all along,
said Dell Isham, director of the S.C. chapter of the Sierra
Club. But it may be a hollow victory because they may do
whatever they want anyway.
The Energy Department which owns SRS and wants to leave up to
5 percent of the waste at the site in some of the 49 tanks and
mix it with grout confirmed Ishams prediction.
We believe that for human as well as environmental health, the
wisest course of action is to proceed with tank closure,
department spokesman Mike Waldrin said.
Doing otherwise puts the cleanup in the position of always
waiting for the next technological development to come along and
would hamstring tank closure without providing a clear benefit.
But Isham and other environmentalists question whether the tanks
will hold up. They say all waste should be removed and sent to a
deep nuclear waste vault such as the one at yet-to-open,
controversial Yucca Mountain in Nevada.
They point to the reports conclusion that new technologies
developed during the next five to 10 years could make it easier
and cheaper to remove all waste from the tanks, so grouting and
sealing should be delayed.
The Department of Energy has indicated the report likely wont
change its tank closing schedule. Two tanks already have been
sealed, and the department wants the remaining 49 closed by
2022.
SRS, the 310-square-mile nuclear campus near Aiken that produced
much of the nuclear fuel for the nations Cold War arsenal, is
now primarily a nuclear waste reprocessing, research and storage
facility.
The nuclear waste addressed in the study sits in carbon steel
tanks buried a few feet below the ground. They can hold 36.4
million gallons of waste.
From each, the bulk of the waste can be removed and vitrified
turned into glass logs for burial at Yucca Mountain.
The disagreement is over the fraction of waste that lies at the
bottom of the tanks the hardened heel of the sludge, which
is more difficult to remove.
The Department of Energy estimates it could cost $500 million to
remove this sludge and argues that it is safer to leave it and
seal the tanks.
Environmentalists in 2003 won a lawsuit that demanded complete
removal. But subsequent federal legislation allows the Energy
Department to reclassify the sludge as low-level waste meaning
it could stay in the tanks.
U.S. Rep. John Spratt, D-York, inserted language into a defense
bill earlier this year directing the independent,
Washington-based National Academy of Sciences to take a year and
$1.5 million to study the storage of such waste at three sites,
including SRS.
The just-released study, which focuses only on SRS, is the
Academys interim report.
The NAS panel suggests that we can have our cake and eat it,
too that we can allow research into other technologies to
ensure that we are removing as much waste as feasible, Spratt
said.
Mal McKibben, executive director of Aiken-based Citizens for
Nuclear Technology Awareness, and a former SRS scientist, said
the Energy Department and SRS officials are willing to consider
new technologies that could remove even more waste from the
tanks but must balance that with the need to seal the tanks.
The longer we take to close those tanks, the greater the
possibility of having leaks, he said.
Reach Markoe at (202) 383-6023 or lmarkoe@krwashington.com.
TheStateOnline
*****************************************************************
NOTE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107 this
material is distributed without profit or payment to those who
have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for
non-profit research and educational purposes only. For more
information go to:
*****************************************************************