*****************************************************************
08/17/05 **** RADIATION BULLETIN(RADBULL) **** VOL 13.190
*****************************************************************
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 Interfax: Russia opposes pressuring Iran
2 Korea: Digital Chosunilbo: Roh Meets N.Korean Delegation
3 Reuters: Russian envoy says Kim Jong-il positive on talks
4 Reuters: S.Korea, U.S. to discuss North's civil atomic use
5 Reuters: US seeks N.Korea contact before next nuclear talks
6 Guardian Unlimited: Report: N. Korea May Return to Nuke Treaty
7 Guardian Unlimited Envoy: N. Korea May Return to Nuke Treaty
8 US: ContraCostaTimes.com: Local group has wish for nuclear cuts
9 US: Security Watch: The Pentagon's bid to militarize space
10 US: Defense News Media Group: Energy, NRC whistleblowers gain right
11 US: Reuters: US sets last-minute drive to scrap UN reform plan
12 Guardian Unlimited: All change but no change
13 Interfax: Russia against spread of nuclear arms - Kremlin source
14 Mos News: Russia’s Putin Warns Against Lowering Nuclear Threshold -
NUCLEAR REACTORS
15 US: [NukeNet] 8 Lies Propagagated By Nuke Industry & Responses To
16 IPS-English SOUTH KOREA-ENERGY: U.S. cooperation on nuclear
17 US: NRC: NRC to Hold Aug. 24th Public Meeting in Lacey Township, N.J
18 US: San Luis Obispo Tribune: No new nuclear plants
19 Washington Times: Chernobyl resettlement eyed
20 US: NRC: NRC Revises Schedule for Reviewing Existing Early Site Perm
21 RIA Novosti: Chernobyl radiation levels going down - Ukrainian minis
22 RIA Novosti: Volgodonsk named best nuclear power plant for 2004
23 US: Journal News: Indian Point phone line problem fixed
24 US: GBPG: Regulatory Commission’s review finds Point Beach Nuclear P
25 US: NRC: FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company (FENOC), et al.; Noti
26 US: NRC: Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards; Subcommittee Meet
27 US: NRC: Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards; Meeting of the
28 US: NRC: Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards; Meeting Notice
29 US: Monticello Times: Officer accidentally shoots foot while at nucl
30 US: Reuters: RPT-FPL to replace steam generators at St Lucie 2 nuke
31 US: Reuters: NRC extends review of nuclear early site permits
32 US: Reuters: Wisconsin Pt Beach nuke closer to license extension-NRC
33 IAEA: Risks to Nuclear Reactors Scrutinized in Tsunami´s Wake
NUCLEAR SECURITY
34 RIA Novosti: Russia leading the war on nuclear terrorism
35 Security Watch: Police seize Russian uranium in Istanbul
36 Mos News: Russian Uranium Seized in Turkey, Dealers Detained -
NUCLEAR SAFETY
37 Bellona: Blame game begins over near miss with Russian rescue sub
38 US: Hawk Eye: IAAP workers receive guidance
39 US: Hawk Eye: Labor officials explain program
40 US: WOI: Plant workers, families: When will we get our money?
NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE
41 US: Bradenton Herald: Lockheed plans info office
42 US: Deseret News: Hatch attacks Skull Valley plan
43 Las Vegas RJ: Report says repositoryto bite county budget
44 Las Vegas RJ: Nuclear group works on PR effort
45 US: Brampton Guardian: Councillors vow to fight nuclear incinerator
46 Platts: NRC rejects Nevada petition to change 1990 waste decision
47 Las Vegas SUN: Editorial: Yucca's cost is no object?
48 Las Vegas SUN: Anti-nuke group's report: 'Congress should cancel' Yu
49 NRC: [Docket No. PRM-51-8]
50 Las Vegas SUN: Nuke lobbyists to spend millions on new campaign
51 Baltic Times: Metal shipment raises frightening questions
52 Cincinnati ENQUIRER: Washington's million-year safety plan
53 US: Waste News: Texas think-tank wants U.S. to recycle nuclear waste
54 Las Vegas SUN: Clark County projects Yucca Mountain costs at $3.7 bi
55 US: Paducah Sun: USEC, needing to cut costs, cuts 50 salaried jobs
56 US: AU ABC: Australian mining company scopes Niue for uranium deposi
57 KVBC: Yucca Mountain Shipping Could Cost A Bundle
58 KLAS: New Yucca Report: Nevada May Have to Pay $4 Billion
59 US: NEWS.com.au: Making money with uranium
60 UK: News & Star: Dont ship spent fuel to Sellafield
PEACE
61 US: The Olympian: Olympia council votes city nuke-free
62 Japan Times: Double standards don't help
US DEPT. OF ENERGY
63 Seattle Times: Workers remove radioactive waste from third Hanford t
64 Tri-City Herald: Video helps doctors dealing with patients exposed a
65 Tri-City Herald: Puttin' down the hammer
66 Tri-City Herald: Hanford tank waste cleanup excels
67 TheNewMexicoChannel.com: Los Alamos Resumes Shipments To WIPP
68 The Olympian: 3rd Hanford tank cleaned
69 DOE: Conveyance and Transfer of Certain Land Tracts Administered by
*****************************************************************
*****************************************************************
FULL NEWS STORIES
*****************************************************************
*****************************************************************
1 Interfax: Russia opposes pressuring Iran
Aug 17 2005 3:16PM
MOSCOW. Aug 17 (Interfax) - Russia opposes the use of pressure
in tackling the Iranian nuclear problem, said Foreign Ministry
spokesman Mikhail Kamynin.
"We see a solution to the problems related to the Iranian
nuclear program exclusively in the field of consultations and
diplomatic talks, without fanning propaganda or political
confrontation. We advocate a further dialogue and think the use
of pressure would be counterproductive and dangerous, and may
entail unpredictable consequences," Kamynin said.
Kamynin's answers to reporters' question on the issue were
posted on the Foreign Ministry's website on Wednesday.
© 1991-2005 Interfax
All rights reserved
News and other data on this web site are provided for
information purposes only, and are not intended for
republication or redistribution. Republication or redistribution
of Interfax content, including by framing or similar means, is
expressly prohibited without the prior written consent of
Interfax.
*****************************************************************
2 Korea: Digital Chosunilbo: Roh Meets N.Korean Delegation
> Updated Aug.17,2005 19:25 KST
N.Koreans Milk Liberation Day for Propaganda Value
60 Years On, a War of Ideologies by Kim Dae-joong
A North Korean delegation attending joint Liberation Day
ceremonies in Seoul returned to Pyongyang on Wednesday after
rounding off their four-day, three-night stay with a lunch at
Cheong Wa Dae.
Roh spent about two hours with the North Koreans.
He told them North and South ˇ°must work together to round the
corner of the nuclear dispute and turn a new page in the history
of the Korean Peninsula."
Commenting on the celebrations marking 60 years of liberation
from Japanese colonial rule, Roh said, "I felt history was being
made.ˇ± He said a visit by the delegation to SeoulˇŻs National
Cemetery, the first by officials from North Korea, ˇ°was a very
good thing, and this could be the capital for better things to
come.ˇ±
President Roh Moo-Hyun (right) talks with visiting North
Korean chief delegate Kim Ki-nam during their meeting at Cheong
Wa Dae in Seoul, Wednesday. Kim has led a North Korean
delegation that arrived in Seoul on Sunday for four days of
joint celebrations to mark 60 years since Korea was liberated
from Japanese colonial rule.
President Roh expressed gratitude to North Korean leader Kim
Jong-il, telling delegation head Kim Ki-nam, "I'm very grateful
for his kind words when Unification Minister Chung Dong-young
visited North Korea, and for ensuring that the inter-Korean
relationship and six-party talks could develop afterwards."
Kim Ki-nam said, "I convey to you, Mr. President, greetings from
the dear General Kim Jong-il," and expressed thanks for South
Korean humanitarian aid of food and fertilizer. There had been
intense speculation that the delegation would pass a more
interesting verbal message from Kim to Roh, but Cheong Wa Dae
said that was all.
The North Korean delegation blazed a trail through South Korea
unlike any previous official visitors from Pyongyang, visiting
the National Assembly, going to see former president Kim
Dae-jung in hospital, and meeting with religious, labor and
student groups.
A Unification Ministry official said the delegationˇŻs attitude
was different from past visitors who tended to keep to
themselves. The group ˇ°proposed to visit the National Cemetery
first, engaged in no psychological warfare during the events,
conveyed an invitation to former president Kim, and positively
reviewed exchanges between Seoul National University and Kim
Il-sung University,ˇ± he said. Some commentators feel this
showed exchanges can get past systems and ideologies.
But an expert who asked to remain anonymous said the visitorsˇŻ
boisterous political slogans, including calls for the withdrawal
of U.S. forces from Korea, and unfiltered cries for national
unification during the events caused ideological confusion in
the South. Others said North Korea was winning the psychological
war after the group met with an unduly enthusiastic reception
from some labor and student groups. "One definitely has to
consider in events like this the concern that we may be disarmed
by North Korea's unification propaganda,ˇ± Prof. Yoo Ho-yeol of
Korea University said.
(englishnews@chosun.com )
*****************************************************************
3 Reuters: Russian envoy says Kim Jong-il positive on talks
Wed Aug 17, 2005 4:01 AM ET
MOSCOW, Aug 17 (Reuters) - North Korean leader Kim Jong-il is
positive about the six-way talks on Pyongyang's nuclear weapons
programmes, Russian envoy Konstantin Pulikovsky said on
Wednesday.
The six-way talks -- which include the two Koreas, the United
States, Russia, Japan and China -- are to resume in the week of
Aug. 29 after 13 days of talks earlier this month failed to reach
accord.
"I met the North Korean leader several times, including in an
informal setting. Naturally, we discussed questions linked to the
nuclear problem. Kim Jong-il is positive about the six-way talks
on the nuclear problem of the Korean peninsula," Interfax news
agency quoted Pulikovsky as saying.
"(Kim Jong-il) said he wouldn't need a single nuclear warhead
... if the United States stops its threats directed at his
country," added Pulikovsky, who visited Pyongyang earlier this
week.
The reclusive North Korean leader rarely meets foreign
officials. Pulikovsky said his meetings took place during
celebrations to mark the 60th anniversary of the end of the
Japan's wartime occupation of the Korean peninsula.
Pulikovsky also quoted Kim Jong-il as saying Pyongyang might
return to the Non-Proliferation Treaty if threats from Washington
ceased, Interfax reported.
North Korea withdrew from the treaty in 2002, when U.S. officials
accused Pyongyang of pursuing a clandestine weapons programme,
triggering an international standoff.
Early this year, Pyongyang announced it possessed nuclear
weapons and demanded Washington provide aid, security guarantees
and diplomatic recognition in return for scrapping them.
Washington has said it will make concessions to North Korea only
after Pyongyang has dismantled all of its nuclear programmes in a
verifiable way.
© Reuters 2005.
All Rights Reserved.
*****************************************************************
4 Reuters: S.Korea, U.S. to discuss North's civil atomic use
Wed Aug 17, 2005 3:34 AM ET
SEOUL, Aug 17 (Reuters) - South Korea and the United States will
discuss next week whether North Korea should eventually have the
right to a civilian nuclear programme, South Korea's foreign
minister said on Wednesday.
Ban Ki-moon told reporters he would travel to Washington on
Saturday and meet Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice on Aug. 23.
He said there was no major difference between the U.S. and South
Korean view on the North's possible future use of nuclear energy.
Ban also said the United States and North Korea were expected to
have contacts before the fourth round of six-country talks aimed
at ending Pyongyang's nuclear ambitions is scheduled to resume
later this month in Beijing.
China was also expected to hold bilateral consultations with the
North and the United States, he said.
"The government believes that if the North dismantles all
nuclear programmes, returns to the NPT and complies with IAEA
safeguard measures, it will come to have trust, and in that case
the door to its peaceful (nuclear) use may open," Ban said.
North Korea threw out International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)
inspectors on the last day of 2002 and withdrew from the nuclear
Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) in January 2003.
"I will consult closely with Secretary Rice and other senior
officials during my visit to the United States on this issue and
do our best to have this issue come to a sound agreement when the
fourth round of the six-party talks resume," he said.
Whether North Korea should be given the right to operate a
civilian nuclear programme was a key stumbling block at the
fourth round of nuclear talks involving the two Koreas, China,
Japan, Russia and the United States.
Pyongyang has said the sole purpose of operating such a
programme would be to generate energy.
Washington is suspicious that Pyongyang would easily convert
such a plan to military use and build nuclear weapons. The North
has already said it has nuclear weapons and is making more.
The talks went into a three-week recess on Aug. 7. The six
countries agreed to reconvene in the week of Aug. 29.
Ban said there was no fundamental disagreement between Seoul and
Washington on whether to allow the North to have the right to
conduct peaceful nuclear activities.
"There is no disagreement that has become a problem," Ban said,
adding the countries simply "have views when it comes to
details".
© Reuters 2005.
All Rights Reserved.
*****************************************************************
5 Reuters: US seeks N.Korea contact before next nuclear talks
Wed Aug 17, 2005 8:26 PM ET
WASHINGTON, Aug 17 (Reuters) - The United States has made
contact with North Korea as part of its preparations for
six-party nuclear talks later this month, the chief U.S.
negotiator said on Wednesday.
Christopher Hill said he had sent a message to his North Korean
counterpart through Pyongyang's mission at the United Nations in
New York, saying "we should be in touch if there are issues he
would like to raise and that I would be ready to be in touch."
U.S. officials will host South Korean and Japanese diplomats
next week and Hill hoped to meet or talk by telephone with
officials from North Korea, China and Russia before the
resumption of talks in the week of Aug. 29, he said.
The six parties took a three-week recess on Aug. 7 after 13
grueling days of talks in Beijing.
"The purpose of these three weeks is to be in touch and be
ready, because I would like this to be shorter than 13 days so we
can get on to the main event, which is negotiations," Hill said
in remarks at a Washington think tank.
The first task of the six parties would be to agree on a set of
principles under which North Korea would abandon all of its
nuclear arms programs in exchange for energy and economic aid, he
said.
An agreement on principle would clear the way for detailed
negotiations on the sequence of disarmament, aid, and crucial
verification measures, Hill said.
"Discovered, admitted to or not admitted to, all nuclear
programs have to be included" in the statement of principles and
any final agreement, he said.
A key hurdle in the previous session was North Korea's
insistence that it had the right to a civilian nuclear program.
Pyongyang declared itself a nuclear armed power in February.
The U.S. position is that North Korea's past record of throwing
out International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors and withdrawing
from the nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty means it cannot be
trusted with nuclear materials.
Resolution of the nuclear impasse could eventually lead to
normalization of relations between Pyongyang and Washington,
ending hostility stretching back to the 1950-53 Korean War and
bringing North Korea out of its deep international isolation.
South Korean Foreign Minister Ban Ki-moon will meet Secretary of
State Condoleezza Rice on Aug. 23. Hill's Japanese counterpart,
Kenichiro Sasae, is expected in Washington around Aug. 25, a
State Department official said.
© Reuters 2005.
All Rights Reserved.
*****************************************************************
6 Guardian Unlimited: Report: N. Korea May Return to Nuke Treaty
From the Associated Press
[UP]
Wednesday August 17, 2005 9:01 AM
MOSCOW (AP) - A Russian envoy who recently met with Kim Jong Il
said Wednesday the North Korean leader told him his country
could return to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty if the
United States stops threatening it, the Interfax news agency
reported.
Konstantin Pulikovsky, presidential envoy to the Russian Far
East, said he met with Kim several times during a visit this
week on the occasion of the 60th anniversary of Korea's
liberation from Japanese colonial rule.
The reclusive leader said he was positive about the six-nation
talks aimed at persuading North Korea to abandon its nuclear
weapons program, according to Pulikovsky.
``He said that he doesn't need a single nuclear warhead if the
United States drops its threats toward his country,'' Interfax
quoted the envoy as saying in a telephone interview.
Kim ``does not rule out North Korea's return to the nuclear
nonproliferation treaty in the absence of threats from the
United States,'' Pulikovsky said, according to the agency.
Russia has worked to re-establish Soviet-era ties with the
isolated Stalinist state in recent years and is one of the six
nations involved in the nuclear talks.
The latest round is in recess after the negotiators failed to
find agreement earlier this month. The North insists it should
still have the right to ``peaceful'' nuclear activities if it
gives up its weapons, but Washington wants the communist nation
to be nuclear-free.
The talks - among the two Koreas, the United States, China,
Japan and Russia - are to resume the week of Aug. 29 in
Beijing.
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2005
*****************************************************************
7 Guardian Unlimited Envoy: N. Korea May Return to Nuke Treaty
From the Associated Press
[UP]
Wednesday August 17, 2005 4:31 PM
By HENRY MEYER
Associated Press Writer
MOSCOW (AP) - A Russian envoy who recently met with Kim Jong Il
said Wednesday the North Korean leader told him Pyongyang could
return to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty if the United
States stops its perceived threats, the Interfax news agency
reported.
Konstantin Pulikovsky, presidential envoy to the Russian Far
East, said he met with Kim several times this week during a
visit marking the 60th anniversary of Korea's liberation from
Japanese colonial rule.
The reclusive Kim said he was positive about the six-nation
talks aimed at persuading North Korea to abandon its nuclear
weapons program, Pulikovsky said.
Those talks - which include the two Koreas, the United States,
China, Japan and Russia - broke off Aug. 7 in Beijing after 13
days. The North insists it should still have the right to
``peaceful'' nuclear activities if it gives up its weapons, but
Washington wants the communist nation to be nuclear-free.
The talks are set to reconvene in Beijing the week of Aug. 29.
Pyongyang withdrew from the international Nuclear
Nonproliferation Treaty after U.S. officials said in 2002 that
the North admitted violating a 1994 deal by embarking on a
secret uranium enrichment program.
``He said that he doesn't need a single nuclear warhead if the
United States drops its threats toward his country,'' Interfax
quoted Pulikovsky as saying in a telephone interview.
Kim ``does not rule out North Korea's return to the Nuclear
Nonproliferation Treaty in the absence of threats from the
United States,'' Pulikovsky said, according to the agency.
The North has accused the United States of having ``hostile
policies'' toward it and having its own nuclear weapons on the
peninsula. The United States rejects those accusations.
Meanwhile, South Korean Foreign Minister Ban Ki-moon said
Wednesday he will discuss the North's ``peaceful'' nuclear
activity with U.S. officials, including Secretary of State
Condoleezza Rice, during an upcoming visit to Washington.
But he stressed that the United States and his country agree on
the issue.
North Korea's ``door to peaceful uses (of nuclear energy) will
open in the future'' when it dismantles all nuclear programs,
rejoins the NPT and abides by the rules of the U.N. nuclear
watchdog agency, Ban told reporters. He is slated to leave for
Washington on Saturday.
Last week, South Korea Unification Minister Chung Dong-young
said the North has the right to a peaceful nuclear program - a
view in apparent conflict with Washington. Both U.S. and South
Korean officials later tried to play down any gulf between the
two allies.
Russia has worked to re-establish Soviet-era ties with the
isolated Stalinist state in recent years. President Vladimir
Putin has visited North Korea and hosted Kim twice.
But analysts say Russia is unlikely to be the channel for the
announcement of any significant move by Pyongyang.
``I don't think this is serious,'' Lukyanov, editor of the
Russia in Global Affairs journal, said of Kim's reported
comments.
Lukyanov said North Korea could always accuse the U.S.
leadership of having hostile intentions to justify maintaining a
nuclear weapons program.
``Kim wants to speak only to the United States. His view is that
it is the U.S. that makes all the decisions, and he is right,''
Lukyanov said, adding that China, a major aid donor to North
Korea, is the only country that likely could play an
intermediary role in the conflict.
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2005
*****************************************************************
8 ContraCostaTimes.com: Local group has wish for nuclear cuts
| 08/17/2005 |
By Betsy Mason
CONTRA COSTA TIMES
Every member of Congress received a wish list of budget cuts
from a network of nuclear watchdog groups on Tuesday, including
Livermore-based Tri-Valley CARES.
The report from the Alliance for Nuclear Accountability contains
a top-10 list of "radioactive pork projects" that the group
would like to see cut when the House and Senate go into
conference in September to reconcile differences in their energy
budgets for 2006.
"It would save taxpayers $2 billion in the coming year and many
tens of billions" in the future, said Marylia Kelley, executive
director of Tri-Valley Communities Against a Radioactive
Environment.
"The conferees should halt all programs supporting the research,
design, production and testing of new nuclear weapons as well as
those that subsidize the nuclear power industry," ANA director
Jim Bridgman said in a statement Tuesday. "Some of the savings
should be used to fund cleanup projects essential to protecting
public health and the environment."
The report's list includes nuclear weapons and nuclear energy
projects including $142 million for construction of Lawrence
Livermore Laboratory's super laser. Halting construction on the
National Ignition Facility would save $30 billion in the coming
years, said Kelley who authored a chapter on NIF in the report.
NIF has been under a lot of scrutiny lately after the Senate
recently zeroed out construction funding for the world's most
powerful laser in its budget but kept money to support research
with the four working laser beams. Construction, which is about
80 percent complete, has already cost $2.85 billion. The
finished product will consist of 192 laser beams and is expected
to bring the total cost to around $3.5 billion. The House kept
the full request for NIF in its budget.
Other projects that the ANA would like to see on the chopping
block include the robust nuclear earth penetrator, also known as
the "bunker buster" bomb that will be able to reach underground
bunkers or weapons caches. The House cut the Department of
Energy's $4 million request for bunker buster research and
development but kept $4.5 million for the Air Force to run test
drops with prototypes of the bomb. The Senate approved the DOE
request.
The alliance also recommends cutting money for eight other
projects including $7.7 million for the Modern Pit Facility,
$9.4 million for the Reliable Replacement Warhead and $651
million for the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository.
"The DOE budget supports a safe, secure, and reliable nuclear
weapons stockpile stewardship program as well as investments in
nuclear energy. The Alliance for Nuclear Accountability has a
different agenda," said John Belluardo, spokesman for the
National Nuclear Security Administration, the arm of the DOE
that oversees the nuclear weapons labs.
Betsy Mason covers science and the national laboratories. Reach
her at bmason@cctimes.comor 925-847-2158.
*****************************************************************
9 Security Watch: The Pentagon's bid to militarize space
[International Relations and Security Network]
If other powers succeed in implementing low-cost orbital
instruments that could endanger Washington's sophisticated space
weapons, the US could rapidly find itself in need of financing
hyper-expensive programs designed to protect the country - a
situation which could make the Pentagon regret having opened the
space front to begin with.
By Giuseppe Anzera for PINR (17/08/05)
A series of Pentagon initiatives aimed at space militarization
and at the creation of new types of armament - capable of
precisely striking small targets in every corner of the world
and to neutralize most of today's anti-aircraft defenses - will
likely result in a new power battlefield in the near future.
While the implementation of space weapons is likely to increase
the capability gap between Washington and other powers at first,
a broader vision reveals dangers involved in the move that could
affect US interests, for it will likely trigger off determined
reactions by its competitors. Competitor states could
successfully deploy a small number of low cost orbital weapons,
thus forcing the US to design an extremely expensive space
defense system.
At the moment, a space weaponization policy may generate more
troubles than advantages for Washington. Washington’s turn
toward space militarization
The Pentagon’s plans to militarize space have definitely
emerged. In mid-May 2005, the US Air Force formally asked
President George Bush to issue a presidential directive that
allows Washington to deploy defensive and offensive weapons into
orbit. Formally, the new directive is necessary to replace a
precedent decree (PDD-NSC-49 - National Space Policy) issued by
the Clinton administration which forbids the indiscriminate
militarization of space. While the decree has not yet been
issued, speculations over the Pentagon's move already hit the
news.
After the 2002 unilateral US withdrawal from the Anti-Ballistic
Missile Treaty, worries were raised about Washington's possible
start of such a program, for it could transform space into a new
battlefield. The US Air Force request, coupled with the April
2005 launch of the XSS-11 orbital micro-satellite, increased the
concerns of observers and world powers. XSS-11 is in fact
specifically designed to disturb other states'
military/reconnaissance or communication satellites.
A discontinuance of US traditional policy about the restricted
(e.g. peaceful) use of space could engender a new arms race -
which appears economically and technologically challenging and
way beyond many states' reach. Global strike and rods from God
On the technological level, the Pentagon's planning is in the
advanced stage: some projects - aimed at space weaponization -
have already been in place for some time. Among the (partially
known) Pentagon's new plans, the two most interesting projects
are the "Global Strike" program and the "Rods from God" program.
Global Strike involves the employment of military space planes
capable of carrying about 500 kg (1100 lbs) of high-precision
weapons (with a circular error probability less than 3 meters)
with the primary use of striking enemy military bases and
command and control facilities in any point of the world.
The main strength of military space planes is the ability to
reach any spot on the globe within 45 minutes. This is a short
period of time that could provide US forces with a formidable
quick reaction capability, as opposed to the enemy's subsequent
inability to organize any effective defense. Such a weapon's
primary target would be the enemy's strategic forces and -
according to US Air Force sources widely quoted in the press -
the Pentagon is inclined to give priority to this project. One
of the main reasons, these sources say, is that the Pentagon
itself - after spending over US$100 billion - has finally
admitted its failure to create an infallible earth-based
anti-missile system to protect the American soil from ballistic
strikes.
The US Air Force often underscores the space plane's wide
operational spectrum. In fact, its utilization encompasses that
of a strategic weapon as well as that of its defensive uses of
neutralizing nuclear missiles; it would have the ability to
target and eliminate militant and terrorist leaders. The space
plane could also be employed to suppress long-range air
defenses, thanks to its high mobility, hyper-fast deployment and
its immunity from the defenses of its opponents. Other uses
could be envisaged in the Integrated Air Defense System, as well
as surveillance tasks. Moreover, space planes could be easily
deployed to support the US Army's rapid reaction force and units
of Marines during power projection operations and redeployment
phases.
"Rods from God" is the evolution of a 1980s program. Basically,
it consists of orbiting platforms stocked with metal tungsten
rods around 6.1 meters long (20 feet) and 30 cm (one foot) in
diameter that could be satellite-guided to targets anywhere on
the earth within minutes, for the rods would move at over 11,000
km/hr (6,835 mph). This weapon exploits kinetic energy to cause
an explosion the same magnitude of that of an earth-penetrating
nuclear weapon, but with no radioactive fall-out. The system
would function due to two satellites, one of which would work as
a communications platform, while the other would contain an
arsenal of tungsten rods. Each of the satellites would be seven
meters long (23 feet) and its diameter would be approximately 30
cm (one foot).
However, serious problems would arise if the Pentagon begins the
operational phase - especially from a financial perspective.
Some studies maintain that Rods from God could be fully
operational in ten years. The targets of the rods would be much
more restricted than those of Global Strike. Their main targets
remains ballistic missiles stockpiled in hardened sites, or
orbital devices and satellite systems deployed by other powers -
according to the counter-space operation doctrine. Rods from God
can, however, be employed to strike targets in desert areas - be
they hardened sites or concentrated hostile forces.
Its devastating striking power does not allow such a weapon to
be used for other missions, if unsustainable collateral damage
is to be avoided.
Other projects - which often look like a revisited version of
former US President Ronald Reagan's Strategic Defense
Initiative's (SDI) programs - could also be undertaken, such as
space mirrors satellites redirecting laser beams from earth
against any orbit or surface target and satellites that send out
radio waves with a high range in power and breadth. Problems
The White House will face several problems if it wants to pursue
the ambitious project of space militarization consisting of both
offensive and defensive weapons.
The first point is the political issue. International reactions
to US plans have already appeared: Russian Defense Minister
Sergei Ivanov recently evoked an immediate reaction from Moscow,
and serious consequences were threatened should an orbital
weapon deployment be performed by Washington. Such a reaction
could consist of a modified version of the SS-18
intercontinental ballistic missile, capable of putting into
orbit a remarkable quantity of space vehicles - which could even
carry military nukes, thus making the US planned intercepting
effort much more difficult.
It is easy to imagine that space weaponization - once in place -
could be employed as well by US rivals at any occasion, as these
latter will develop mutual strategic ties just like China and
Russia are doing in Central Asia.
The second problem is economic. Orbital weapons - as the
Strategic Defense Initiative showed in the 1980s - are extremely
expensive. It has been estimated that a space defense system
against weak ballistic missile strikes could cost between US$220
billion and US$1 trillion. A laser-based system to be used
against ballistic missiles would cost about US$100 million for
each target.
For instance, the Future Imagery Architecture - a project aimed
at the implementation of new spy satellites which are vital to
identify targets for space weapons - has already reached a cost
of US$25 billion. It is a legitimate question, therefore, of
whether Washington really needs to finance such projects in
today's geostrategic context. Moreover, would these tools be
cost-effective in relation of their real operational capability?
The first question raises doubts and the second one remains, at
the moment, without answer. Henceforth, such initiatives
resemble more and more Reagan's SDI.
The third fundamental problem is of strategic nature. The
implications of space militarization are enormous, and its
consequences can't be predicted. It is certain that - in the
short term - US financial and technological superiority would
increase the already prominent gap in military power between
Washington and the rest of the world. In addition, some of the
new weapons could give the White House new effective tools to
fight against symmetrical (states) and asymmetrical (terror
networks) threats. However, in the long run, a military
colonization of outer space could very well be started by other
powers - which would hardly tolerate Washington's quasi-private
use of space.
The Clinton administration decided to take the opposite route
and avoided international space militarization, as it considered
a new front useless because of the US military's overwhelming
dominance on land, sea and air.
Moreover, the orbital deployment of offensive weapons - even
though unequivocally non-nuclear - can be perilous for various
reasons. First of all, the US is currently obligated not to
deploy atomic or WMD space weapons, as it signed the 1967 Outer
Space Treaty. Even if Rods of God is not a nuclear weapon, its
impact power is near the magnitude of a nuke. Hence, it is not
certain that the international community will consider it a
conventional weapon, and a violation of the treaty could,
therefore, be claimed. As a consequence, an indiscriminate race
to space weaponization could begin - involving the orbital
deployment of WMD and nuclear weapons. This latter scenario
could result in a problem for the US, a problem that its
decision-makers in the 1960s strived to avoid at any cost.
Second, political consequences of a quasi-nuclear weapon should
not be overlooked. If Rods of God will be used and other powers
will perceive it as the equivalent of a nuclear strike, many
states could change their perception of WMD and nuclear weapons
standards. A stark decrease in the traditional refrain from
using nuclear bombs could then occur, thus changing the current
strategy behind nuclear weapons: that of deterrence tools. A
hazardous road
The road to space weaponization is hazardous. The current US
administration appears confident that it can handle the issue
successfully. As usual, when a new category of weapons sees the
light, it is not clear whether newcomers will suffer from
perpetual disadvantage.
If other powers succeed in implementing low-cost orbital
instruments that could endanger Washington's sophisticated space
weapons, the US could rapidly find itself in need of financing
hyper-expensive programs designed to protect the country - a
situation which could make the Pentagon regret having opened the
space front to begin with.
This article originally appeared in Power and Interest News
Report, PINR, at (www.pinr.com). All comments should be directed
to content@pinr.com.
» Current issues links
*****************************************************************
10 Defense News Media Group: Energy, NRC whistleblowers gain right to jury trial
August 17, 2005
By AIMEE CURL
A small provision in 2005 Energy Policy Act is a big
breakthrough for whistleblowers at the Energy Department and
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
The amendment — sponsored by Sens. Harry Reid, D-Nev., and John
Ensign, R-Nev. — guarantees federal and contract employees at
Energy and NRC the right to a jury trial if they don’t receive
an administrative ruling on a complaint within one year.
Currently a federal employee who blows the whistle and seeks
protection under an environmental statute does not have a right
to a trial by jury, but rather must seek a resolution from the
Labor Department’s Occupational Safety and Health
Administration.
Federal employees also are protected against retaliation for
blowing the whistle under the 1989 Whistleblower Protection Act,
which guarantees them redress through the Office of Special
Counsel, but with no time limit and no right to a jury trial.
Federal contract workers already have the right to trial under
three laws. However, the 1974 Energy Reorganization Act, which
established the regulatory commission, excluded NRC contractors
from certain whistleblower provisions under the environmental
protection laws.
The provision in the new energy law remedies this by clarifying
that all Energy and NRC employees, including contractors, are
granted these protections under environmental statutes,
including the right to pursue a jury trial if they don’t receive
a response from the Labor Department within 365 days. The new
law does not address cases before the Office of Special Counsel.
“For us, it’s more than just a matter of an expeditious ruling,
it’s long been recognized that a jury trial is a government
worker’s only genuine chance for justice,” said Tom Devine,
legal director at the Government Accountability Project, a
nonprofit organization that provides legal assistance to
government and corporate whistleblowers. “Right now federal
employees are limited to a highly politicized administrative
process that’s really a shadow of due process.”
Devine said the time limit is a response to the Labor Department
“sitting on controversial cases.”
“One complaint related to the Hanford Nuclear Facility [in
Washington] went through the administrative process for 12
years,” he said. “We call the Labor Department the black hole
docket.”
Tessa Hafen, a spokeswoman for Reid, said the lawmaker has been
working on getting this provision into the energy bill for
years.
“Senator Reid has had a lot of experience with whistleblowers
when it comes to the Yucca Mountain project,’’ in Nevada, she
said. “A few witnesses were scheduled to testify and backed out
when DOE called them. He wanted to make sure it’s easier for
whistleblowers to come forward and make sure there’s nothing in
the way to deter them.”
Devine said it stands to reason that whistleblowers should be
judged by a jury of their peers.
“A jury of taxpayers whom the whistleblowers are purporting to
defend when risking their jobs is the most credible source of
justice and closure,” he said.
The amendment was added late last month as House and Senate
conferees wrapped up negotiations on the massive energy bill.
President Bush signed the measure into law Aug. 8.
The House originally proposed a 540-day time limit before a
whistleblower could go to trial, while the Senate wanted 180
days. In the end, the two bodies split the difference.
While he was happy the House and Senate reached a compromise,
Devine said that a year is a long time.
“Most whistleblowers can hang on with their savings for six
months. If they have to wait a year, they’re hanging by their
fingernails. By 540 days, they’ve reached a fiscal flat line,”
he said. “A year is just functional, but compared to the average
timeframe of two to three years to get a ruling from the Labor
Department, it’s a big improvement.”
An OSHA spokesman issued a statement saying the agency takes its
responsibilities to administer whistleblower provisions “very
seriously.” It added that the agency “endeavors to protect the
interests of workers while meeting the requirements of all the
appropriate statutes.”
Craig Stevens, an Energy Department spokesman, said the
department “appreciates the clarification and will follow the
letter of the law.”
Devine said he’s hopeful Congress will see the provision as
precedent setting and work to expand it to incorporate
whistleblower cases outside of those relating to the
environmental statutes, to include those before the Office of
Special Counsel.
He said there’s interest among some lawmakers in using pending
legislation, The Federal Employee Protection of Disclosures Act,
which may get a hearing this fall in the House Government Reform
Committee, as a vehicle to do this.
*****************************************************************
11 Reuters: US sets last-minute drive to scrap UN reform plan
Wed Aug 17, 2005 5:04 PM ET
UNITED NATIONS, Aug 17 (Reuters) - The United States has
launched a last-minute drive to scrap much of a draft plan for
comprehensive U.N. reform just weeks before it is to be adopted
at a world summit, Western diplomats said on Wednesday.
One option put forward by Washington would be to return to
square one and launch line-by-line negotiations on the document,
the diplomats said, insisting on anonymity so as not to anger
Washington.
But another top diplomat involved in the negotiations dismissed
the others' concerns, saying the initiative was a negotiating
tactic the United States fully expected would be rejected by U.N.
General Assembly President Jean Ping, who is leading the talks.
"Their position is still evolving. They are looking at other
ways forward," this diplomat said, also speaking on condition of
anonymity.
The U.S. effort comes in the final stages of the drafting
process, with negotiators last Friday unveiling what they hoped
would be a near-final draft. Negotiations resume on Monday.
It also falls two weeks after the arrival at U.N. headquarters
of U.S. Ambassador John Bolton, President George W. Bush's
contentious choice to press for U.N. reform despite his inability
to win U.S. Senate approval for the post.
The aggressive and sometimes abrasive Bolton is a longtime U.N.
critic and a skeptic on the value of multilateral action who was
accused by Senate Democrats of seeking to twist intelligence
findings to advance Bush foreign policy goals.
The U.N. document, intended to serve as a blueprint for bringing
the world body into the 21st century, touches on a broad range of
issues from U.N. management reform -- a top U.S. priority -- to
eliminating poverty, protecting human rights and ending the
spread of nuclear arms.
Adoption of the document, currently weighing in at 38
single-spaced pages, is meant to mark the climax of a Sept. 14-16
U.N. summit expected to draw more than 170 world leaders to New
York. Bush is among those expected to attend although he has not
formally responded to an invitation.
'VERY LATE'
Diplomats involved in the drafting process said they feared such
an extensive rewrite at this point would reopen many contentious
issues thought to be settled, and could end up sinking the
document altogether.
"The U.S. objections are not unexpected, but it is very late in
the process," said a diplomat close to the drafting process, who
also asked not to be identified by name.
A U.S. official expressed surprise that other delegates would
find it unusual that Washington would seek major revisions and
line-by-line negotiations at this point.
"We have been giving our input and continue to do so," said
Richard Grenell, spokesman for the U.S. Mission to the United
Nations. "It is a thorough and exhaustive process that we will
continue to work on until it's finished."
The United States has been a regular participant in the
negotiations, and diplomats involved in the drafting said
Washington has had a major impact on the document to date.
They said that was why they were surprised to learn that the
United States had at this stage circulated a document that
proposed eliminated most of the latest draft and suggested
starting line-by-line reconsideration with all 191 U.N. members
invited to the table.
The drafting has been conducted informally to date, to keep the
focus on the whole package and off the details.
"Their concern is that the draft is not in their view
summit-worthy -- that it would be hard to convince Bush that it
would be worth his while to come to New York to sign it," said an
envoy involved in the talks, who also asked not to be identified
by name.
"To be fair, they are not a voice crying in the wilderness,"
said this diplomat, adding that developing nations also had
reservations about much of the text.
But the section of the document on development and poverty was
the top target of the U.S. revisions, a tactic certain to anger
developing nations, which make up the overwhelming majority of
the U.N. membership, the diplomats said.
© Reuters 2005.
All Rights Reserved.
*****************************************************************
12 Guardian Unlimited: All change but no change
Iran may have a new cabinet, but hopes that it would make any
concessions to reform appear to have been dashed, says Robert
Tait
Wednesday August 17, 2005
Dawn has barely broken on the fledgling presidency of Mahmoud
Ahmadinejad, but Iran's new leader is already showing ominous
signs of realising the worst fears of his liberal-minded
opponents.
The ultra-Islamist former mayor of Tehran, who was elected
president in an unforeseen electoral landslide in June, offered
his first serious indication of intent when he announced the
make-up of his cabinet on Sunday.
If the nation's downcast political reform movement had been
hoping he would use the occasion to reach out to it across the
yawning political divide, it was badly disappointed. Far from
revealing an inclusive "big tent" cabinet, Mr Ahmadinejad named
a team of unreconstructed religious conservatives after his own
heart.
It was yet another body blow to reformers, who were badly in need
of encouragement after an election defeat that compounded years
of setbacks.
During that time, the former president Mohammed Khatami's
liberal-leaning administration was repeatedly blocked in its
attempts to bring lasting change.
Mr Ahmadinejad's 21-strong all-male cabinet (the Islamic
Republic has never had a female cabinet minister) presents a
tellingly hirsute spectacle. With the sole exception of the
economics minister, Davoud Danesh-Jafari, all the new ministers
sport a fecund display of facial hair in the best Islamist
tradition.
But it is Mr Ahmadinejad's choices for some key portfolios that
has set reformist nerves on edge.
Many observers see the intelligence, interior and culture
ministries as the acid test of his seriousness about delivering
on his post-election pledge of a "government of moderation".
If that is the case, the signs are not promising. For all three,
Mr Ahmadinejad has chosen noted hardliners whose track records
indicate little inclination towards tolerating dissent or social
freedom.
His choice of interior minister, Mustafa Pour-Mohammadi, is a
case in point. The interior ministry was previously seen as a
bastion of reformism but, under Mr Pour-Mohammadi, that could
change drastically.
With a background as a revolutionary and military prosecutor in
the early years of the regime, the new man is likely to have
little truck with reformist notions.
Most worryingly, he was the deputy intelligence minister in the
late 90s, when his immediate superior was forced to resign after
being implicated in the serial murders of several political
dissidents. When his boss quit, Mr Pour-Mohammadi resigned as
well.
A similarly bleak tale can be read into Mr Ahmadinejad's choice
of minister for culture and Islamic guidance, in charge of
deciding the level of artistic and press freedom in Iran.
Mohammad Hossein Saffar-Harandi - like Mr Ahmadinejad, a former
revolutionary guard commander - threatens to be a bath of
ice-cold water in comparison with the relative cultural warmth
of Mr Khatami's presidency.
Until recently, he was editor in chief of the Kayhan newspaper,
where he upheld a staunchly hardline editorial policy that
reflected his likely approach to his new job.
Ghollamhossein Mohseni-Ejeie, the new intelligence minister,
served as the judiciary's representative to the intelligence
ministry in the early 90s, recalled by many Iranians as a period
of political repression and tight religious control.
With fears rising of a new era of authoritarianism, leading
figures elsewhere on the political spectrum are being spurred
into action.
Seeing the need for some sort of concerted opposition, Mr
Khatami has begun talks with his predecessor as president, Akbar
Hashemi Rafsanjani - defeated by Mr Ahmadinejad in June's
election - apparently with the aim of forming a coherent team of
former ministers who can criticise the new government.
The two former presidents have expressed concern over what they
see as the exclusion of competent and experienced figures from
the new administration.
Ordinary people have more mundane worries. In the febrile
atmosphere of uncertainty accompanying the Ahmadinejad
government's early days, rumours of social crackdowns abound.
The latest is that the new government is to ban travel agents
from offering organised tours to the Turkish resort of Antalya,
popular with secular middle-class Iranians, on religious
grounds.
It may be untrue, but the fears are a reflection of the signals
Mr Ahmadinejad is sending with his choice of ministers, whose
appointments have still to be confirmed by the majlis, Iran's
parliament.
On the face of things, similar uncompromising messages are being
emitted on the standoff with Europe and the US over Iran's
nuclear programme.
The new foreign minister, Manouchehr Mottaki, and Ali Larijani,
the new secretary of the supreme national security council, are
hardline advocates of Iran's nuclear rights who have criticised
the Iranian negotiators for being too soft in their talks with
the EU.
However, things may be less clear than they appear on this
issue. Conventional wisdom had it that the resignation of Mr
Larijani's predecessor, Hasan Rowhani, would spell the end of
negotiations with the EU trio of Britain, Germany and France.
Now he has been put in charge of these talks, however, Mr
Larijani has adopted a more reasonable tone.
"Iran deems it a principle to continue talks, and it accepts
negotiation as the right manner," he told the Sharq newspaper
this week. "We can reach a conclusion with a win-win situation
defined for both sides."
It may be a smokescreen, of course, designed to split the EU
from the US after George Bush's warning last week that military
force remains an option for dealing with the Iran situation.
Or it may be a sign that Iran's Islamist new president is
capable of surprising the world.
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2005
*****************************************************************
13 Interfax: Russia against spread of nuclear arms - Kremlin source
Aug 17 2005 3:56PM
MOSCOW. Aug 17 (Interfax) - Russia is opposed to the
proliferation of nuclear weapons and its position on Iran
remains unchanged, a high- ranking Kremlin source told
journalists on Wednesday.
"Russia has always been opposed to the proliferation of nuclear
weapons, particularly in Asia. This region has extensive
potential for conflicts," the source said.
Ways should be found to develop Iran's nuclear power sector
"that would not hurt the legitimate rights of the Iranian people
and their interests in developing peaceful nuclear
technologies," he said.
Russia will continue to be guided by such principles, he said.
© 1991-2005 Interfax
All rights reserved
News and other data on this web site are provided for
information purposes only, and are not intended for
republication or redistribution. Republication or redistribution
of Interfax content, including by framing or similar means, is
expressly prohibited without the prior written consent of
Interfax.
*****************************************************************
14 Mos News: Russia’s Putin Warns Against Lowering Nuclear Threshold -
MOSNEWS.COM
Image by MosNews.com
Created: 17.08.2005 16:12 MSK (GMT +3), Updated: 16:12 MSK
MosNews
Russian President Vladimir Putin has warned against lowering the
threshold for using nuclear weapons and said that he saw such
trends as dangerous, Russian news agencies reported on Wednesday.
“Lowering the threshold for using nuclear weapons is a dangerous
trend taking shape in the minds of some politicians and
soldiers. It could increase the temptation to use nuclear
weapons,” the president told a news conference. “If it happens,
it will be possible to make further steps toward using more
powerful nuclear weapons, which creates the threat of a nuclear
conflict breaking out,” Putin said.
Earlier on Wednesday president Putin oversaw the launch at sea
of a ballistic missile after being flown to the site of a major
military training by a strategic bomber jet laden with cruise
missiles.
Copyright © 2004 MOSNEWS.COM
*****************************************************************
15 [NukeNet] 8 Lies Propagagated By Nuke Industry & Responses To
Date: Wed, 17 Aug 2005 20:31:46 -0700
version=3.0.4
X-Spam-filter-host: darwin.ctyme.com - http://www.junkemailfilter.com
caught runtime exception: No such file or directory
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
"Taken as a story of human achievement, and
human blindness, the discoveries in the sciences
are among the great epics."
-Robert Oppenheimer
"It is still an unending source of surprise for
me to see how a few scribbles on a blackboard or
on a sheet of paper could change the course of
human affairs."
-Stanislaw Ulam
http://www.mothersalert.org
http://www.mothersalert.org/moreinfo.html
----- Original Message -----
From: marilynelie@aol.com
To: Westcan@yahoogroups.com ;
ipsecsteer@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, August 17, 2005 9:49 PM
Subject: [westcan] Eight Myths of Nuclear Power or
Lies told by the Industry
Here are some ideas for letters or community
view pieces to local papers. Hopefully, many
different people can use this as a resource for
their own letters. The list is much too long as
is, but it is easy to pick the myths that seem
most important in your situation, change it to
suit your style cut the rest and send it in. This
is a comprehensive list of industry lies and may
also prove useful for talking points for future
presentations.
Please feel free to use this information in any
way that is helpful to you and to send it out to
any local paper, listserv, newsletter or other
source where it might get printed or passed on.
Sincerely,
Marilyn Elie
WestCan
Truth Vs. Propaganda - Nuclear Style
The nuclear industry has hit the jackpot with
billions in subsidies tucked inside the energy
bill that just passed Congress. For years they
have pursued a carefully thought out, long term
strategy that promotes the construction of new
reactors while limiting public participation. They
now have powerful friends in Washington where the
climate favors both corporations and nuclear
power.
The agency that is supposed to regulate them is in
their hip pocket and there is a revolving door
from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to industry
related jobs. It all makes for a powerful
strategy that has very little connection to
reality. With billions of dollars at stake the
nuclear industry will stop at nothing to keep old
reactors going and to get new ones started.
Industry myths lull the public into complacent
acceptance. Making the facts available and
helping people understand what is really at stake
is crucial if we are to preserve our democracy.
Myth
Nuclear power is the answer to global warming.
It does not produce green house gases and is a
clean way to produce electricity.
Fact
Green house gases are released during the fuel
enrichment process. Creating fuel rods requires
a lot of electricity that is supplied by
coal-fired generators. Like oil, nuclear power
is a nonrenewable source of energy. There is a
finite amount of high-grade uranium ore.
Myth
It is possible to store nuclear waste safely.
Eventually science will find a way to either
neutralize or reuse it.
Fact
High-level radioactive waste is deadly for tens of
thousands of years. The casts that are currently
used for storage are estimated to last 300 years
or less. The industry has had 30 years to find a
solution and has failed miserably. Yucca
Mountain, the site proposed for storage, is dead
due to scandal and fake science. No one wants a
nuclear dump in their community. When a
dangerous substance cannot be safely disposed of,
the protocol in solid waste management is to stop
producing it for the safety of present and future
generations.
Myth
If a fully fueled jet hit the containment dome of
a nuclear power plant it would not penetrate.
Airplanes are like empty tin cans, the wings would
crumple and only the engine block could make a
dent. The research video by Sandia Lab that
shows a fighter jet crashing into a concrete block
is proof of this. The plane was destroyed but
the concrete block was virtually undamaged.
Fact
The US Army Corps of Engineers has considerable
practice blowing things up. Their report, done
at Argonne Laboratory for the NRC, states that a
commercial jet traveling more than 466 mph would
smash through a containment dome and overwhelm
safety systems.
The video from Sandia Labs is of a crash test used
in the design of reconstruction software. It
simulated the crash of an unfueled jet fighter
into a mountain. The F-4 fighter weighed 42,000
pounds and was rammed with a rocket sled into a
12-foot thick, one million pound concrete block.
In no way does this come even close to simulating
the crash of a 395,000-pound Boeing 767 into the
3.5-foot containment dome. Sandia labs have
tried for years to put an end to this abuse of
their work.
Myth
You cannot use 9/11 as an example of terrorism
when talking about nuclear safety. The twin
towers were simple glass and steel frames, much
less sturdy or "hardened" than nuclear power
plants.
Fact
The Twin Towers were enormous structures designed
to resist major stress and reinforced with #24
steel rebar, much stronger than the #18 rebar
typically used in the construction of containment
domes. The analysis of the collapse of the towers
showed that when the wings of aircraft are fully
loaded with fuel they are solid, steel-jacketed
structures with more mass than the reinforced
concrete they easily sliced through.
The real vulnerability that the industry avoids
talking about is the spent fuel pools that are
housed in industrial type buildings. The NCR's
October 2000 study into possible spent fuel pool
accidents states flatly that aircraft damage can
affect the structural integrity of the spent fuel
pool or the availability of nearby support
systems. It went on to estimate that half the
commercial aircraft now flying are large enough to
penetrate 5-foot-thick concrete walls. This is
hardly the type of scenario that lends itself to
repair by first responders from the local fire
department. In addition, the NCR's 2000 study of
fallout from a spent fuel fire or reactor meltdown
indicates it would release high levels of
radiation and cause fatal, radiation-induced
cancer in an estimated 138,000 people residing up
to 500 miles away.
Myth
Exposure to low-level doses of radiation is not
harmful; in fact it might even be good for you.
The regular, routine releases of radiation from
nuclear reactors are extensively monitored and are
all below regulatory concern.
Fact
Recently The National Academy of Science released
their analysis of 15 years of data. They
unequivocally stated that exposure to low levels
of radioactive isotopes including those from
nuclear power plants do cause cancer. This is
the huge and unnecessary cost in human suffering
that we currently pay whenever we flip on a
switch.
Myth
You cannot compare Chernobyl to US reactors.
Chernobyl was a faulty Russian design that was
poorly constructed and had no containment dome.
Our reactors are superior American construction
with impenetrable containment domes.
Fact
The type of nuclear power plant used at Chernobyl
is not the issue. The fuel used at each reactor
and its potential for lethal contamination is key.
We are not looking at construction but at what is
released. The cesium that was released in great
quantities at Chernobyl is what renders the
exclusion zone around Chernobyl unfit for human
habitation. Currently there is a twenty to
thirty-year accumulation of cesium in the spent
fuel pools at most reactors and the spent fuel
pools are outside of the containment domes.
Myth
Countries in Europe and Asia are building nuclear
power plants to meet their energy needs. These
countries have no problem, why should we?
Fact
All countries with nuclear power plants are facing
the same problems as we are, nor do they have
solutions. However, these countries are not
participatory democracies. They have very
different forms of government and decisions are
made from the top down. Organizations speaking out
for the public interest are weak or nonexistent.
Citizens have scant ways of finding out about
projects and policies that may be harmful to
people or the environment. You cannot compare
the end results without comparing the structures
that produced those results. Are those making this
argument really suggesting that we scrap our form
of government for French socialism or Chinese
totalitarianism?
Myth
Nuclear power plants do not damage the rivers they
use for cooling purposes. Any fish caught up in
the intake are returned to the river. The water
is returned to the river a few degrees warmer and
the fish really like it that way.
Fact
The enormous amount of river water processed
through the plant degrades the river and affects
aquatic life in an extremely adverse way.
Millions of fish and fish eggs are killed each
year as they are drawn into the plant. The
heated discharge water changes the ecology of
rivers and can create thermal barriers that
prevent spawning. A community resource is used
and despoiled at no cost to a corporation.
In a court of law, if a witness is caught lying,
the judge instructs the jury they may rightly
infer that the opposite testimony is true. The
same standard should apply as the fate of the
nuclear industry is weighed in the court of public
opinion.
Marilyn Elie
Co-Founder, Westchester Citizens Awareness Network
Citizens Awareness Network is a grassroots
organization dedicated to a nuclear free
northeast. Marilyn Elie has been actively
involved in the effort to close the reactors at
Indian Point in Buchanan, New York for the last
decade.
SPONSORED LINKS Indian point Nuclear power plant
_______________________________________________________________________
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 IPS-English SOUTH KOREA-ENERGY: U.S. cooperation on nuclear
Date: Wed, 17 Aug 2005 14:59:37 -0700
X-Spam-filter-host: darwin.ctyme.com - http://www.junkemailfilter.com
caught runtime exception: No such file or directory
X-Spam-filter-host: darwin.ctyme.com - http://www.junkemailfilter.com
AP IP HD DV
SOUTH KOREA-ENERGY: U.S. cooperation on nuclear hydrogen research
Att.Editors: The following item is from the Emirates News Agency (WAM)
SEOUL, Aug. 17 (WAM) - South Korea and the United States will work together
to develop a next-generation nuclear reactor that promises to produce large
quantities of hydrogen at a low cost, according to the South Korean Ministry
of Science and Economy Wednesday.
The joint project is expected to help South Korea to better prepare for
the so-called hydrogen economy where hydrogen will become a major source of
energy.
The ministry said the Korea Atomic Energy Research Institute and Doosan
Heavy Industry and Construction Co. are pushing to set up a joint nuclear
hydrogen research centre in cooperation with General Atomics, a U.S.-based
nuclear technology company.
"The project is part of an ongoing effort by the government to join a
multinational effort to build a fourth-generation nuclear power system that
makes use of the so-called very high temperature gas cooled reactor," a
ministry official said.
The centre will aim to build key components that will allow the
futuristic nuclear hydrogen system to work efficiently and economically, he
added.
Other benefits that can be derived from the cooperative venture include
getting first-hand experience of the U.S. company's extensive experience in
this field.
General Atomics is the only company in the United States that has been
working on the new reactor system since the 1970s and is an integral member
of the U.S. Department of Energy's nuclear hydrogen initiative and the
next-generation nuclear plant.
A memorandum of understanding is expected to be signed in the next few
months, with research centres being built in General Atomics main office in
San Diego and at the Korea Atomic Energy Research Institute in Daejeon,
about 164 kilometres south of Seoul. (WAM)
*****************************************************************
17 NRC: NRC to Hold Aug. 24th Public Meeting in Lacey Township, N.J., on License Renewal
Application for Oyster Creek Nuclear Plant
News Release - Region I - 2005-04
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
Office of Public Affairs, Region I
No. I-05-043 August 17, 2005
CONTACT: Diane Screnci (610) 337-5330
Neil A. Sheehan (610) 337-5331 E-mail:
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission will hold a public information
session on Wednesday, Aug. 24, in Lacey Township (Ocean County),
N.J., to discuss how the agency will review an application for
renewal of the operating license for the Oyster Creek nuclear
power plant. The facility is located in Lacey and operated by
AmerGen Energy Co., LLC.
Scheduled to begin at 7 p.m., the meeting will take place at
Lacey Township High School, at 73 Haines St. The NRCs
presentation will include information on how the process works
and how the public can participate. Members of the public are
invited to ask questions regarding the agencys license renewal
review process.
Under NRC regulations, the original operating license for a
nuclear power plant has a duration of up to 40 years. The
license may be renewed for up to an additional 20 years if NRC
requirements are met.
Last month, AmerGen submitted an application seeking an
additional 20 years of operation for the Oyster Creek plant. The
current operating license for the facility is set to expire on
April 9, 2009.
The license renewal process requires that both a technical
review of safety issues and an environmental review be performed
for each application. The NRC staff is currently reviewing
AmerGens application to determine whether it contains enough
information to begin a formal review. If the application has
sufficient information, the NRC will formally docket, or file,
the application and will announce an opportunity to request a
hearing.
The Oyster Creek application is posted on the NRC web site at:
www.nrc.gov/reactors/operating/licensing/renewal/applications/oys
tercreek.html#application. It is also available for review at
the NRCs Public Document Room in Rockville, Md., which can be
reached by phone at 800/397-4209, and at the Lacey Branch of the
Ocean County Library, located at 10 E. Lacey Road.
Last revised Wednesday, August 17, 2005
*****************************************************************
18 San Luis Obispo Tribune: No new nuclear plants
08/17/2005 |
Though the Bush administration is promoting more nuclear plants,
experts say not in Californiaexperts say not in California
By David Sneed
The Tribune
SACRAMENTO - There is renewed interest in nuclear power in the
United States, but experts say not to expect any new nuclear
plants in California anytime soon, if ever.
At a daylong hearing Tuesday before the state Energy Commission
in Sacramento, the owners of California's two operating nuclear
plants -- Diablo Canyon, near San Luis Obispo, and San Onofre,
north of San Diego -- told the commission that they have no
plans to build new nuclear plants.
The Bush administration, however, strongly favors constructing
new nuclear plants, in part to reduce the nation's dependence on
foreign oil.
Several potential sites in the Southeast for new facilities have
been identified. The recently signed federal energy bill
provides loan guarantees, tax credits and additional insurance
for new nuclear plants.
The administration's Nuclear Power 2010 program calls for at
least one new nuclear power plant in the United States early in
the next decade, said Rebecca Smith-Kevern with the federal
Office of Nuclear Energy, Science and Technology.
"The prospect of new nuclear power plants in the United States
is looking better than it has in a generation," she said. "We
are very hopeful that there will be an order for a new nuclear
plant soon."
Adding a sense of urgency to the construction of new nuclear
plants is the growing consensus among scientists that greenhouse
gas emissions from plants that burn fossil fuels are causing
climate change.
Not everyone agreed, however, that nuclear power is a necessary
component in the energy mix.
Environmentalists and some state regulators say that renewable
energy sources, such as wind and solar power, could replace the
4,000 megawatts of power produced by Diablo Canyon and San
Onofre.
"There are superior ways to deal with global warming than
nuclear power," said Robert Kinosian with the California Public
Utilities Commission.
Amory Lovins with the Rocky Mountain Institute said that nuclear
power has been heavily subsidized and is not competitive with
renewable energy and other technologies.
"You can make a corpse jump with a defibrillator, but ultimately
markets must prevail," he said.
A host of challenges
Nuclear power also faces a host of other serious challenges in
California. The most significant is the issue of disposing of
highly radioactive used reactor fuel. California prohibits the
construction of any new nuclear plants until the waste problem
is solved.
Delays in the construction of a national repository at Yucca
Mountain in the Nevada desert mean that the disposal problem
will not be solved for another decade at least. In addition,
highly radioactive spent fuel will have to remain at Diablo
Canyon and San Onofre until a repository can open.
Other challenges facing nuclear power in California include:
• Terrorism. Although nuclear power plants are heavily guarded,
they remain potential terrorist targets. As the repository at
Yucca has been delayed, spent fuel pools, which are outside a
plant's containment domes, have become more densely packed with
highly radioactive assemblies. Those pools are considered the
most vulnerable part of any nuclear plant.
Gordon Thompson, a nuclear safety expert, told the commission
that returning the pools to their original low-density
configurations by devising new storage solutions should be a top
priority.
Power plant operators and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission
disagree. They believe that the spent fuel threat is exaggerated
and that they have the ability to stabilize the pools in the
event of an accident or terrorist attack.
• Equipment replacements. Both of California's nuclear plants
face unanticipated replacements of key components such as steam
generators, turbines and reactor vessel heads.
These items will cost state electricity ratepayers hundreds of
millions of dollars per replacement. They also will require
prolonged shutdowns of the plants, temporarily disrupting the
state's electrical supply.
• Aging work forces. The average Diablo Canyon employee is 48
years old. The bulk of the plant's work force is expected to
reach retirement in the next decade or so. The San Onofre plant
is experiencing similar problems. Plant operators say they have
anticipated the problem and have hiring plans and training to
replace those workers.
• License renewal. Diablo Canyon's operating licenses will
expire in 2025. The utility plans to study whether it will apply
for license renewal. However, nuclear power experts expect all
operating plants to apply for renewal.
Federal law pre-empts state law in nuclear matters, and the NRC
is typically the sole decision maker in license renewals. But
state officials put the federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission
and the utilities on notice Tuesday that they expect to play a
significant role in the renewal process.
Assemblyman Sam Blakeslee, R-San Luis Obispo, asked the NRC to
incorporate a full review of new seismic information into the
renewal process and to make the Energy Commission a partner in
the relicensing process.
Kinosian, of the state utilities commission, said his agency
wants PG&E to apply to it before it applies to the NRC for
license renewal of Diablo Canyon. This will allow for greater
public participation, he said.
• Marine impacts. Cooling systems used by nuclear plants use
enormous amounts of ocean water. That causes significant damage
to the ocean by killing fish larvae and heating billions of
gallons of water a day by more than 20 degrees.
Michael Thomas with the Regional Water Quality Control Board in
San Luis Obispo said trying to find a scientifically sound way
to offset that damage is a "very difficult and extraordinarily
contentious issue."
Biologists hired by the state believe that requiring utilities
to fund the establishment of a series of marine reserves along
the state's coastline is the best solution.
Biologists hired by PG&E disagree. They say the cooling water
damage to the ocean is exaggerated.
*****************************************************************
19 Washington Times: Chernobyl resettlement eyed
United Press International -
Updated: Wednesday, August 17, 2005 04:30 PM
Nineteen years after a nuclear disaster, Ukraine officials say
radiation has fallen enough to allow resettling part of the
1,100-square-mile Chernobyl area.
Sergei Parshin, head of Ukraine's Emergency Situations
Ministry, said cleanup efforts continue in the area affected by
the 1986 disaster.
While some residents may be allowed to return to their
homes in the near future, Parshin said Wednesday once they do
they no longer would receive welfare benefits, news agency
Novosti reported.
Copyright 2005 United Press International
*****************************************************************
20 NRC: NRC Revises Schedule for Reviewing Existing Early Site Permit Applications
News Release - 2005-11
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
Office of Public Affairs Telephone: 301/415-8200
Washington, DC 20555-0001 E-mail: opa@nrc.gov
No. 05-111 August 16, 2005
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is extending the review
schedules for the three Early Site Permit applications received
in late 2003.
Given the unexpected volume of comments on Environmental Impact
Statements (EIS) and other factors, the NRC staff plans to
finalize its review of the North Anna site (near Louisa, Va.) by
late December, about four months later than originally
scheduled. The review of the Grand Gulf site (near Vicksburg,
Miss.) should be finalized by mid-April 2006, also about four
months later than first planned. The review of the Clinton site
(near Clinton, Ill.) should be finalized by late July 2006,
about nine months later than planned. The staffs draft safety
evaluation reports and draft EIS on all three ESP applications
were issued in accordance with the originally established
schedule.
Public comments on the draft EIS for the North Anna ESP site
were much more numerous than anticipated when the NRC allocated
resources for ESP reviews. The number of public comments on
draft statements for the Clinton and Grand Gulf ESP sites also
exceeded expectations.
Public participation is an important part of the NRCs licensing
process, and we want to ensure these comments are appropriately
addressed in the sites final EIS, said David Matthews, Director
of the Division of Regulatory Improvement Programs in the NRCs
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
The ESP process allows an applicant to address site-related
issues, such as environmental impacts, for possible future
construction and operation of a nuclear power plant at the site.
If a permit is granted, the applicant has up to 20 years to
decide whether to build a new nuclear unit on the site and to
file an application with the NRC for approval to begin
construction.
Notwithstanding these delays, the NRCs revised review
completion dates of mid-2006 should have no impact on the
applicants ability to reference an ESP, if one is issued, in
Combined Operating License applications expected in the 2008
time frame.
Last revised Wednesday, August 17, 2005
*****************************************************************
21 RIA Novosti: Chernobyl radiation levels going down - Ukrainian ministry
17/ 08/ 2005
KIEV, August 17 (RIA Novosti) - The latest radiation
measurements in the area surrounding the Chernobyl nuclear power
plant, in Ukraine, indicate that the levels of radioactive
contamination are falling, Ukraine's Emergency Situations
Ministry reported Wednesday.
Sergei Parshin, head of the Ukrainian government's agency for
Chernobyl evacuation and resettlement, said the officially
designated evacuation zone of 2,800 square kilometers (1,100
square miles), from where all the inhabitants were relocated
after the 1986 nuclear accident, may now be partly reopened for
settlement. In this case, some of the evacuees will be able to
return home, but will lose the welfare benefits they have been
getting until now, he said.
Cleanup work is still continuing in the most heavily
contaminated areas within the evacuation zone, Parshin reported.
© 2005 "RIA Novosti"
*****************************************************************
22 RIA Novosti: Volgodonsk named best nuclear power plant for 2004
17/ 08/ 2005
MOSCOW, August 17 (RIA Novosti) - The nuclear power plant in the
town of Volgodonsk in the Rostov region of southern Russia has
been named the best plant in the country, according to Russia's
Federal Agency for Nuclear Power, Rosenergoatom.
The award of best power plant was determined according to
parameters in 11 main and nine additional categories.
Performance in terms of security, operation stability,
efficiency, accident rate, radiation security, maintenance and
repair parameters, financial and economic activities, and fire
safety were taken into account. Preparations for the
autumn-winter heating season, personnel policy, public
relations, and the use of new kinds of nuclear fuel were
considered as additional parameters.
The nuclear power plants in Kalinin, central Russia, and the
Kola Peninsula, northwestern Russia, came in second.
© 2005 "RIA Novosti"
*****************************************************************
23 Journal News: Indian Point phone line problem fixed
By GREG CLARY
THE JOURNAL NEWS
(Original publication: August 16, 2005)
BUCHANAN — The malfunctioning Verizon telephone line that
disabled the four-county emergency siren system at the Indian
Point nuclear plant was fixed as of 12:39 p.m. today, according
to a Rockland County emergency services official who is now
recommending a special test of the 156 sirens to assess the
effectiveness of the system's back-up plan.
A spokesman for Entergy Nuclear Northeast, the plant's owner,
said the company would likely be able to meet the request for
the test, though he wasn't sure how quickly.
Verizon technicians worked for about 24 hours to fix the problem
with a framed relay, which connects the siren network at Indian
Point with Westchester, Rockland, Putnam and Orange counties via
computers.
The outage was first discovered about 8:30 a.m. yesterday,
emergency officials said, but so far there has been no
indication about the problem's cause or when it first occurred.
Rockland officials said the last time they knew for sure the
frame relay was working properly was Friday.
Officials from Entergy said that, despite the problem, employees
at the plant could have sounded the sirens in the event of an
emergency at the site and that the counties involved could have
done so using local radio frequencies.
Whether the radios would work was questioned by county emergency
officials on both sides of the Hudson River yesterday and today.
They also noted that the backups hadn't been tested. Entergy
eventually agreed with Westchester officials that the radios
were only 70 percent effective in that county and staffed an
overnight shift at the plant to monitor the problem. The other
three counties apparently had no similar problems.
That didn't stop county officials from calling for changes.
"Entergy officials are saying all the radios are working fine,"
said Dan Greeley, Rockland's deputy commissioner for emergency
services. "My recommendation is that we take the frame relay
down for the next test and get the test done within the next
week or so."
Westchester County Executive Andy Spano said he also wanted to
see a quicker implementation of Entergy's plan to upgrade the
siren system.
"Waiting two years to replace this system is simply
unacceptable," Spano said. "Now that Entergy has committed to a
backup system, we are moving in the right direction, but we have
to move faster and do more."
Jim Steets, an Entergy spokesman, said the company would explore
shortening the time frame to replace the entire system, as long
as the process allowed for a reasoned approach to buying new
technology.
"We would still want to examine the best options," Steets said.
"And get as much information as possible to ensure that we
install a system that will do what we would like."
Copyright 2005 The Journal News, a Gannett Co. Inc. newspaper
serving Westchester, Rockland and Putnam Counties in New York.
*****************************************************************
24 GBPG: Regulatory Commission’s review finds Point Beach Nuclear Plant impact OK
Green Bay Press-Gazette
Posted Aug. 17, 2005
TWO RIVERS — The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has found no
significant environmental affects from an additional 20-year
operation of the Point Beach Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2.
The current operating licenses expire on Oct. 5, 2010 for Unit 1
and March 8, 2013 for Unit 2. An application for renewal of the
licenses was submitted on Feb. 25, 2004.
As part of its environmental review of the applications, the NRC
held public meetings near the plant to discuss the scope of the
review and the draft version of the environmental impact
statement.
The report is available at
www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/nuregs/staff/sr1437/supple
ment23/index.html. Copies are also available locally at the
Lester Public Library, 1001 Adams St., Two Rivers.
— Press-Gazette
Copyright © 2004
*****************************************************************
25 NRC: FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company (FENOC), et al.; Notice of
FR Doc E5-4483
[Federal Register: August 17, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 158)]
[Notices] [Page 48443-48444] From the Federal Register Online via
GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr17au05-109] [[Page
48443]]
Consideration of Issuance of Amendments to Facility Operating
Licenses and Opportunity for a Hearing The U.S. Nuclear
Regulatory Commission (the Commission) is considering issuance of
amendments to Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-66 and NPF-73,
issued to FENOC (the licensee), for operation of the Beaver
Valley Power Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2 (BVPS-1 and 2) located in
Beaver County, Pennsylvania.
The proposed amendments would revise the BVPS-1 and 2 Facility
Operating Licenses to allow operation at a maximum authorized
power level of 2900 megawatts thermal (MWt), from the current
maximum authorized power level of 2689 MWt. This represents an
approximate 8% increase in the maximum authorized power level and
is categorized as an extended power uprate (EPU). The proposed
amendments would authorize operation of BVPS-1 with replacement
Model 54F steam generators (SGs) installed. The proposed
amendments would authorize the use of an alternate source term
(AST) in accordance with Title 10 of the Code of Federal
Regulations (10 CFR), part 50, Section 50.67, ``Accident source
term.'' Specific guidance for AST implementation is contained in
Regulatory Guide 1.183, ``Alternative Radiological Source Terms
for Evaluating Design Basis Accidents at Nuclear Power
Reactors.'' The licensee has superseded the portion of this
amendment request related to the BVPS-1 SG replacement by its
applications dated April 13, 2005, for BVPS-1 SG replacement.
Specific Technical Specification (TS) changes requested to
support the EPU include: (1) Revising the definition of Rated
Thermal Power, (2) revising fuel assembly specific departure from
nucleate boiling ratios and correlations, (3) raising the maximum
temperature of the refueling water storage tank, (4) modifying
Overtemperature [Delta]T and Overpower [Delta]T equations for
BVPS-1 only, (5) revising the SG water level low-low and
high-high trip setpoints for BVPS-1 only, (6) revising the
required SG secondary side level in Modes 4 and 5 for BVPS-1
only, (7) raising the tolerance settings for the pressurizer
safety valves, (8) revising the SG TSs to reflect the replacement
SGs for BVPS-1 only, (9) revising the SG TS tube sleeve reference
and the TIG (tungsten inert gas) welded SG sleeve repair limit
for BVPS-2 only, (10) revising the specific activity for the
primary coolant system for BVPS-1 only, (11) increasing the band
for accumulator water volume and nitrogen pressure, (12) revising
the required charging pump discharge pressure for reactor coolant
pump seal injection flow, (13) revising the tolerance settings
for the main steam safety valves (MSSVs), (14) changing the
allowable power limits associated with inoperable MSSVs, (15)
revising the primary plant demineralized water storage tank
volume, (16) revising the specific activity of the secondary
coolant system for BVPS-1 only, and (17) adding WCAP-14565 and
WCAP-15025 to the list of NRC-approved methodologies in TS 6.9.5.
In addition, the licensee has requested numerous TS changes that
are not directly related to the EPU request. These include: (1)
Deleting the Power Range, Neutron Flux High Negative Rate trip,
(2) adding a footnote to Table 3.3-3, ``Engineered Safety
Features Actuation System Instrumentation,'' concerning time
constraints for steamline pressure low for BVPS-1 only, (3)
removing the boron injection tank concentration TS for BVPS-1
only, and (4) renaming the boron injection tank flow path TS for
BVPS-1 only.
Administrative TS changes to remove the amendment number from the
operating licenses in paragraphs 2.C(2) for BVPS-1 and 2 and to
correct an inconsistency regarding a referenced permissive for
BVPS-1 were also proposed.
Before issuance of the proposed license amendment, the Commission
will have made findings required by the Atomic Energy Act of
1954, as amended (the Act), and the Commission's regulations.
Within 60 days after the date of publication of this notice, the
licensee may file a request for a hearing with respect to
issuance of the amendment to the subject facility operating
license and any person whose interest may be affected by this
proceeding and who wishes to participate as a party in the
proceeding must file a written request for a hearing and a
petition for leave to intervene. Requests for a hearing and a
petition for leave to intervene shall be filed in accordance with
the Commission's ``Rules of Practice for Domestic Licensing
Proceedings'' in 10 CFR Part 2. Interested persons should consult
a current copy of 10 CFR 2.309, which is available at the
Commission's public document room (PDR), located at One White
Flint North, Public File Area O-1F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first
floor), Rockville, Maryland. Publicly available records will be
accessible from the Agencywide Documents Access and Management
System's (ADAMS's) Public Electronic Reading Room on the Internet
at the NRC Web site,
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/cfr/. If a request
for a hearing or petition for leave to intervene is filed by the
above date, the Commission or a presiding officer designated by
the Commission or by the Chief Administrative Judge of the Atomic
Safety and Licensing Board Panel, will rule on the request and/or
petition; and the Secretary or the Chief Administrative Judge of
the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board will issue a notice of a
hearing or an appropriate order.
As required by 10 CFR 2.309, a petition for leave to intervene
shall set forth with particularity the interest of the
petitioner/ requestor in the proceeding, and how that interest
may be affected by the results of the proceeding. The petition
should specifically explain the reasons why intervention should
be permitted with particular reference to the following general
requirements: (1) The name, address and telephone number of the
requestor or petitioner; (2) the nature of the
requestor's/petitioner's right under the Act to be made a party
to the proceeding; (3) the nature and extent of the
requestor's/petitioner's property, financial, or other interest
in the proceeding; and (4) the possible effect of any decision or
order which may be entered in the proceeding on the
requestor's/petitioner's interest. The petition must also
identify the specific contentions which the petitioner/requestor
seeks to have litigated at the proceeding.
Each contention must consist of a specific statement of the issue
of law or fact to be raised or controverted. In addition, the
petitioner/requestor shall provide a brief explanation of the
bases for the contention and a concise statement of the alleged
facts or expert opinion which support the contention and on which
the petitioner intends to rely in proving the contention at the
hearing. The petitioner must also provide references to those
specific sources and documents of which the petitioner is aware
and on which the petitioner intends to rely to establish those
facts or expert opinion. The petition must include sufficient
information to show that a genuine dispute exists with the
applicant on a material issue of law or fact. Contentions shall
be limited to matters within the scope of the amendment under
consideration. The contention
[[Page 48444]] must be one which, if proven, would entitle the
petitioner/requestor to relief. A petitioner/requestor who fails
to satisfy these requirements with respect to at least one
contention will not be permitted to participate as a party.
Those permitted to intervene become parties to the proceeding,
subject to any limitations in the order granting leave to
intervene, and have the opportunity to participate fully in the
conduct of the hearing.
Nontimely requests and/or petitions and contentions will not be
entertained absent a determination by the Commission or the
presiding officer of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board that
the petition, request and/or the contentions should be granted
based on a balancing of the factors specified in 10 CFR
2.309(a)(1)(i)-(viii). A request for a hearing or a petition for
leave to intervene must be filed by: (1) First class mail
addressed to the Office of the Secretary of the Commission, U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001,
Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff; (2) courier,
express mail, and expedited delivery services: Office of the
Secretary, Sixteenth Floor, One White Flint North, 11555
Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852. Attention: Rulemaking
and Adjudications Staff; (3) E-mail addressed to the Office of
the Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
HEARINGDOCKET@NRC.GOV; or (4) facsimile transmission addressed to
the Office of the Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
Washington, DC, Attention: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff at
(301) 415-1101, verification number is (301) 415-1966. A copy of
the request for hearing and petition for leave to intervene
should also be sent to the Office of the General Counsel, U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, and it
is requested that copies be transmitted either by means of
facsimile transmission to 301-415-3725 or by e-mail to
OGCMailCenter@nrc.gov. A copy of the request for hearing and
petition for leave to intervene should also be sent to Mary
O'Reilly, FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company, FirstEnergy
Corporation, 76 South Main Street, Akron, OH 44308, attorney for
the licensee.
For further details with respect to this action, see the
application for amendment dated October 4, 2004, and supplements
dated February 23, May 26, and July 8, 2005, which are available
for public inspection at the Commission's PDR, located at One
White Flint North, Public File Area O-1F21, 11555 Rockville Pike
(first floor), Rockville, Maryland. Publicly available records
will be accessible electronically from the ADAMS Public
Electronic Reading Room on the Internet at the NRC Web site,
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. Persons who do not have
access to ADAMS or who encounter problems in accessing the
documents located in ADAMS, should contact the NRC PDR Reference
staff by telephone at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by e-mail
to
pdr@nrc.gov. Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 11th day of
August, 2005.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Timothy G. Colburn, Senior Project Manager, Section 1, Project
Directorate I, Division of Licensing Project Management, Office
of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. E5-4483 Filed 8-16-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
b
*****************************************************************
26 NRC: Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards; Subcommittee Meeting
FR Doc E5-4484
[Federal Register: August 17, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 158)]
[Notices] [Page 48444] From the Federal Register Online via GPO
Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr17au05-110]
on Planning and Procedures; Notice of Meeting The ACRS
Subcommittee on Planning and Procedures will hold a meeting on
September 7, 2005, Room T-2B1, 11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville,
Maryland.
The entire meeting will be open to public attendance, with the
exception of a portion that may be closed pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
552b(c)(2) and (6) to discuss organizational and personnel
matters that relate solely to the internal personnel rules and
practices of the ACRS, and information the release of which would
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
The agenda for the subject meeting shall be as follows:
Wednesday, September 7, 2005, 11:00 a.m.-12:30 p.m. The
Subcommittee will discuss proposed ACRS activities and related
matters. The Subcommittee will gather information, analyze
relevant issues and facts, and formulate proposed positions and
actions, as appropriate, for deliberation by the full Committee.
Members of the public desiring to provide oral statements and/or
written comments should notify the Designated Federal Official,
Mr. Sam Duraiswamy (telephone: 301-415-7364) between 7:30 a.m.
and 4:15 p.m. (e.t.) five days prior to the meeting, if possible,
so that appropriate arrangements can be made. Electronic
recordings will be permitted only during those portions of the
meeting that are open to the public.
Further information regarding this meeting can be obtained by
contacting the Designated Federal Official between 7:30 a.m. and
4:15 p.m. (e.t.). Persons planning to attend this meeting are
urged to contact the above named individual at least two working
days prior to the meeting to be advised of any potential changes
in the agenda.
Dated: August 3, 2005.
Michael L. Scott, Branch Chief, ACRS/ACNW.
[FR Doc. E5-4484 Filed 8-16-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
*****************************************************************
27 NRC: Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards; Meeting of the
FR Doc E5-4485
[Federal Register: August 17, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 158)]
[Notices] [Page 48444-48445] From the Federal Register Online via
GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr17au05-111]
Subcommittee on Early Site Permits; Notice of Meeting The ACRS
Subcommittee on Early Site Permits will hold a meeting on
September 7, 2005, Room T-2B3, 11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville,
Maryland.
The entire meeting will be open to public attendance.
The agenda for the subject meeting shall be as follows:
Wednesday, September 7, 2005--8:30 a.m. Until the Conclusion of
Business The Subcommittee will discuss and review the staff's
draft safety evaluation report related to early site permit for
the Clinton site and the application submitted by Exelon
Generation Company, LLC (Exelon). The Subcommittee will hear
presentations by and hold discussions with representatives of the
NRC staff, Exelon, and other interested persons regarding this
matter. The Subcommittee will gather information, analyze
relevant issues and facts, and formulate proposed positions and
actions, as appropriate, for deliberation by the full Committee.
Members of the public desiring to provide oral statements and/or
written comments should notify the Designated Federal Official,
Dr. Medhat M. El-Zeftawy (telephone 301/415-6889) five days prior
to the meeting, if possible, so that appropriate arrangements can
be made. Electronic recordings will be permitted.
Further information regarding this meeting can be obtained by
contacting the Designated Federal Official between 7:30 a.m. and
4:15 p.m. (e.t.). Persons planning to attend this meeting are
urged to contact the above named individual at least two working
days
[[Page 48445]] prior to the meeting to be advised of any
potential changes to the agenda.
Dated: August 10, 2005.
Michael L. Scott, Branch Chief, ACRS/ACNW.
[FR Doc. E5-4485 Filed 8-16-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
*****************************************************************
28 NRC: Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards; Meeting Notice
FR Doc E5-4486
[Federal Register: August 17, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 158)]
[Notices] [Page 48445-48446] From the Federal Register Online via
GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr17au05-112]
In accordance with the purposes of Sections 29 and 182b. of the
Atomic Energy Act (42 U.S.C. 2039, 2232b), the Advisory Committee
on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS) will hold a meeting on September
8-10, 2005, 11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland. The date
of this meeting was previously published in the Federal Register
on Wednesday, November 24, 2004 (69 FR 68412).
Thursday, September 8, 2005, Conference Room T-2B3, Two White
Flint North, Rockville, Maryland 8:30 a.m.-8:35 a.m.: Opening
Remarks by the ACRS Chairman (Open)-- The ACRS Chairman will make
opening remarks regarding the conduct of the meeting.
8:35 a.m.-9:45 a.m.: Final Review of the License Renewal
Application for Millstone Power Station, Units 2 and 3
(Open)--The Committee will hear presentations by and hold
discussions with representatives of the Dominion Nuclear
Connecticut, Inc. and the NRC staff regarding the license renewal
application for Millstone Power Station, Units 2 and 3 and the
associated Final Safety Evaluation Report prepared by the NRC
staff.
10 a.m.-12 Noon: Interim Review of the Exelon/Clinton Early Site
Permit Application (Open)--The Committee will hear presentations
by and hold discussions with representatives of the Exelon
Generation Company, LLC and the NRC staff regarding the Clinton
early site permit application and the associated Draft Safety
Evaluation Report prepared by the NRC staff.
1:30 p.m.-3:30 p.m.: Proposed Revision 4 to Regulatory Guide
1.82, ``Water Sources for Long-Term Recirculation Cooling
Following a Loss- of-Coolant Accident'' (Open)--The Committee
will hear presentations by and hold discussions with
representatives of the NRC staff regarding proposed Revision 4 to
Regulatory Guide 1.82 and the supporting Standard Review Plan,
Section 6.2.2, ``Containment Heat Removal Systems,'' related to
emergency core cooling system net positive suction head (NPSH)
and the use of containment overpressure credit in calculating
NPSH.
3:45 p.m.-5:45 p.m.: Possible Alternative Embrittlement Criteria
to Those in 10 CFR 50.46 (Open)--The Committee will hear
presentations by and hold discussions with representatives of the
NRC staff, Electric Power Research Institute, and Framatome
regarding possible alternative embrittlement criteria to those in
10 CFR 50.46, ``Acceptance Criteria for Emergency Core Cooling
Systems for Light-Water Nuclear Power Reactors,'' and related
matters.
6 p.m.-7 p.m.: Preparation of ACRS Reports (Open)--The Committee
will discuss proposed ACRS reports on matters considered during
this meeting as well as a proposed report on policy issues
related to new plant licensing.
Friday, September 9, 2005, Conference Room T-2B3, Two White Flint
North, Rockville, Maryland 8:30 a.m.-8:35 a.m.: Opening Remarks
by the ACRS Chairman (Open)-- The ACRS Chairman will make opening
remarks regarding the conduct of the meeting.
8:35 a.m.-9:45 a.m.: Draft Final Updates to License Renewal
Guidance Documents (Open)--The Committee will hear presentations
by and hold discussions with representatives of the NRC staff
regarding draft final updates to NUREG-1800, Revision 1,
``Standard Review Plan for Review of License Renewal Applications
for Nuclear Power Plants,'' NUREG-1801, Revision 1, ``Generic
Aging Lessons Learned (GALL) Report,'' Regulatory Guide 1.188,
Revision 1, ``Standard Format and Content for Applications to
Renew Nuclear Power Plant Operating Licenses,'' and NEI 95-10,
Revision 6, ``Industry Guidelines for Implementing the
Requirements of 10 CFR Part 54--The License Renewal Rule,'' which
is endorsed by Regulatory Guide 1.188. 10 a.m.-12 Noon: Meeting
with the EDO, Deputy EDOs, and NRC Program Office Directors
(Open)--The Committee will hear presentations by and hold
discussions with the NRC Executive Director for Operations (EDO),
Deputy EDOs, Office Directors of Nuclear Reactor Regulation,
Nuclear Regulatory Research, and Nuclear Material Safety and
Safeguards regarding items of mutual interest.
1:30 p.m.-2:30 p.m.: Interim Results of the Quality Assessment of
Selected NRC Research Projects (Open)--The Committee will discuss
the interim results of the cognizant ACRS panel's quality
assessment of the NRC research projects on: Standardized Plant
Analysis Risk (SPAR) Models Development Program; Steam Generator
Tube Integrity Program at the Argonne National Laboratory; and
the Thermal-Hydraulic Test Program at the Penn State University.
2:30 p.m.-3:15 p.m.: Future ACRS Activities/Report of the
Planning and Procedures Subcommittee (Open)--The Committee will
discuss the recommendations of the Planning and Procedures
Subcommittee regarding items proposed for consideration by the
full Committee during future meetings. Also, it will hear a
report of the Planning and Procedures Subcommittee on matters
related to the conduct of ACRS business, including anticipated
workload and member assignments.
3:15 p.m.-3:30 p.m.: Reconciliation of ACRS Comments and
Recommendations (Open)--The Committee will discuss the responses
from the EDO to comments and recommendations included in recent
ACRS reports and letters.
3:45 p.m.-7 p.m.: Preparation of ACRS Reports (Open)--The
Committee will discuss proposed ACRS reports.
Saturday, September 10, 2005, Conference Room T-2B3, Two White
Flint North, Rockville, Maryland 8:30 a.m.-3 p.m.: Preparation of
ACRS Reports (Open)--The Committee will continue its discussion
of proposed ACRS reports.
3 p.m.--3:30 p.m.: Miscellaneous (Open)--The Committee will
discuss matters related to the conduct of Committee activities
and matters and specific issues that were not completed during
previous meetings, as time and availability of information
permit.
Procedures for the conduct of and participation in ACRS meetings
were published in the Federal Register on October 5, 2004 (69 FR
59620). In accordance with those procedures, oral or written
views may be presented by members of the public, including
representatives of the nuclear industry. Electronic recordings
will be permitted only during the open portions of the meeting.
Persons desiring to make oral statements should notify the
Cognizant ACRS staff named below five days before the meeting, if
possible, so that appropriate arrangements can be made to allow
necessary time during the meeting for such statements. Use of
still, motion picture, and television cameras during the meeting
may be limited to selected portions of the meeting as determined
by the Chairman. Information regarding the time to be set aside
for this purpose may be obtained
[[Page 48446]] by contacting the Cognizant ACRS staff prior to
the meeting. In view of the possibility that the schedule for
ACRS meetings may be adjusted by the Chairman as necessary to
facilitate the conduct of the meeting, persons planning to attend
should check with the Cognizant ACRS staff if such rescheduling
would result in major inconvenience.
Further information regarding topics to be discussed, whether the
meeting has been canceled or rescheduled, as well as the
Chairman's ruling on requests for the opportunity to present oral
statements and the time allotted therefor can be obtained by
contacting Mr. Sam Duraiswamy, Cognizant ACRS staff
(301-415-7364), between 7:30 a.m. and 4:15 p.m., e.t. ACRS
meeting agenda, meeting transcripts, and letter reports are
available through the NRC Public Document Room at pdr@nrc.gov, or
by calling the PDR at 1-800-397-4209, or from the Publicly
Available Records System (PARS) component of NRC's document
system(ADAMS) which is accessible from the NRC Web site at
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html or
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/ (ACRS &
oc-collections/ (ACRS & ACNW Mtg schedules/agendas).
Videoteleconferencing service is available for observing open
sessions of ACRS meetings. Those wishing to use this service for
observing ACRS meetings should contact Mr. Theron Brown, ACRS
Audio Visual Technician (301-415-8066), between 7:30 a.m. and
3:45 p.m., e.t., at least 10 days before the meeting to ensure
the availability of this service. Individuals or organizations
requesting this service will be responsible for telephone line
charges and for providing the equipment and facilities that they
use to establish the videoteleconferencing link. The availability
of videoteleconferencing services is not guaranteed.
Dated: August 11, 2005 Andrew L. Bates, Advisory Committee
Management Officer.
[FR Doc. E5-4486 Filed 8-16-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
*****************************************************************
29 Monticello Times: Officer accidentally shoots foot while at nuclear plant training
www.monticellotimes.com
Wednesday, August 17, 2005
Injury was not life-threatening
Eric O'Link News Editor
A woman accidentally shot herself in the foot last week at the
Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant’s shooting range.
The injury was non-life-threatening. The woman’s name was not
released.
The incident happened about 5:45 p.m. Wednesday, Aug. 10, said
MNGP spokeswoman Kelli Huxford. The woman, a Wackenhut security
officer who works at the Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant
in Red Wing, was in Monticello for training on the plant’s
shooting range.
Huxford said the woman was practicing at the range when a hot
shell casing popped out of her gun and went down the back of her
shirt.
As she attempted to remove the casing, she accidentally pressed
the trigger of her weapon, shooting herself in the foot, Huxford
said.
Monticello and Prairie Island plant employees at the range, who
are trained as EMTs, administered first aid until a
Monticello-Big Lake Ambulance arrived. The security officer was
transported to Monticello-Big Lake Community Hospital and later
transferred to North Memorial Medical Center in Robbinsdale. She
was released late last week.
“She is expected to make a full recovery,” Huxford said. “It was
an unfortunate thing, but she’s going to be fine. That’s the
most important thing right now.”
Huxford said Prairie Island security officers come up to
Monticello for training and certification because the Prairie
Island plant does not have a shooting range of its own. The
officers from both plants frequently train together on various
exercises, she added.
This is the first time such an accidental shooting has occurred
in Monticello, Huxford said. Both Monticello and Prairie Island
reported the incident to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Ambulance runs
The Monticello-Big Lake Ambulance service reported handling 24
medical calls, 13 canceled/no loads and 12 transfers last week.
Copyright 2005, Monticello Times
*****************************************************************
30 Reuters: RPT-FPL to replace steam generators at St Lucie 2 nuke
Wed Aug 17, 2005 3:25 PM ET
NEW YORK, Aug 17 (Reuters) - FPL Group Inc.'s (FPL.N: Quote,
Profile, Research) Florida Power & Light subsidiary awarded
Washington Group International Inc.'s (WGII.O: Quote, Profile,
Research) SGT LLC joint venture with Framatome ANP a contract to
replace the steam generators at unit 2 at the St. Lucie nuclear
power station in Florida.
In a release on Wednesday, Washington Group, a construction
management company based in Boise, Idaho, said SGT would install
two steam generators at St. Lucie 2 during its 2007 refueling
outage.
SGT is already under contract to install a new reactor vessel
head at unit 2 during the same 2007 outage.
A spokeswoman at FPL said the company would shut unit 2 for
refueling in the spring of 2006 and the fall of 2007. The 2006
outage is only about one year after the unit's last outage in
January and February of 2005, even though the unit is usually on
an 18-month refueling cycle. The spokeswoman could not
immediately say why the schedule had changed.
In addition, SGT will install a new vessel head and pressurizer
at the adjacent unit 1 in the fall of 2005. SGT previously
installed new steam generators at unit 1 in 1997.
In a pressurized water reactor like St. Lucie, steam generators
transfer heat from water heated inside the reactor to a second,
closed-water system that turns the heat into the steam that
drives the turbine-generator to make electricity.
The 1,678-megawatt St. Lucie station is on Hutchinson Island in
St. Lucie County about 120 miles north of Miami. There are two
839 MW units 1 and 2 at the plant.
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.
Framatome is a subsidiary of French nuclear engineering company
Areva (CEPFi.PA: Quote, Profile, Research) (66 percent) and
German engineering company Siemens AG (SIEGn.DE: Quote, Profile,
Research) (33 percent).
© Reuters 2005.
All Rights Reserved.
*****************************************************************
31 Reuters: NRC extends review of nuclear early site permits
Wed Aug 17, 2005 8:13 AM ET
NEW YORK, Aug 17 (Reuters) - The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission extended the review schedules for the three Early Site
Permit applications received in late 2003 due to the unexpected
volume of comments on Environmental Impact Statements and other
factors.
In a release, the NRC said its staff plans to finalize the
reviews of the North Anna site (near Louisa, Virginia) by late
December and the Grand Gulf site (near Vicksburg, Mississippi) by
mid April 2006, about four months later than originally
scheduled.
In addition, the staff plans to finalize the review of the
Clinton site (near Clinton, Illinois) by late July 2006, about
nine months later than planned.
Virginia-based Dominion Resources Inc. (D.N: Quote, Profile,
Research) operates the existing reactors at the North Anna site,
New Orleans-based Entergy Corp. (ETR.N: Quote, Profile, Research)
operates the existing reactor at the Grand Gulf site and
Chicago-based Exelon Corp.'s (EXC.N: Quote, Profile, Research)
AmerGen Energy subsidiary owns the existing reactor at the
Clinton site.
"Public participation is an important part of the NRC's
licensing process, and we want to ensure these comments are
appropriately addressed in the sites' final (Environmental Impact
Statements)," said David Matthews, Director of the Division of
Regulatory Improvement Programs in the NRC's Office of Nuclear
Reactor Regulation.
The Early Site Permit process allows an applicant to address
site-related issues, such as environmental impacts, for possible
future construction and operation of a nuclear power plant at the
site.
If the NRC grants a permit, the applicant has up to 20 years to
decide whether to build a new nuclear unit on the site and to
file an application with the NRC for approval to begin
construction.
The NRC said these delays should have no impact on the
applicants' ability to reference an Early Site Permit, if the NRC
issues one, in combined construction and operating license
applications expected in the 2008 timeframe.
© Reuters 2005.
All Rights Reserved.
*****************************************************************
32 Reuters: Wisconsin Pt Beach nuke closer to license extension-NRC
Wed Aug 17, 2005 8:27 AM ET
NEW YORK, Aug 17 (Reuters) - The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission found no environmental impacts that would preclude the
renewal of the operating licenses of units 1 and 2 at Wisconsin
Energy Corp.'s (WEC.N: Quote, Profile, Research) Point Beach
nuclear power station in Wisconsin for an additional 20 years.
The current operating licenses expire on Oct. 5, 2010, for the
512-megawatt unit 1 and March 8, 2013, for the 514 MW unit 2, the
NRC said in a release.
Wisconsin-based Nuclear Management Co LLC, which operates the
plant for Wisconsin Energy's We Energies subsidiary, submitted
the renewal application on Feb. 25, 2004.
As part of its environmental review, the NRC held public
meetings near the plant to discuss the environmental impact and
received comments from members of the public, local officials and
representatives of state and federal agencies.
The 1,026 MW Point Beach station is located in Two Creeks in
Manitowoc County, about 35 miles southeast of Green Bay,
Wisconsin. There are two units at the station: the 512 MW unit 1
and the 514 MW unit 2.
One MW powers about 800 homes, according to the North American
averages.
Wisconsin Energy's subsidiaries own and operate about 6,000 MW
of generating capacity, market energy commodities, and transmit
and distribute electricity (1 million) and natural gas (1
million) to customers in Wisconsin and Michigan.
© Reuters 2005.
All Rights Reserved.
*****************************************************************
33 IAEA: Risks to Nuclear Reactors Scrutinized in Tsunami´s Wake
+ [IAEA.ORG :: Atoms for Peace]
International Workshop on Hazards of External Flooding to
Convene in India
Staff Report
16 August 2005 [Indian Village After Tsunami]
The December 26, 2004 earthquake was the most powerful in
decades. This month the international nuclear community will
share lessons learned from the tsunami and previous flood
events. (Photo credit: AP)
+ Story Resources
+ Conference Agenda [pdf]
+ Conference List of Participants [pdf]
+ Kalpakkam Nuclear Power Plant
+ IAEA Nuclear Installation Safety
+ Reassessing "What if" Factor at NPPs
Scientists are re-examining the potential dangers to nuclear
power plants in the wake of the catastrophic earthquake that
struck the Indian Ocean last December, triggering a massive
tsunami.
India´s Kalpakkam nuclear power plant withstood the giant waves,
which engulfed its small township, home to India´s centre for
atomic research. Battered but safe, the plant shut down
automatically after detectors tripped it as the water level
rose. There was no release of radioactivity. The reactor was
restarted 1 January 2005, six days after the catastrophic waves
struck India´s east coast.
"There are scores of nuclear power plants operating in coastal
areas and some of these may need to take a renewed look at this
external hazard," IAEA Director of Nuclear Power, Mr. Akira
Omoto said. "It is also true for plants presently under
construction." It is common for nuclear power plants to be built
in coastal areas, drawing the seawater to cool the reactor.
Specialists from around the world will scrutinize the potential
impact of natural disasters on nuclear reactors, at the IAEA
organized International Workshop on External Flooding Hazards at
Nuclear Power Plant Sites. From 29 August - 2 September 2005 the
world´s nuclear community will gather at the Kalpakkam nuclear
complex to share latest knowledge and research developments and
take home lessons learned, from this tsunami, and past flood
events.
The IAEA has stringent safety standards designed to guard
nuclear power plants against natural calamities like
earthquakes, volcanoes, flooding, tsunamis and cyclones. The
non-legally binding guidelines cover site and design
requirements for nuclear reactors, as well as appropriate
monitoring and warning systems.
The IAEA issued the Kalpakkam reactor a clean bill of health in
the tsunami´s wake, rating the event a "zero" or of "no safety
significance" on the International Nuclear Events Scale. Around
3.5 cubic metres of seawater, sludge and muck entered a
construction pit, where the foundations for a new 500 MWe Fast
Breeder Reactor were being built. Water also entered a pump
house for cooling water, tripping the nuclear power plant to
shut down.
Mr. S.N. Ahmad, Executive Director, Corporate Services, Indian
Department of Atomic Energy, said natural calamities like
Tsunamis were considered when selecting the site and design of
nuclear reactors. "Man must live with natural calamities. Wisdom
lies in effectively meeting the challenges of such situations
and ensuring safety of human life and property. In nuclear power
plants the whole spectrum of such natural calamities and highly
improbable accident conditions are factored in site selection
and design," Mr. Ahmad said.
Japan, a country were earthquakes and Tsunamis regularly strike,
has developed systems to evaluate and protect reactors. It will
be among the seventeen countries at the workshop to provide
guidance and share its experiences. "Learning from the lessons
of this latest Tsunami as well as from other flood events that
occurred in the past will allow the review, revision and
expansion, as appropriate of the Agency Safety Standards on
external flooding hazards," IAEA Director of Nuclear Safety and
Nuclear Installation, Mr. Ken Brockman said.
In particular, recent events highlighted some technical
difficulties in the hazard assessment for such scenarios where
combinations of different events may take place, such as tide,
storm surge, waves and cyclonic winds.
Topics on the five-day agenda include case studies on flooding
hazards to be presented by countries including France, whose "Le
Blayais" reactor was assaulted by severe storms in December
1999. See Story Resources for further details. Copyright
2003-2004, International Atomic Energy Agency, P.O. Box 100,
Wagramer Strasse 5, A-1400 Vienna, Austria
Telephone (+431) 2600-0; Facsimilie (+431) 2600-7; E-mail:
Official.Mail@iaea.org
*****************************************************************
34 RIA Novosti: Russia leading the war on nuclear terrorism
Opinion &analysis -
17/ 08/ 2005
Alexander Yakovenko, Russian Deputy Foreign Minister. The recent
series of terrorist attacks have shown that the terrorist threat
has not diminished and victory over this evil is not within our
grasp.
Worse still, the terrorists are using increasingly aggressive
and treacherous tactics. Their goal is to claim as many civilian
lives and do as much moral and psychological damage as possible
in a bid to sow fear and panic in society.
Although we do not want to believe it, common sense says that
terrorists will try to gain access to the world's most
destructive instruments - weapons of mass destruction (WMD).
Politicians, the military, diplomats, scientists and the law
enforcement agencies and intelligence services know this. Like
the general public, they all agree that terrorists and other
criminals must be stopped from gaining access to WMD or their
components (for example, components for creating a dirty bomb).
This danger must not become a sword of Damocles hanging over
mankind. We must preclude the use of WMD as means of
blackmailing the international community or individual
countries.
This calls for erecting an insurmountable barrier to prevent
terrorists accessing WMD, which should rest on effective
legislation and cooperation between all members of the broad
counter-terrorism coalition.
It is evident that nuclear terrorism presents the biggest threat
to security. Russia has always advocated comprehensive measures
to strengthen the non-proliferation regime and efforts against
nuclear terrorism. Important steps have recently been taken
toward this goal. In 2004, the UN Security Council adopted
Resolution 1540 designed to prevent "non-state actors" from
acquiring WMD or their components. Russia was one of the
initiators of the resolution.
Moscow also suggested that an International Convention for the
Suppression of Acts of Nuclear Terrorism be drafted. The issues
involved are so serious that negotiations over the draft
convention lasted nearly eight years. An Ad Hoc Committee of the
UN General Assembly completed work on the draft in April 2005.
Russia is advocating early enforcement of the convention and has
appealed to all states to sign it without delay.
This convention aims to improve the legal framework for the
effective suppression and prevention of acts of nuclear
terrorism and for relief work in the event of an attack. It aims
to ensure the protection of civilian and military nuclear
projects against terrorism and to preclude terrorist attacks
using improvised nuclear devices. The convention stipulates that
persons who commit acts of nuclear terrorism will be brought to
justice on the basis of the "extradite or try" principle.
It is the first international anti-terrorist convention that is
intended as a pro-active instrument to prevent terrorist attacks
using nuclear materials or other radioactive substances. It is
the first universal agreement aimed at preventing massively
destructive terrorist attacks, and it increases scope for
counter-terrorism cooperation within the framework of the UN,
including an early harmonization of the draft Comprehensive
Convention Against International Terrorism. To date, 13
counter-terrorism conventions have been adopted.
The world wants a better global nuclear safety regime. One of
the cornerstones of the regime is the Convention on the Physical
Protection of Nuclear Material, which was adopted in 1979. In
order that states can realize their inalienable right to develop
and use nuclear energy for civilian purposes, in accordance with
the Non-Proliferation Treaty and the Charter of the
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), there must be an
effective mechanism to deter the unlawful possession and use of
nuclear material for criminal purposes. This is the objective of
this particular convention.
A diplomatic conference was held in July this year to approve
amendments to the Nuclear Materials Convention, which were
designed to enhance the physical protection of nuclear material
during storage, use and transportation within a state and to
protect nuclear devices against subversive acts. Russia played
an active role in the conference, during which considerable
progress was made toward improved nuclear safety. It was
primarily thanks to a Chinese suggestion aimed at removing
ambiguity from the key issue of the inadmissibility of the use
of force against nuclear facilities that the participants agreed
to the amendments.
The international community is determined to prevent acts of
nuclear terrorism. This is evident from the involvement of not
only the UN and its specialized agencies (IAEA) but also other
organizations, including the Organization for Security and
Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), in efforts to tackle the problem.
In early July the main regular decision-making body of the OSCE,
the Permanent Council, adopted Decision No. 683 Countering the
Threat of Radioactive Sources, which was initiated and drafted
by Russia and the United States. It obliges the 55 OSCE member
states to make a political commitment to comply with the IAEA
Code of Conduct on the Safety and Security of Radioactive
Sources and the Guidance on the Import and Export of Radioactive
Sources supplementary to it.
Thanks to the OSCE decision, the IAEA Code of Conduct will be
extended to all of the organization's member states and,
hopefully, this will reduce the potential threat of terrorists
gaining access to radioactive sources. The decision also
highlights constructive counter-terrorism cooperation between
Russia and the U.S.
Cooperation by members of the counter-terrorism coalition on the
basis of the above conventions and other agreements will help
prevent terrorist access to nuclear weapons and materials.
Cooperation in this field has become a reality, as evidenced by
the international Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI) set up
two years ago. Russia joined this initiative last year.
The international community, including the U.S. and Russia, have
joined forces to reduce the risk of weapons of mass destruction
falling into the hands of terrorists, illegal arms dealers or
other persons acting in violation of non-proliferation regimes.
Over 60 countries have announced their support for the PSI, and
the more members it has, the more effective it will be. The
number of member states is growing, and 16 training exercises
have been held under the Initiative in the past two years. The
PSI promotes compliance with the letter and spirit of UN
Security Council Resolution 1540, which calls on all states to
unite to prevent the illicit trafficking of WMD.
Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov and U.S. Secretary of
State Condoleezza Rice wrote in a joint article "Russia and the
U.S. Against Nuclear Terrorism" that their countries had seen
what dreadful atrocities terrorists could commit and that they
must ensure that terrorists and their supporters would never
gain access to WMD.
The International Convention for the Suppression of Acts of
Nuclear Terrorism will be opened for signing on the first day of
the UN Millennium + 5 Summit, which will begin in New York on
September 14. Russia will be among the first to sign it.
© 2005 "RIA Novosti"
*****************************************************************
35 Security Watch: Police seize Russian uranium in Istanbul
International Relations and Security Network
ISN - Security Watch
ISN SECURITY WATCH (Wednesday, 17 August: 12.56 GMT) - The
Turkish news agency Anatolia reported on Wednesday that police
had arrested and charged two people with attempting to smuggle
nuclear materials after they were allegedly found trying to sell
173 grams of enriched uranium smuggled from Russia.
The two men were reportedly arrested in an Istanbul suburb while
trying to sell the enriched uranium to undercover policemen for
US$7 million. No further information about two men arrested was
released.
» Earlier
*****************************************************************
36 Mos News: Russian Uranium Seized in Turkey, Dealers Detained -
MOSNEWS.COM
Created: 17.08.2005 15:29 MSK (GMT +3), Updated: 15:29 MSK
MosNews
Turkish security forces seized 173 grams of medium-grade uranium
from two men arrested in Istanbul. Authorities fear the
dangerous substance smuggled from Russia could have landed in
the hands of terrorists, Turkish media reported.
Two people who were planning to sell the substance in a glass
bottle for $7 million were detained. The detainees said that
they had smuggled the substance from Russia.
Sources in the Turkish security forces noted that the substance
had the capacity to meet one-year electricity requirement of New
York city of the United States, Turkey’s Anatolia news agency
reported.
Meanwhile, Turkish Atomic Energy Agency experts, after examining
the substance, said it contained 17 per cent of the U-235
isotope. The remaining 83 per cent is mostly the U-238 isotope
which does not contribute directly to the fission process.
Uranium found in nature consists largely of two isotopes: U-235
and U-238. The energy production in nuclear reactors is from the
“fission” or splitting of the U-235 atoms, a process which
releases energy in the form of heat. U-235 is the main fissile
isotope of uranium.
Under the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons
(NPT) signed also by Turkey, sale, purchase and transportation
of any amount of uranium are subject to international
restrictions.
The two men, whose identities are not revealed, were detained by
police who acted as would-be buyers of the uranium. A spokesman
for the Turkish security services said: “The only place where
the uranium could eventually land is in the hands of
terrorists,” the Itar-Tass news agency reports.
Write us: info@mosnews.com
Copyright © 2004 MOSNEWS.COM
*****************************************************************
37 Bellona: Blame game begins over near miss with Russian rescue sub
Prosecutors with Russia’s Pacific Fleet opened earlier this week
a criminal inquiry against the captain of one of the Russian
vessels that took part in the rescue of a mini-submarine that
was nearly fatally snared with seven crew under the Pacific
Ocean early this month, Russian news agencies reported.
Lt. Vyacheslav Milashevsky (far right), commander of the Priz,
gets off a ship at the port of Petropavlovsk-Kamchatsky, Russia,
with the other six members of his crew.
AP
Anna Kireeva, 2005-08-17 14:34
But the Russian Navy’s habit of pinning blame on low- and
mid-ranking officials, while upper brass dodges responsibility,
seems to be the motivating factor behind this latest set of
charges from the military, experts say.
The captain of the rescue vessel, Viktor Novikov, was charged
with negligence for allegedly damaging a robotic underwater
device in the course of the rescue operation, an official with
the office of the Naval Prosecutor of Russia's Pacific Fleet in
Vladivostok told RIA Novosti.
The expensive device was damaged through the captain's lack of
professionalism, the official alleged.
Prosecutors last week had already opened a criminal enquiry over
the submarine incident, after the investigation into the
three-day drama to save the sunken AS-28 mini rescue sub
"revealed that a series of people involved allowed negligence in
the organisation of the submarine's work," the Deputy Naval
Prosecutor of Russia's Pacific Fleet, Roman Kolbanov said,
according to Agencie France Press.
Prosecutors last week alleged that those under investigation
broke fleet rules by sending out one mini-submarine by itself,
instead of two. Participants in the rescue operation were also
questioned.
A rescue submarine of the Priz's design photographed at an
undisclosed location.
AP
The imperiled sub, a 15 meter Priz AC-28 bathyscaphe with 7 crew
members aboard, became critically ensnared some 200 meters
underwater in fishing nets and the antennae of the underwater
submarine listening post it was sent to repair off Russia’s
Pacific coast near Kamchatka. The crushing depth made it
impossible for divers to reach the vessel or for the crew to
exit.
International help was summoned to the Bering Sea from the
United States and Great Britain, and the British team finally
cut the sub loose on August 7th with sophisticated Scorpio
robotic technology, with only hours of oxygen to spare. The
seven-man crew of the Priz was treated to a hero’s welcome
across Russia as they emerged from the depths.
But almost as soon as the crew saw daylight, the Russian
Navy—which has suffered a number of embarrassing accidents in
recent years requiring foreign intervention, including the
sinking of the Kursk in 2000 which killed all 118 sailors on
board—began the search for a scapegoat.
They have apparently found one in Novikov, the captain of the
Russian rescue vessel Georgy Kozmin dispatched to the scene, and
have accused him of damaging a different Scorpio robot called
the Venom. At the time of the rescue operation, the Venom’s
regular operating crew was on vacation. According to acting
Russian naval commander, Admiral Vladimir Masorin, the
substitute crew headed up by Novikov “didn’t even know what
buttons to push,” Russian news agencies reported.
Preliminary estimates put the damage to the underwater rescue
robot at $10m.
One member of the Venom operation crew, who asked to remain
anonymous, responded acrimoniously to the accusations levied
against Novikov.
“For me [the accusations] were no surprise. There should be a
scapegoat found and, of course, he cannot be from headquarters.
The guys from the AC-28 are beyond blame, like official heroes,
but they have to punish someone,” said the crew member in
interviews with the Russian media.
The crew member said it would be better to ferret out who in the
naval headquarters was responsible for sending out the Priz with
“practically no safety net.” He asserted that Novikov was not
guilty of anything as “he is just as forced as the rest of us.
The location of the rescue operation.
Condition of the saved sailors
The saved crew members of the Priz are now being treated in a
hospital in the Petropavlovksy-Kamchatka region. Hospital
personnel have refused to allow them to be debriefed about the
accident yet. But Yelena Miloshevksaya—the wife of 25-year-old,
Priz commander, Lt. Vyacheslav Miloshevsky—said that the
interrogations began almost immediately after they were safe on
dry land.
“Despite Defence Minister [Sergei] Ivanov’s request not to touch
the guys for a period of time, the interrogations began the next
day after the rescue,” she told Kommersant Russian daily
newspaper.
More accusations to come?
Many anticipate that Priz captain Miloshevky will also fall
under the prosecutor's gun.
“They will now make another scapegoat out of Milashevsky, the
commander of the AC-28,” said Alexander Pokrovsky, a veteran of
the Russian Navy and author of books and articles about
submariners. “This is because the principle of fleet commanders
remains as it always has—make a fall guy out of the one who has
the lowest rank,” he told Russian news agencies.
Milashevksy, despite his young age, however, has a distinguished
record. He commanded seven dives on bathyscaphe vessels prior to
the early August incident.
Publisher: , President:
Information: , Technical contact:
Telephone: +47 23 23 46 00 Telefax: +47 22 38 38 62 * P.O.Box
2141 Grunerlokka, 0505 Oslo, Norway
*****************************************************************
38 Hawk Eye: IAAP workers receive guidance
Friday, August 12, 2005 Site updated daily at 11 a.m. CST
Event planned for Thursday at SCC.
The Hawk Eye
WEST BURLINGTON — A consumer protection event next week will
offer guidance to former Iowa Army Ammunition Plant workers soon
to receive compensation checks from the federal government.
The event, planned by the office of Sen. Tom Harkin, D–Iowa,
runs from 2 to 7 p.m. Thursday in Room 406 at Southeastern
Community College.
Representatives from state and private agencies will give
presentations at 2:30 and 5:30 p.m. about consumer protection
and finances.
The agencies also will have booths providing more detailed
information.
A press release sent Thursday from Harkin's office said the
event was scheduled with everyone in mind, but the information
will be especially relevant for former ammunition plant workers.
The Department of Energy and Atomic Energy Commission built
nuclear weapons components at the 19,000–acre plant for much of
the Cold War.
Congress and the Department of Health and Human Services
recently approved automatic $150,000 payments to men and women
who developed cancer after working in the nuclear program.
Survivors of deceased workers are also eligible for
compensation, although the program is limited to 22 specific
cancers government scientists link to radiation exposure.
The first compensation checks are making their way through
federal channels, a staffer in Harkin's office said Thursday.
The list of representatives who will be present includes Rod
Reynolds, an assistant attorney general for the state of Iowa;
Phyllis Zalenski, family resource management specialist for the
Iowa State Extension Service; Gary Marquette, deputy bureau
chief of consumer affairs for the Iowa Securities Bureau; Lee
Sellmeyer, consumer counselor for the Iowa Securities Bureau;
Wendy Wicks and Dianne Taylor from the Iowa Credit Union League;
and David Beckman from the Iowa Bar Association.
The consumer protection event is scheduled on the heels of two
Department of Labor meetings Tuesday and Wednesday in
Burlington. Labor officials will explain Part E of the Energy
Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act, which
offers financial benefits to former nuclear weapons workers
exposed to toxic chemicals.
Those meetings are scheduled at 7 p.m. Tuesday and 1 p.m.
Wednesday at the Grand Orleans Hotel, 2759 Mount Pleasant St.
The Hawk Eye 800 S. Main St., Burlington, Iowa 52601 319-754-8461
· 1-800-397-1708 · FAX 319-754-6824 · webmaster@thehawkeye.com
*****************************************************************
39 Hawk Eye: Labor officials explain program
Wednesday, August 17, 2005 Site updated daily at 11 a.m. CST
Former ammunition plant workers hear from a new bureaucracy.
By KILEY MILLER
Cheryl Sanders' father was a casualty in a quiet war.
For 24 years, Virgil Watson defended his country in secret,
building nuclear weapons at the Iowa Army Ammunition Plant.
There were no medals, no homecoming parades. Just a paycheck and
the squared shoulders of a proud worker.
Later, as his life ebbed away, Watson's mind turned to the
compensation the federal government promised men and women like
him — money somehow meant to offset the suffering from illnesses
brought on by their long exposure to radiation and toxic
chemicals.
"When the mail came, he used to say, 'Do I get my new Cadillac
today,' " Sanders said, turning to her mom for agreement.
"Mercury," Marion Watson corrected. "I'd say 'No, not today.' "
On May 19, Virgil Watson died. He was 81.
But his wife and daughter haven't given up on that drive for a
Mercury. The two were among more than 200 people jammed into the
meeting hall at the Grand Orleans Hotel in Burlington Tuesday
evening to learn more about government compensation straight
from the horse's — or horses' mouths.
In this case, the horses were Department of Labor officials in
town to discuss Part E of the Energy Employees Occupational
Illness Compensation Program Act, legislation with a long name
and an even longer set of rules. A second meeting to present the
same information begins at 10 a.m. today.
Lead speaker LuAnn Kressley, a labor department attorney,
revealed just how complicated the compensation program is in her
opening comment: "I hope you go home with more answers than you
have questions."
Part E pays energy workers for wages lost and physical
impairment caused by exposure to toxic substances on the job.
What's that mean?
Well, imagine a security guard had to leave his job — and
ultimately quit working altogether — because of the ravaging
effects of radiation on Line 1, home to the nuclear weapons
program. Part E covers the money lost — or at least part of it.
The government secretly assembled and tested nuclear weapons
components at the 19,000–acre plant in Middletown for the better
part of three decades beginning in 1949.
As many as 4,000 people worked on Line 1 over that time. But to
date, just five workers have received Part E money. Their
compensation totals $625,000. That's a tidy sum, but nothing
compared to the $98 million paid nationwide, or the $1 billion
shelled out under Part B, the second half of the compensation
program reserved for workers suffering from beryllium exposure
or radiation–related cancers.
Survivors of deceased workers also are eligible for benefits.
Make that, some survivors. Spouses married to the worker at the
time of death are first in line under Part E. If the spouse is
no longer living, children under age 18 — or under 23 and
full–time students — at the time of death get the money.
Children incapable of supporting themselves for physical or
mental reasons are eligible regardless of age.
The basic components of a claim are straightforward: Proof of
employment on Line 1 and a diagnosed illness covered under the
compensation program.
Winning a claim is trickier, hinging on an evaluation by
government experts of the worker's exposure to toxic substances.
But the potential rewards are eyebrow–stretching. Part E pays
surviving workers $2,500 for every percentage point of "whole
body" disability, using a scale set by the American Medical
Association. In other words, 10 percent disability equals
$25,000.
As for lost wages, the program provides $10,000 for every year
income dropped by 25 percent or more. Above 50 percent, the
payment jumps to $15,000.
All good things have limits. Part E caps compensation at
$250,000 for living workers and $175,000 for survivors.
But with Part B payments set at $150,000, the maximum
compensation package can hit $400,000.
Many people at Tuesday's meeting have battled for years to see
just some of that money, struggling upward against a
bureaucratic landslide.
The process is gaining speed, but only slightly.
The Department of Labor hopes to close at least 1,200 claims by
the end of the fiscal year. By contrast, the Department of
Energy finished about 100 claims in the four years it controlled
the program.
"I know you all have been waiting a long time for benefits,"
Kressley said, "and I know it's little consolation to have a
group from Washington come and say we're working hard on the
program, but we are."
Juanita Eversmeyer has worked hard, as well. Her husband, a
guard and fireman at the plant, died of a brain tumor when the
couple's son was just 7 years old.
Eversmeyer filed a compensation claim three years ago, but it
was denied. Seven years of her husband's employment records had
turned up missing — the seven years when she thinks he may have
worked on Line 1.
After Tuesday's meeting, she plans to ask the government for a
second look. What she doesn't plan to do is give up.
"If I owed the government $150,000," Eversmeyer said, "they
would have wanted it yesterday."
The Hawk Eye 800 S. Main St., Burlington, Iowa 52601 319-754-8461
· 1-800-397-1708 · FAX 319-754-6824 ·
*****************************************************************
40 WOI: Plant workers, families: When will we get our money?
August 17, 2005
BURLINGTON, Iowa Another town meeting is on tap today in
Burlington for former workers at the Iowa Army Ammunition Plant
and their families.
They're meeting with the Department of Labor over claims of
exposure to cancer-causing material -- and when they'll get
compensation money from the federal government.
The plant in nearby Middletown produced nuclear weapons during
the Cold War.
Some workers, or their surviving family, stand to get as much as
450-thousand dollars through the compensation program.
More than 200 people crowded into a conference room at a
motel yesterday for the first town hall meeting.
The biggest question was about the money.
Larry Haas of the labor department's Energy Compensation Program
tried to assure them that progress is being made.
Copyright 2005 Associated
Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published,
broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Copyright 2000 - 2005 WorldNow and WOI. All Rights Reserved.
*****************************************************************
41 Bradenton Herald: Lockheed plans info office
Posted on Wed, Aug. 17, 2005
Tallevast residents criticize company's proposed return to their
community
DONNA WRIGHT
Herald Staff Writer
TALLEVAST - Lockheed Martin Corp. plans to open a Tallevast
office to keep the community informed.
But Tallevast leaders warn they won't lay out a welcome mat for
the defense giant.
"We don't need them here. Lockheed Martin has already been here
and they didn't do anything," said Laura Ward, president of
Family Oriented Community United and Strong, an advocacy group
representing some Tallevast residents.
Meredith Davis, Lockheed's senior manager of corporate affairs,
said the Tallevast office is important to ensure the consistency
in Lockheed's community outreach. The office will dispense
information about cleanup efforts to remove an underground plume
of contamination stemming from the former Loral American
Beryllium Co. plant.
Location, opening date and hours are still being discussed.
Ward dismissed the plan as an intrusion into the community.
"They are already giving us that information," said Ward. "We
are keeping the community abreast of what is going on."
The lack of trust between Tallevast residents and Lockheed goes
back many years.
Lockheed discovered the toxic plume in 2000 while preparing to
sell the former Loral American Beryllium Co. plant at 1600
Tallevast Road but did not inform residents of the toxins in
their backyards.
Existing Florida laws did not require Lockheed or state
environmental regulators to tell the community until a cleanup
plan had been approved.
Residents did not learn that the toxins had escaped outside the
plant's boundaries onto their property until 2003.
At that time, several families were still using drinking water
wells contaminated with trichloroethylene, or TCE, which has
been linked to cancer.
The lack of notification prompted Florida lawmakers this year to
pass new rules requiring that property owners and the public be
alerted to toxic contamination within 30 days of discovery of
the pollution.
Lockheed acquired the facility in a corporate buyout of Loral in
1996.
While the corporate giant never operated the plant, it has
assumed responsibility for cleaning up the toxic spill
discovered during its ownership of the facility.
Lockheed's most recent report to the Florida Department of
Environmental Protection asks for a year to test remediation
technologies before cleaning up the plume.
In its Aug. 5 report to DEP, Lockheed said that "common sense"
dictates that groundwater remediation will take place on the
site of the former plant but that tests so far do not indicate
that the current pollution outside the plant's boundaries poses
a threat to residents' health.
Lockheed did say that it wouldn't approach off-site areas with
any preconceived notions.
But that assurance does not appease distrustful Tallevast
leaders who believe the toxins in the ground have caused
widespread illness and even death throughout their community.
DEP is closely reviewing Lockheed's latest report, spokeswoman
Pamala Vasquez said.
"We are taking a long look to see what is being proposed before
making comment," she said.
Wanda Washington, FOCUS vice president, welcomed DEP's tough
scrutiny.
"We need to make sure people don't make snap judgment as they
have in the past when it seemed that anything Lockheed said was
gospel. That is just not the case," Washington said.
Davis said having an on-site Lockheed representative in
Tallevast will help in the company's effort to keep the
community informed.
But for Washington, the problem is not Lockheed's accessibility
but the company's failure to adequately address residents'
concerns.
"Lockheed is not telling the whole truth," Washington said. "To
tell a little bit of the truth is still a lie.
"You need technical background to see the omissions and the
problems in their reports. We have been blessed to have experts
to help us through this."
Donna Wright, health and social services reporter, can be
reached at 745-7049 or at .
*****************************************************************
42 Deseret News: Hatch attacks Skull Valley plan
[deseretnews.com]
Wednesday, August 17, 2005
'Overwhelming case' made to feds against the site, senator says
By Joe Bauman and Joe Dougherty
Deseret Morning News
Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, said Tuesday he and others made an
overwhelming case to officials of the U.S. Department of Homeland
Security against building a high-level nuclear waste repository
in Skull Valley, Tooele County.
In a telephone interview Tuesday afternoon, Hatch said
he, Rep. Rob Bishop, R-Utah, and others met with the federal
officials.
"And we made, I think, an overwhelming case" that a
repository at Skull Valley "should never come to pass."
An exhibit shown to the Homeland Security officials
showed what it would look like to have 4,000 casks holding
nuclear fuel rods on a concrete pad. Until now, he said, "the
most they've ever had" was 60 casks.
Other points included the U.S. Department of Energy
saying earlier that it would not back the repository
financially, and the proposed structure's "being (located) on
the tip of the Utah Test and Training Range," Hatch said.
Also, Homeland Security officials heard that the
repository site is within 15 miles of Salt Lake Municipal
Airport, "where thousands of private planes fly in and out."
They learned about "all of the various impacts on our
population," Hatch said.
The nuclear Regulatory Commission will decide in the near
future whether to approve a license for a private consortium to
begin storing the nuclear waste on the Goshute reservation just
west of Salt Lake City.
Hatch told the Deseret Morning News editorial board
Monday the waste probably will be dumped in Utah because the NRC
doesn't know what to do.
"They don't care about Utah," Hatch said. "There's all
kinds of components, but our future's part of that, too."
Hatch said having the nuclear waste positioned in that
location — one he sees as a terrorist target — is mind-boggling.
He, along with Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman Jr., succeeded in getting
the Homeland Security experts to come to Utah to study the
safety ramifications of storing the waste there.
"We don't need to have people dumping that kind of stuff
above ground on us," the senator said.
Hatch said that if he and Sen. Bob Bennett, R-Utah, had
not voted for waste to be transported to Yucca Mountain, Nev.,
the waste would have already made its way to Utah.
Hatch wants to know who would pay for damages in the
event of an accident, he said.
"We're to the point where we're doing everything we can,"
Hatch added. "I'm pulling every string I've got."
E-mail: bau@desnews.com; jdougherty@desnews.com
© 2005 Deseret News Publishing Company
*****************************************************************
43 Las Vegas RJ: Report says repositoryto bite county budget
Wednesday, August 17, 2005
Commissioners hear of Yucca Mountain's public safety costs By
ADRIENNE PACKER
REVIEW-JOURNAL
The transportation of high-level nuclear waste to the planned
Yucca Mountain repository could have a devastating effect on
local government finances, according to a report accepted by
Clark County commissioners Tuesday.
Environmental experts estimated that public agencies will have
to spend $385 million at the start of the shipments. The cost
over the 24-year period of nuclear waste shipments could total
$3.7 billion.
The transportation effort was set to start in 2010, but the
Department of Energy's current estimate is late 2012 at the
earliest.
Public safety responsibilities when the repository opens are
projected to cost about $291 million. Over the 24-year-period,
the nuclear waste storage area is expected to cost the county
$2.5 billion.
The Department of Energy is expected to pay for the effects of
transporting and storing radioactive material in Southern
Nevada, but officials expressed concerns whether local
governments will be compensated fully.
"In the narrowest terms, these are the costs we're talking
about that DOE should be held responsible for," said Sheila
Conway, principal of the county's consulting firm, Urban
Environmental Research, LLC.
The amount the county is reimbursed by the Energy Department,
she said, is expected to be "far less than this magnitude."
Allen Benson, spokesman for the Office of Repository
Development, said the department will "provide technical
assistance and training through the corridor which we will be
shipping nuclear waste." He said the definition of technical aid
has "yet to be determined."
Conway, a former Energy Department consultant, said estimates
for preparing for shipments swelled by $20 million since 2001.
The increase is because of changes in communication needs after
the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, and the need for a
regional training facility and emergency operations center.
Also, local governments have gained a better understanding of
the shipment routes, both by train and truck.
"In the current projections, the public safety agencies have
reduced some costs by eliminating some equipment and personnel
needs they originally thought important, while they have
identified other resource needs they originally overlooked," the
report said.
Tuesday was the first time that the cost of public safety
operations related to the Yucca Mountain storage site were
revealed.
"That's a staggering amount of money," said Clark County
Commissioner Myrna Williams, who has been an opponent of the
planned nuclear waste shipments.
Clark County's $2.5 billion cost projection includes providing
public safety through its police, fire and emergency management
division. In Las Vegas, that cost is projected to be $1.1
billion.
Conway said frequent updates on costs are important to pass
along to Nevada's representatives in Washington, D.C., who will
be in discussions with the Department of Energy.
"It's important to have the data; it's important as we go
forward to monitor the mode of transportation and monitor the
way we'll be impacted, so we have the type of information we
need," Conway said.
Williams expressed doubt on whether the Department of Energy
will follow through on its obligation to pay for the costs. She
said the agency has been less than honest in the past.
"We need to understand and define the costs because, otherwise,
it's going to fall on the Clark County taxpayers," Williams
said. "That's so unfair; the people who don't want it."
Copyright Las Vegas Review-Journal
*****************************************************************
44 Las Vegas RJ: Nuclear group works on PR effort
Wednesday, August 17, 2005
By STEVE TETREAULT
STEPHENS WASHINGTON BUREAU
WASHINGTON -- The nuclear industry's trade group is preparing a
new lobbying and public relations campaign to promote nuclear
power including waste burial at Yucca Mountain, a spokesman said
Tuesday.
The Nuclear Energy Institute is planning a broad effort, said
Steve Kerekes, senior director of media relations.
"We are looking to do possibly an outreach to capitalize on the
resurgence that is unfolding in the industry at large," Kerekes
said.
He cited the energy bill, which contains incentives for plant
construction, that President Bush signed into law this month.
The campaign could dovetail with new efforts in Congress to
jump-start the proposed Yucca Mountain repository, which is
years behind schedule.
At an NEI conference on July 27, the chairman of a House energy
subcommittee scolded nuclear power executives. Rep. David
Hobson, R-Ohio, said he "hasn't heard a peep out of the
industry" as he has tried to boost Yucca Mountain spending.
"That tells me nobody cares," Hobson said. "If you want zero,
you will get zero."
If Congress fails to fix flaws in the Yucca Mountain program,
"it is the (Bush) administration's fault, and it's your fault
you didn't get out front," Hobson said.
The NEI's new effort was reported Tuesday by The Energy Daily
newsletter. The publication reported NEI will award a contract
worth up to $8 million, and the field of candidates includes
national public relations firms such as Burson-Marsteller and
Ogilvy Public Relations Worldwide.
Kerekes would not discuss the value of the contract and when it
would be awarded. He said plans had not been finalized.
Copyright Las Vegas Review-Journal
*****************************************************************
45 Brampton Guardian: Councillors vow to fight nuclear incinerator
Wednesday, August 17th, 2005
Company hopes to avoid bylaw banning 'waste processing'
HEATHER ENNIS, Staff writer
Politicians representing the area surrounding a proposed
incinerator for low-level radioactive waste have vowed to oppose
the project in council chambers and beyond.
"This facility is creating too much concern and uncertainly
among the residents," said Garnett Manning. "I think that, in
itself, is an ill-factor."
At a Coalition for Nuclear Waste-Free Peel meeting held last
week, Wards 9 and 10 councillors John Sprovieri and Garnett
Manning pledged to support activists trying to stop the
incinerator plan in its tracks.
The pair will likely get their first chance to do so when the
company planning the project-- Mississauga Metals &Alloys,
located at 75 Sun Pac Blvd.-- applies for rezoning to
accommodate a 3,250-square metre expansion. The company opened
its doors in 1993-- three years before a bylaw banning "waste
processing" within 120 metres of a residential area. Some homes
on Goreway Drive are inside that limit.
According to city staff, the company will need to show the
changes will not have a negative impact on neighbouring homes
and businesses, whether that's noise, dust, odour, vibration or
other emissions.
Environmental assessment guidelines given to the company by the
Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC) states "CNSC staff is
not aware of any environmental effects or public concerns
associated with this project that would warrant a need to have
it referred to a mediator and review panel."
Instead, the Brampton incinerator is subject to a "screening"
process rather than the more exhaustive comprehensive assessment
normally reserved for large and potentially harmful projects
like, according to the Canadian Environmental Assessment
Association Web site, oil and natural gas developments, all
kinds of power plants and projects in environmentally sensitive
areas.
Though the company hasn't filed for re-zoning yet, the
provincial Ministry of the Environment won't sign off on the
incinerator until it's done.
"As long as there's a potential danger, then this is the last
place we want this facility," said Manning. "There's nothing the
company can say or do to reassure me."
Manning said he will encourage fellow councillors to deny any
rezoning application related to the incinerator, but
acknowledged if council denies the request, the company could
appeal the decision to the Ontario Municipal Board.
"I will also be on the side of residents to fight it there," he
said.
The Brampton incinerator is part of a plan to build a facility
that receives low-level radioactive waste from across the
country, reduces it to dust and ultimately ships the residue
back where it came from. It would be capable of burning 113
kilograms of waste per hour. Metals, including some that are
mildly radioactive, are already recycled at the Brampton site,
but the new incinerator would allow the company to accept other
material used by manufacturers that supply nuclear power plants
with pellets and tubing.
According to the company, that material could include gloves,
paper, wood and construction materials.
Conducting environmental assessment
The company is currently conducting an environmental assessment
mandated by the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC). At
the end of the process, a report will have to satisfy the
commission the incinerator is needed, the potential impacts of
the project have been minimized, and that there has been
adequate public consultation on the issue.
The facility will be safe, said Mississauga Metals &Alloys
president David Sharpe. The plan calls for state-of-the-art
environmental protection measures and will prevent radioactive
material from being put into long-term storage.
A concerned citizen's group formed shortly after a public
information session held by the company as part of the
environmental assessment. Once the company report is finished
sometime in September, there will be another public meeting,
which will include a formal presentation on the plan.
Approximately 150 people showed up for a planning meeting the
opposition group held last week to plot strategy and discuss the
issue.
"They came from all over," said group leader Dora Jeffries.
"There's different paths these things can take, and this one
seems to be taking the path of least resistance."
There is concern about the safety of the proposed facility, and
the implications of having the waste trucked in and out of
Brampton on busy roads, said Jeffries, who noted her group is
circulating a petition opposing the incinerator.
"We can only hope that we can tie them up at every possible
place," said Jeffries.
For information on the Mississauga Metals &Alloys proposal,
residents can reach David Sharpe at 905-790-0796 or by e-mail at
davidsharpe@mm-a.com.
For information about
Coalition for a Nuclear Waste-Free Peel, call
905-451-3569.
Our Newspapers: Brampton Guardian | Orangeville Banner |
Georgetown Independent &Free Press
*****************************************************************
46 Platts: NRC rejects Nevada petition to change 1990 waste decision
+ NRC rejected Nevada's requested change to the 1990 waste
confidence decision, saying it didn't find the state's arguments
persuasive enough to reopen the issue. That Waste Confidence
finding stated that the commission believed there was reasonable
assurance that at least one mined geologic repository would be
available by 2025.
Nevada asserted in its March 1 petition that the rule prejudges
the outcome of the adjudicatory proceedings for a repository at
Yucca Mountain, Nev. because DOE would not have enough time to
develop another repository by that date if NRC denied the
department's application.
In an Aug. 10 decision, the commission said it would reevaluate
the 2025 availability date if it denied a license for Yucca
Mountain and DOE abandoned the site.
Washington (Platts)--16Aug2005
Copyright © 2005 - Platts, All Rights Reserved
[The McGraw-Hill Companies]
*****************************************************************
47 Las Vegas SUN: Editorial: Yucca's cost is no object?
Today: August 17, 2005 at 8:59:39 PDT
LAS VEGAS SUN
Anyone researching the cost of building Yucca Mountain would
naturally turn to the Energy Department, which has been managing
construction of the proposed nuclear waste site 90 miles
northwest of Las Vegas for more than 10 years. But the most
current information being provided by the department dates to
May 2001. The number given then for digging miles of underground
tunnels, preparing them to safely contain the waste for
thousands of years, and for building associated facilities for
receiving and processing the waste, was $4.5 billion. That
number is hopelessly outdated, but the department refuses to
provide a more accurate accounting.
Since 2001, average costs for union and nonunion labor have
mushroomed. Union labor costs are now increasing at the rate of
6 percent a year, and nonunion labor is going up even faster,
according the Las Vegas chapter of the Associated General
Contractors. A shortage of skilled workers, owing to all of the
construction under way in Las Vegas, is pushing costs even
higher for labor at Yucca Mountain, which is not the most
desirable place to work given its remoteness and blotched safety
record. The cost of materials, including steel, cement and
petroleum products, has also been rising steadily. Las Vegas
real estate consultant John Restrepo told Sun reporter Benjamin
Grove that when labor, materials and other expenses are totaled,
the cost of construction in Southern Nevada has gone up 40
percent just in the past two years.
The Energy Department says it will not release an updated Yucca
Mountain construction cost until after its final design of the
project is completed sometime next year. Why the secrecy? It is
standard for the estimated cost of public projects to be known
in advance, and for the public to be kept informed if the cost
increases.
Also mushrooming is the long-term cost of Yucca Mountain, which
has been estimated at $58 billion. This includes loading the
mountain with 77,000 tons of high-level nuclear waste over the
next 25 years, sealing it and monitoring it for umpteen decades.
Bob Loux, director of Nevada's Nuclear Projects Agency, gives
$100 billion as a more accurate figure. And Clark County has
calculated that local governments will shoulder costs totaling
$3.7 billion over that same 25-year period as they provide
security and emergency services for the waste as it moves
through the Las Vegas Valley.
Our strongest objection to Yucca Mountain is based on the fact
that scientists cannot prove, or even truthfully predict, that
it will be safe. But we are also alarmed at the rising costs.
The Energy Department should level with the taxpayers of
Southern Nevada and the whole country. As the ones footing the
bill, they should know how wide they will have to open their
pocketbooks to fund this dangerous, scientifically unsound
project.
All contents copyright 2005 Las Vegas SUN, Inc.
*****************************************************************
48 Las Vegas SUN: Anti-nuke group's report: 'Congress should cancel' Yucca
Today: August 17, 2005 at 10:1:43 PDT
By Suzanne Struglinski
SUN WASHINGTON BUREAU
WASHINGTON -- An anti-nuclear group included the Yucca Mountain
nuclear waste dump on a list of 10 Energy Department radioactive
projects for which the group says Congress should slash or
cancel funding.
The Alliance for Nuclear Accountability delivered its list to
the House members and senators who will be finalizing the Energy
Department budget once Congress comes back into session next
month.
"Congress should cancel the Yucca Mountain project," the
alliance proposes in its report released Tuesday. "The site
cannot meet environmental protection standards, transportation
through 43 states is dangerous and unnecessary and on-site
storage facilities can continue to be used."
The alliance represents 34 grass-roots organizations from
throughout the nation, including Citizen Alert and the Shundahai
Network in Nevada.
The Energy Department requested $651 million for 2006 to fund
the proposed nuclear waste dump at Yucca, 90 miles northwest of
Las Vegas. The House approved $661 million for the program, with
the additional $10 million earmarked to study a temporary
storage site option.
The Senate approved $577 million for the nuclear dump. Senate
Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., is the top Democrat on the
Senate Appropriations subcommittee that writes the bill.
The alliance says Congress could save almost $2 billion by
canceling Yucca and other nuclear-related projects in the bill.
They also oppose the Modern Pit Facility, a $7.7 million project
that would build a new nuclear weapon trigger plant and $191
million in new nuclear power plant programs.
The nuclear industry strongly supports Yucca and wants Congress
to provide even more money for it than the department requested.
Nuclear power users pay a fee for every kilowatt of power used
specifically to fund the repository.
The industry wants the government to fulfill its requirement to
take and dispose of nuclear waste --the waste was supposed to be
gone in 1998. The industry objects that ratepayers have put
billions of dollars toward a solution they have not seen yet.
The nuclear industry says on-site storage is safe for now but
not a permanent solution. The waste needs to go into a geologic
repository, as the government has agreed is the best option.
It also insists that waste has been moved from place to place
around the country for years without a dangerous release of
radiation.
All contents copyright 2005 Las Vegas SUN, Inc.
*****************************************************************
49 NRC: [Docket No. PRM-51-8]
FR Doc 05-16253
[Federal Register: August 17, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 158)]
[Proposed Rules] [Page 48329-48333] From the Federal Register
Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr17au05-27]
State of Nevada; Denial of a Petition for Rulemaking AGENCY:
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
ACTION: Petition for rulemaking: denial.
SUMMARY: The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC or
Commission) is denying a petition for rulemaking submitted by the
State of Nevada (PRM-51-8). The petitioner requests that NRC
amend a decision reached in a 1990 rulemaking, referred to as the
``Waste Confidence'' decision, that at least one mined geologic
repository will be available within the first quarter of the
twenty-first century as well as a regulation making a generic
determination of no significant environmental impact from the
temporary storage of spent fuel after cessation of reactor
operation which incorporates this decision. Petitioner believes
that the decision and rule must be amended to avoid
``prejudging'' the outcome of the anticipated licensing
proceeding on a potential application from the Department of
Energy for a construction authorization for a geologic repository
at the Yucca Mountain, Nevada site. The NRC is denying the
petition because the petition
[[Page 48330]] fundamentally misconstrues the decision NRC
reached in 1990 and because the information provided in the
petition does not meet the criteria NRC set in 1999 for reopening
the Waste Confidence findings.
Further, the Commission's commitment to a fair and comprehensive
adjudication on a potential license application for Yucca
Mountain is not jeopardized by the 2025 date for repository
availability. Under these circumstances, the Commission finds no
reason to undertake the burden of reopening the Waste Confidence
decision.
ADDRESSES: Copies of the petition for rulemaking and the NRC's
letter to the petitioner are available for public inspection or
copying in the NRC Public Document Room, 11555 Rockville Pike,
Room 01-F21, Rockville, Maryland.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Keith I. McConnell, Office of
the General Counsel, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
Washington, DC 20555-0001, telephone (301) 415-1743, e-mail:
kim@nrc.gov; or E. Neil Jensen, Office of the General Counsel,
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-00001,
telephone (301) 415-1537, e- mail: enj@nrc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Introduction On March 1, 2005, the
State of Nevada (Petitioner or the State) submitted a ``State of
Nevada Petition for Rulemaking to Amend the Commission's Waste
Confidence Decision and Rule to Avoid Prejudging Yucca Mountain''
(Petition) which was docketed as a petition for rulemaking under
10 CFR 2.802 of the Commission's regulations (PRM-51- 8).
Petitioner asserts that the NRC must amend a decision reached in
a 1990 rulemaking, termed the ``Waste Confidence'' decision,\1\
that ``at least one mined geologic repository will be available
within the first quarter of the twenty-first century'' as well as
a regulation, 10 CFR 51.23(a), which incorporates this
decision.\2\ Petitioner believes that the decision and rule must
be amended to avoid ``prejudging'' the outcome of the anticipated
licensing proceeding on a potential application from the
Department of Energy (DOE) for a construction authorization for a
geologic repository at the Yucca Mountain, Nevada site (Yucca
Mountain).
-----------------------------------------------------------------
---------- \1\ See ``Waste Confidence Decision Review,'' 55 FR
38474; September 18, 1990.
\2\ See ``Consideration of Environmental Impacts of Temporary
Storage of Spent Fuel After Cessation of Reactor Operation,'' 55
FR 38472; September 18, 1990.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
---------- The Commission sees no need to revisit its Waste
Confidence decision at this time. We have carefully considered
the State's assertions that changed circumstances warrant
reopening of its Waste Confidence findings but, for the reasons
described in this decision, we remain unconvinced that there is
any present need to resurrect Waste Confidence issues.\3\
-----------------------------------------------------------------
---------- \3\ The NRC did not seek public comment on the instant
petition. In this case, the NRC viewed Nevada's petition as
involving a straightforward application of the Commission's
threshold criterion (``significant and pertinent unexpected
events occur, raising substantial doubt about the continuing
validity of the 1990 Waste Confidence finding'' 64 FR 68005;
December 6, 1990) for considering a comprehensive reopening of
the 1990 Waste Confidence decision, and did not see a need for
public comment on such application.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
---------- Background To provide context for the petition, some
background information on the Commission's Waste Confidence
proceedings is useful. In 1984, the Commission concluded a
generic rulemaking proceeding, which has become known as the
``Waste Confidence Rulemaking,'' designed to assess its degree of
confidence that radioactive wastes produced by nuclear facilities
could be safely disposed of, to determine when any such disposal
would be available, and whether such wastes could be safely
stored until safe disposal was available.\4\ The 1984 rulemaking
proceeding enabled the Commission to make the following five
findings:
-----------------------------------------------------------------
---------- \4\ See ``Waste Confidence Decision,'' 49 FR 34658;
August 31, 1984.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
---------- (1) that there is reasonable assurance that safe
disposal of high- level radioactive waste (HLW) and spent nuclear
fuel (SNF) in a mined geologic repository is technically
feasible; (2) that there is reasonable assurance that one or more
mined geologic repositories for commercial HLW and SNF will be
available by the years 2007-2009, and that sufficient repository
capacity will be available within 30 years beyond expiration of
any reactor operating license to dispose of existing commercial
HLW and SNF originating in such reactor and generated up to that
time; (3) that there is reasonable assurance that HLW and SNF
will be managed in a safe manner until sufficient repository
capacity is available to assure the safe disposal of all HLW and
SNF; (4) that there is reasonable assurance that, if necessary,
spent fuel generated in any reactor can be stored safely and
without significant environmental impacts for at least 30 years
beyond the expiration of that reactor's operating licenses at
that reactor's spent fuel storage basin, or at either onsite or
offsite independent spent fuel storage installations (ISFSIs);
and (5) that there is reasonable assurance that safe independent
onsite or offsite spent fuel storage will be made available if
such storage capacity is needed.
49 FR 34659-34960. The Commission incorporated the second and
fourth findings into a new regulation at 10 CFR 51.23 which,
among other things, established a generic determination of no
significant environmental impact from the temporary storage of
spent fuel after the cessation of reactor operation and which
also found reasonable assurance that one or more mined geologic
repositories for commercial HLW and SNF would be available by the
years 2007-2009.\5\ The Commission also committed to reviewing
its Waste Confidence findings should significant and pertinent
unexpected events occur or at 5-year intervals until a repository
was available. 49 FR 34660.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
---------- \5\ See ``Requirements for Licensee Actions Regarding
the Disposition of Spent Fuel Upon Expiration of Reactor
Operating Licenses,'' 49 FR 34688, 34694; August 31, 1984.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
---------- In 1989-1990, the Commission conducted a second Waste
Confidence proceeding to review its 1984 findings. As a result,
the Commission decided to modify findings two and four as
follows: (2) the Commission finds reasonable assurance that at
least one mined geologic repository will be available within the
first quarter of the twenty-first century, and that sufficient
repository capacity will be available within 30 years beyond the
licensed life for operation (which may include the term of a
revised or renewed license) of any reactor to dispose of the
commercial HLW and SNF originating in such reactor and generated
up to that time; (4) the Commission finds reasonable assurance
that, if necessary, spent fuel generated in any reactor can be
stored safely and without significant environmental impacts for
at least 30 years beyond the licensed life for operation (which
may include the term of a revised or renewed license) of that
reactor at its spent fuel storage basin, or at either onsite or
offsite ISFSIs.
55 FR 38474 (emphasis added). Thus, the Commission, in 1990,
decided to extend the time-frame of its assurance of the
availability of a repository from the 2007-2009 period to 2025,
and also expanded on the minimal amount of time for which it had
confidence that SNF could be safely stored. Further,
``believ[ing] that predictions of
[[Page 48331]] repository availability are best expressed in
terms of decades rather than years,'' the Commission decided to
change its review period to 10 years or ``whenever significant
and pertinent unexpected changes occur [, e.g.,] such events as a
major shift in national policy, a major unexpected institutional
development, and/or new technical information * * *.'' 55 FR
38475. In 1999, as the 10 year review period approached, the
Commission considered the need for a further Waste Confidence
review in the context of events that had occurred since 1990. 64
FR 68005; December 6, 1999. These considerations ``confirm[ed]
and strengthen[ed] the Commission's 1990 findings and le[d] the
Commission to conclude that no significant and unexpected events
ha[d] occurred--no major shifts in national policy, no major
unexpected institutional developments, no unexpected technical
information--that would cast doubt on the Commission's Waste
Confidence findings or warrant a detailed reevaluation * * *.''
64 FR 68007. For that reason, the Commission determined not to
conduct another Waste Confidence review at that time but did
state that ``the Commission would consider undertaking a
comprehensive reevaluation of the Waste Confidence findings when
the impending repository development and regulatory activities
run their course or if significant and pertinent unexpected
events occur, raising substantial doubt about the continuing
validity of the Waste Confidence findings.'' Id. The Petition The
State's petition focuses on the second Waste Confidence finding
and, in particular, on that aspect of the finding that there is
reasonable assurance that a repository will be available by 2025.
The petitioner believes that this finding must be revised because
it is now evident that a repository can only be available by this
date if NRC grants DOE's anticipated application for a license at
the Yucca Mountain site at the completion of the adjudicatory
proceeding because it would be too late, if NRC were to deny the
license application, for DOE to have a repository available at a
different site by this date. Petition at 2-3. This situation, in
petitioner's view, impermissibly amounts to prejudging the result
of the Yucca Mountain licensing proceeding. Id. In support of its
position, petitioner reviews the 1990 Waste Confidence decision
and concludes that it relies on three ``critical determinations''
which petitioner describes as follows: (1) The acceptability of
the Yucca Mountain site should not be presumed, for to do so
would prejudge the outcome of the NRC's licensing review and
proceeding; (2) Notwithstanding the twenty-five year lead time
required, a second repository site will be available if necessary
by the year 2025 because a final decision on the acceptability of
the Yucca Mountain site will surely be made by the year 2000,
leaving sufficient time (twenty five years) to develop another
repository if Yucca Mountain fails; and (3) spent fuel can be
stored safely and in an environmentally sound manner until either
Yucca Mountain or a second repository becomes available beginning
in the year 2025.
Petition at 7. Petitioner says that the second ``critical
determination'' has proved to be incorrect, thus requiring the
Commission to revise its second Waste Confidence finding.
In its 1990 Waste Confidence decision, the Commission concluded
that SNF can be safely stored without significant environmental
impact for at least 100 years, if necessary. 55 FR 38513 (1990).
Petitioner cites recent documents and events which have
corroborated and even extended this conclusion such as DOE's
Final Environmental Impact Statement for Yucca Mountain and the
increased licensing of independent spent fuel storage
installations. Petition at 11-13. Petitioner concludes that these
developments support extending the second part of the second
Waste Confidence finding (that sufficient repository capacity
will be available within 30 years beyond the licensed life for
operation (which may include the term of a revised or renewed
license) of any reactor to dispose of the commercial HLW and SNF
originating in such reactor and generated up to that time) to a
longer or even indefinite period. Petition at 13. Thus,
petitioner proposes that the regulation which encapsulates the
second Waste Confidence finding, 10 CFR 51.23(a), be amended to
provide: The Commission has made a generic determination that
there is reasonable assurance all licensed reactor spent fuel
will be removed from storage sites to some acceptable disposal
site well before storage causes any significant safety or
environmental impacts.
This generic finding does not apply to a reactor or storage site
if the Commission has found, in the 10 CFR part 50, part 52, part
54 or part 72 specific licensing proceeding, that storage of
spent fuel during the term requested in the license application
will cause significant safety or environmental impacts.
Petition at 14.
Reasons for Denial In 1999, the Commission stated that it would
consider undertaking a comprehensive reevaluation of the Waste
Confidence findings if either of two criteria were met: (1)
``When the impending repository development and regulatory
activities run their course;'' or (2) ``if significant and
pertinent unexpected events occur, raising substantial doubt
about the continuing validity of the Waste Confidence findings.''
64 FR 68007. Petitioner states that it is not asking NRC to
reopen its general finding that one or more safe geologic
repositories can be made available on a timely basis. Petition at
7. Nevertheless, because the findings are interrelated, reopening
the Waste Confidence inquiry, even if somehow limited in this
manner, could be expected to become a large endeavor covering
most of the questions considered in the 1990 findings; e.g.,
multiple questions concerning the timeliness of repository
availability and conditions for the extended safe storage of SNF.
In 1999, the Commission was reluctant to expend agency resources
on such a far-reaching endeavor absent developments which might
cast doubt on the Commission's findings. Barring developments or
information meeting the 1999 criteria, the Commission remains
unwilling to initiate a reevaluation, even a severely limited one
assuming that would be possible, because that would not be a
prudent use of the agency's limited resources. As noted below,
the Commission does not believe that petitioner has demonstrated
that significant and pertinent unexpected events have occurred,
meeting the Commission's reopening criteria.
Petitioner seeks to meet the second prong of these criteria by
arguing that two pieces of information constitute the
``significant and pertinent unexpected events'' which should
trigger the Waste Confidence review process. First, petitioner
asserts that NRC's determination that a repository would be
available by 2025 was based on the ``express finding'' that the
``acceptability'' of Yucca Mountain as a geologic repository
would be decided by the year 2000, but that ``we now know that
the acceptability of Yucca Mountain will not be decided before
2010 at the earliest (completion of the construction
authorization stage).'' Petition at 7-8. Second, petitioner
asserts that the availability of a repository by 2025 assumed a
25-year
[[Page 48332]] period would be needed between a possible finding
of unacceptability of the Yucca Mountain site in 2000 and the
availability of a repository at a different site, but we ``now
know that if Yucca Mountain fails on or about the year 2010,
fifteen years * * * will not nearly be sufficient time to
accomplish all of the steps needed to make another repository
actually available.'' Petition at 8-10. First, we consider
petitioner's assertion that the Commission's 1990 determination
that a repository would be available by 2025 was based on an
``express finding'' that the acceptability of Yucca Mountain as a
geologic repository would be decided by the year 2000. The
Commission made no such finding, express or otherwise. What the
Commission did state in the 1990 decision was that ``NRC
continues to believe that if DOE determines that the Yucca
Mountain site is unsuitable, it will make this determination by
about the year 2000.'' 55 FR 38477 (emphasis added). There is a
significant difference, in the Waste Confidence decision, between
the concept of the ``suitability'' of Yucca Mountain and the
concept of the ``acceptability'' of Yucca Mountain.
``Suitability'' refers to the decision the Secretary of Energy
must make, on the basis of site characterization activities and
other factors, that a particular site is suitable for submission
of an application for a construction authorization for a
repository.
See section 113 of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, as
amended (NWPA), 42 U.S.C. 10133. Upon finding a particular site
to be suitable, the Secretary is required to make a
recommendation to the President that the President approve the
recommended site for the development of a repository. See section
114 of NWPA, 42 U.S.C. 10134.\6\
- \6\ On February 14, 2002, the Secretary of Energy
recommended the Yucca Mountain site for the development of a
repository to the President, thereby setting in motion the
approval process set forth in sections 114 and 115 of the NWPA.
See 42 U.S.C. 10134(a)(1); 10134(a)(2); 10135(b), 10136(b)(2). On
February 15, 2002, the President recommended the site to
Congress. On April 8, 2002, the State of Nevada submitted a
notice of disapproval of the site recommendation to which
Congress responded, on July 9, 2002, by passing a joint
resolution approving the development of a repository at Yucca
Mountain which the President signed on July 23, 2002.
See Pub. L. No. 107-200, 116 Stat. 735 (2002) (codified at 42
U.S.C. 10135 note (Supp. IV 2004).
- ``Acceptability'' refers to the decisions NRC must
make concerning the licenseability of the site. There are three
NRC decision points on a determination of the acceptability (or
license-ability) of Yucca Mountain: the first will be the
decision of the NRC staff in the licensing proceeding on whether
to recommend approval of the license application; the second will
be when the Commission, acting in its adjudicatory capacity,
determines whether to issue a construction authorization for the
repository, see 10 CFR 63.31; and the third will be when the
Commission determines whether to issue a license for the receipt
and possession of high-level waste, see 10 CFR 63.41. But, to be
clear, these considerations as to a site's ``acceptability'' were
not the basis for deciding on the 2025 date.
It is important to examine what NRC actually said in the 1990
Waste Confidence decision with respect to its revision of the
second finding because petitioner confuses the concepts of
``suitability'' and ``acceptability'' and fundamentally
misperceives the second finding. The Nuclear Waste Policy
Amendments Act of 1987 (NWPAA) had limited DOE's site
characterization activities to the Yucca Mountain site. In the
Commission's view, ``the possible schedular benefits to
single-site characterization * * * must be weighed for the
purposes of this Finding against the potential for additional
delays in repository availability if the Yucca Mountain site is
found to be unsuitable [because b]y focusing DOE site
characterization activities on Yucca Mountain, the NWPAA ha[d]
essentially made it necessary for that site to be found suitable
if the 2007-2009 timeframe for repository availability in the
Commission's 1984 decision is to be met'' (emphasis added). 55 FR
38494. This was because DOE had estimated conservatively that
``it would require approximately 25 years to begin site screening
for a second repository, perform site characterization, submit an
EIS and license applications, and await authorizations before the
repository could be ready to receive waste.'' Id. Obviously, any
DOE finding of unsuitability made after 1990 would not allow an
alternative repository site to be available in the 2007-2009
timeframe if 25 years were to be required for this purpose.
Moreover, in addition to reliance on a single site, other factors
raised doubts that a repository would be available in that time
period: the probability that site characterization activities
would not proceed entirely without problems; the history of DOE's
schedular slippages; and DOE's own then- current schedule calling
for submittal of a license application in 2001 and for repository
availability in 2010. Id. In light of these considerations, it no
longer seemed prudent to the Commission in 1990 to reaffirm NRC's
1984 finding of reasonable assurance that the 2007-2009 timetable
would be met. Instead, the Commission decided to take DOE's
estimate of the time it would take to make another repository
available if Yucca Mountain were to be found unsuitable (25
years) and then, for the sake of conservatism, make the
assumption that Yucca Mountain would not be found suitable. The
Commission thought it ``reasonable to expect that DOE would be
able to reach this conclusion by the year 2000 [which] would
leave 25 years for the attainment of repository operations at
another site.'' 55 FR 38495. Thus, the ``express finding'' that
the Commission made in 1990 was that the suitability (not the
acceptability) of Yucca Mountain would be decided by the year
2000, leaving 25 years for the availability of a different
repository if DOE found Yucca Mountain to be unsuitable.
That DOE in fact found the Yucca Mountain site to be suitable--in
early 2002--buttresses the 1990 finding of reasonable assurance
that a repository will be available in 2025, within the meaning
of our 1990 Waste Confidence decision. That decision rested on a
DOE suitability determination by ``about'' 2000. See 55 FR 38477.
DOE made such a determination in early 2002, and thus
substantially met our expectation.
Given what the Commission actually said in its 1990 Waste
Confidence finding, it is easy to see that the significant new
information regarding the timing of a repository proferred by
petitioner; i.e., that the acceptability (defined in the petition
as completion of the construction authorization stage) of Yucca
Mountain will not be decided before 2010 at the earliest and that
if Yucca Mountain is found to be unacceptable around the year
2010, 15 years will not be sufficient time for DOE to make
another repository available, petition at 8, is not the type of
information that would meet the Commission's criteria for
reopening. The Commission did not speculate in 1990 as to a date
by which it might make a decision on construction authorization;
its finding was based solely on its estimate of when DOE might
make a suitability determination.
The petition assumes that the NRC, in 1990, abandoned its
expectation that a repository would become available in the
2007-2009 time frame and selected a new date, 2025, out of a
concern that the continued use of the 2007-2009 period for
repository availability would ``prejudge'' its construction
authorization decision. Petition at 10. This, too, is an error.
``Availability,'' as used in the 1990 decision, begins with a DOE
projection of when a repository is targeted for
[[Page 48333]] availability based on DOE's estimates of the
timing of the suitability determination. 55 FR 38494. These DOE
projections were used by the Commission as a starting point for
determining ``availability.'' But, because of DOE's need to focus
exclusively on Yucca Mountain, the probability that site
characterization activities would not proceed entirely without
problems, and the chronic delays in the program, the Commission
was unwilling to accept DOE's then current projection of
repository availability in 2010. Instead, the Commission chose to
take a ``conservative'' approach to the timing of
``availability'' by setting a conservative upper bound of 2025.
See 55 FR 38494, 38595 and 38500. This would allow for DOE's
estimate of a 25-year time period needed for the availability of
a repository at an alternative site if DOE found the Yucca
Mountain site to be unsuitable and had to start over from
scratch.
If in 1990 the Commission had been thinking in terms of 25 years
being needed for an alternate repository site following an
adverse Commission finding of acceptability, obviously it could
not have chosen 2025 as the date for which it had reasonable
confidence that a repository would be available. DOE's submission
of a license application was at that time scheduled to be in
2001, meaning that any Commission rejection of the license could
not have been the basis for computing the 25 years needed for
evaluation of an alternative site. In fact, the use of a
Commission acceptability finding as the basis for repository
availability is impossible to implement because it would require
the Commission to prejudge the acceptability of any alternative
to Yucca Mountain in order to establish a reasonably supported
outer date for the Waste Confidence finding. That is, if the
Commission were to assume that a license for the Yucca Mountain
site might be denied in 2015 and establish a date 25 years hence
for the ``availability'' of an alternative repository (i.e.,
2040), it would still need to presume the ``acceptability'' of
the alternate site to meet that date.
Because it was untenable to presume the ``acceptability'' of any
site, including Yucca Mountain, the Commission, in 1990, chose
instead to take a two pronged approach to determining
``availability.'' First, it would use DOE's statutorily mandated
suitability determination as a basis for providing assurance that
a repository would be available in 2025. Specifically, the
Commission stated that it believed that DOE's site suitability
determination process should provide a ``* * * strong basis for
evaluating the likelihood of meeting the 2025 estimate of
repository availability.'' 55 FR 38495. Second, the Commission
allowed for reconsideration of its findings pending significant
and unexpected events. Certainly, the denial of a license for the
Yucca Mountain site would meet these criteria and the Commission
would need to reevaluate its findings at that time.
The State would recast the approach the Commission took to
defining ``availability'' by presuming that ``some acceptable
disposal site'' would be available at some undefined time in the
future. We find this approach inconsistent with that taken in the
1984 Waste Confidence Decision because it provides neither the
basis for assessing the degree of assurance that radioactive
waste can be disposed of safely nor the basis for determining
when such disposal will be available.
In sum, petitioner has not submitted any information establishing
that significant and pertinent unexpected events have occurred
which raise substantial doubt about the continuing validity of
the second Waste Confidence finding and, in particular, that
reasonable assurance exists that at least one mined geologic
repository will be available by 2025. Even if DOE's estimate as
to when it will tender a license application should slip further,
the 2025 date would still allow for unforeseen delays in
characterization and licensing. It also must be recognized that
the Commission remains committed to a fair and comprehensive
adjudication and, as a result, there is the potential for the
Commission to deny a license for the Yucca Mountain site based on
the record established in the adjudicatory proceeding. That
commitment is not jeopardized by the 2025 date for repository
availability.
The Commission did not see any threat to its ability to be an
impartial adjudicator in 1990 when it selected the 2025 date even
though then, as now, a repository could only become available if
the Commission's decision is favorable. Should the Commission's
decision be unfavorable and should DOE abandon the site, the
Commission would need to reevaluate the 2025 availability date,
as well as other findings made in 1990. However, that day has not
yet come and until it does the Commission finds no reason to
undertake the burden of reopening its Waste Confidence findings
in the absence of information meeting the criteria it has
established for this purpose.
Conclusion Petitioner misapprehends the Commission's 1990 Waste
Confidence findings and has not shown any significant and
pertinent unexpected event that raises substantial doubt about
the continuing validity of the 1990 Waste Confidence findings.
Accordingly, for the reasons stated above, the NRC denies the
petition for rulemaking to amend the Commission's Waste
Confidence decision in its entirety.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 10th day of August, 2005.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Andrew L. Bates, Acting Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. 05-16253 Filed 8-16-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
*****************************************************************
50 Las Vegas SUN: Nuke lobbyists to spend millions on new campaign
Today: August 17, 2005 at 11:1:48 PDT
Yucca could be part of industry promotion
By Benjamin Grove
SUN WASHINGTON BUREAU CHIEF
WASHINGTON -- The nation's top nuclear power lobby group is
planning another public relations campaign to promote the
industry, and possibly to advance the stalled Yucca Mountain
program.
The Washington-based Nuclear Energy Institute is planning to
hire a public relations firm to launch a campaign that would
"dovetail" with a resurgence of interest among lawmakers and
White House officials in constructing new nuclear plants, NEI
spokesman Steve Kerekes said.
"We're in the midst of putting together a broad outreach effort
to promote nuclear energy to the next level," Kerekes said.
The campaign would focus primarily on promoting nuclear power
to serve the nation's energy needs, Kerekes said. Nuclear plants
generate roughly 20 percent of the nation's electricity, and
industry officials have been elated with the interest of
President Bush and lawmakers in constructing a new generation of
U.S. nuclear plants. A comprehensive energy bill signed by Bush
last week contained industry incentives such as tax breaks for
new plants.
Nuclear industry officials have long touted the emissions-free
benefits of nuclear plant-generated electricity and in recent
years have talked about a "renaissance" in nuclear power.
It's not clear how much the campaign would focus on Yucca
Mountain, Kerekes said.
Yucca has suffered budget cuts in recent years and NEI plans to
continue to goad Congress this year to approve new rules that
would give the Energy Department more access to a national
nuclear waste fund, Kerekes said. Many lawmakers have been
reluctant to give up their authority to set Yucca budget caps.
The overall campaign likely would be long, possibly several
years, Kerekes said. NEI is reviewing bids from public relations
firms and could spend up to $8 million for the effort, industry
newsletter Energy Daily reported on Tuesday. Kerekes would not
confirm the amount.
"It could be more, could be less," he said.
The Energy Department's Yucca Mountain program has suffered
some high-profile setbacks and bad publicity. Most recently,
Nevada officials last week said they likely would challenge in
court a radiation standard they view as "outrageously" lax. The
Energy Department also launched an investigation after it
revealed in March that Yucca worker e-mails suggested quality
assurance documents had been falsified.
NEI is experienced with public relations campaigns. Along with
a massive lobbying effort, the group in 2002 led an expensive
campaign that included newspaper ads and television commercials
designed to win the support of Congress for Yucca Mountain in a
crucial vote.
Nevada Nuclear Projects Agency director Bob Loux said another
NEI public relations campaign mounted in the 1990s in Nevada
backfired, generating more negativity toward Yucca in the state.
Loux said he was not surprised, nor too worried, that NEI was
launching a new public relations campaign.
"Historically, NEI has not been very effective at these kinds
of things," Loux said. "So I'm not too concerned. You can't
publicize away the fact that it (Yucca) is a bad scientific
site."
The $8 million would dwarf what Nevada and anti-Yucca groups
will spend on public relations this year. The state spends
several million dollars a year on anti-Yucca legal work and
watchdog activities. But Nevada pays only $2,500 a month for
what could be called public relations.
The money is paid to keep Las Vegas firm Brown and Partners on
retainer, mostly to produce an electronic newsletter, Loux said.
It's hard to believe a broad NEI public relations campaign
would not contain a significant focus on Yucca Mountain, given
that Yucca is a critical to the industry's plan to construct new
plants, said anti-Yucca activist Kevin Kamps.
"From our perspective, Yucca has always been central to their
nuclear renaissance plan, or nuclear relapse, as we call it,"
Kamps said.
Kamps noted that in 2003, one year after NEI worked to win
Congress' formal approval of Yucca, NEI and Exelon Corp., along
with public relations firm Direct Impact, detailed the
industry's success in a presentation for the Public Affairs
Council.
One slide reads, "Why We Were Successful" with a giant "$"
underneath.
"It looks like they are up to their old tricks," said Kamps, a
nuclear waste specialist with Nuclear Information and Resource
Service, which obtained a copy of the presentation.
"It's ($8 million) a daunting figure, but we won't be daunted,"
Kamps said. "We'll fight it. Their attitude is let's have the
best Congress and White House money can buy."
NEI serves as the top industry lobby group in Washington, and
is a leader in advocating Yucca Mountain. The group was
established in 1994 when several industry organizations merged.
Its members include more than 250 corporate members in 13
countries, according to the organization.
NEI has its own in-house lobbyists and hires others. NEI also
operates a political action committee that gives money to
members of Congress. It gave about $150,000 to 82 lawmakers in
the 2004 election cycle.
All contents copyright 2005 Las Vegas SUN, Inc.
*****************************************************************
51 Baltic Times: Metal shipment raises frightening questions
NEWS FROM ESTONIA,LATVIA AND LITHUANIA
17.08.2005
By Milda Seputyte
VILNIUS - The Economy Ministry permitted a suspicious Russian
company to export nearly four tons of beryllium, a material used
in nuclear reactors and for building nuclear bombs, to Russia on
Aug. 11, raising questions about customs controls in Lithuania.
The article you requested can be accessed through subscribing to
the online version of The Baltic Times.
*****************************************************************
52 Cincinnati ENQUIRER: Washington's million-year safety plan
Cincinnati.Com"
Wednesday, August 17, 2005
Editorials
The Environmental Protection Agency has proposed a new radiation
exposure limit to protect people near Yucca Mountain's
high-level radioactive waste dump for 1 million years.
And you thought you had a problem making your roof last another
winter or two. EPA's new standard provoked radioactive comment
from Nevada officials over the site 90 miles from Las Vegas.
"Voodoo science" was among the milder remarks.
Even EPA balked a few years ago at projecting public safety
beyond 10,000 years. But despite the technical problem of
proving compliance over hundreds of thousands of years when we
have trouble sticking to a diet over a two-week vacation, we
still should ask ourselves: Do we want to reject altogether the
validity of calculating safe exposures from long-term decay of
radioactive isotopes? Because if we do, then no dump site could
ever be licensed, and 77,000 tons of extremely radioactive waste
would stay at commercial power plants and Defense Department
facilities in dozens of our states.
Other than rattlesnakes, few live near Yucca Mountain today, but
Las Vegas is a boom town, and given the cultural imperatives of
urban sprawl and developers' profit motives, people are likely
to sprawl in that direction. Congress selected the site in 1987,
and engineers have been testing it ever since.
On July 9, 2004, the U.S. Court of Appeals in the District of
Columbia ruled that EPA's previous standard of 10,000 years
disregarded a National Academies of Science study predicting
maximum doses escaping from Yucca would last much longer.
Now, EPA is taking comment on a two-tiered standard that would
allow a 15 millirems-per-year individual exposure for the first
10,000 years, and a 350 millirems-per-year individual exposure
the next 990,000 years. A chest X-ray exposes a patient to 10
millirems of radioactivity; a mammogram, 30 millirems. The
average American is exposed to about 300 millirems a year.
The new time-frame also requires the Department of Energy to
assess the effects of earthquakes, volcanic activity, a rainier
climate or corrosion over a million years. The scientists rely
on a "reasonable expectation" rule for their million-year
calculations.
It beats checking the morning-line odds in Vegas.
[Cincinnati.Com]
Copyright1995-2005. The Cincinnati Enquirer, a Gannett Co.
Inc.newspaper.
*****************************************************************
53 Waste News: Texas think-tank wants U.S. to recycle nuclear waste
[Wastenews.com headlines e-mailed daily] [Win a DVD player]
Aug. 17 -- Analysts for the National Center for Policy
Analysis, a Dallas-based think-tank, are recommending the United
States begins recycling its spent nuclear fuel rods.
Recycling the rods would extend their life and reduce the
amount of waste that would need to be shipped to and stored at
the planned Yucca Mountain repository near Las Vegas.
The analysts for NCPA, a nonprofit research group that
advocates alternatives to government regulation, maintain that
adopting a fuel recycling program would reduce controversy
surrounding the construction of the waste repository in Nevada.
"Spent nuclear rods are not waste and can be reused," said H.
Sterling Burnett, an NCPA senior fellow. France, which gets 70
percent of its electricity from nuclear power plants, already
recycles its used fuel, he said.
Entire contents copyright 2005 by Crain Communications Inc.
All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
54 Las Vegas SUN: Clark County projects Yucca Mountain costs at $3.7 billion
Today: August 17, 2005 at 17:28:31 PDT
ASSOCIATED PRESS
LAS VEGAS (AP) - Nevada's most populous county has estimated
public safety costs at $3.7 billion over the 24 years the federal
government plans to send radioactive waste to a planned nuclear
waste repository nearby.
A Clark County official said Wednesday the county was not
negotiating for federal benefits based on a consultant's
projections the county alone could spend $2.5 billion on police,
fire and emergency management services once trucks and trains
start hauling radioactive waste to Yucca Mountain.
Las Vegas was projected to spend an additional $1.1 billion,
with smaller municipalities spending a total of $100 million.
"This is stating again why the Clark County Commission is
opposed to this," said Erik Mueller, spokesman for the county
nuclear waste division. "This is an unfunded mandate that
taxpayers are going to be burdened with."
An Energy Department spokesman said Wednesday he had not seen
the 84-page report and could not comment.
The Energy Department has faced project delays in recent months,
but plans to open the Yucca Mountain repository in 2012 or
later.
The site, 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas in Nye County, is
expected to entomb 77,000 tons of the nation's most radioactive
waste now stored at military, industrial and commercial sites in
39 states.
Sheila Conway, a consultant with Scottsdale, Ariz.-based Urban
Environmental Research, told the Clark County Commission on
Tuesday the Energy Department should be responsible for
reimbursing the county and local governments.
The Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 calls for the department to
"provide technical assistance and funds" to states,
municipalities and American Indian tribes for training public
safety officials in jurisdictions where high-level radioactive
waste is transported.
Conway added costs of preparing for shipments increased $20
million since the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.
In another development, a top industry lobbying group is
preparing a public relations push to promote nuclear power,
including waste burial at Yucca Mountain.
"We're trying to take the support that exists for nuclear energy
and take it to another level," said Steve Kerekes, senior
director of media relations for the Nuclear Energy Institute in
Washington, D.C.
Kerekes said Wednesday a firm has not yet been hired for the
work and declined to say how much the group was prepared to pay.
Disposal of spent nuclear fuel is a top issue in the debate, and
Yucca Mountain is the only site in the nation selected to
receive it. But Kerekes said it was unclear how much the
campaign would focus on Yucca Mountain.
He said it will promote nuclear power to serve the nation's
energy needs following the signing of a federal energy bill last
week by President Bush. The law contains incentives for
construction of new nuclear plants.
"There really is a new era unfolding," Kerekes said. "We want to
do what we can to foster and sustain a favorable environment."
All contents copyright 2005 Las Vegas SUN, Inc.
*****************************************************************
55 Paducah Sun: USEC, needing to cut costs, cuts 50 salaried jobs
Paducah, Kentucky
The first reductions will be voluntary as production costs rise
at the gaseous diffusion plant.
By Joe Walker jwalker@paducahsun.com 270.575.8656
Wednesday, August 17, 2005
USEC Inc. is offering voluntary reductions of at least 50
salaried jobs at the Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant to try to
offset rising production costs, notably tens of millions of
dollars in electricity. Announced Tuesday at the plant, the
election period runs from Aug. 22 through Sept. 2, and the cuts
will start Sept. 30.
Of the plant's 1,270 workers, 650 are salaried and more than 100
salaried personnel are eligible for full pension now, said
company spokeswoman Elizabeth Stuckle.
She said the offer does not apply to salaried workers in
security and information technology, or union employees, who
make up the other half of the work force.
Stuckle said USEC won't decide whether to have additional
reductions until it knows how many will choose to act during the
initial period. Savings will depend on such things as how many
higher-paid managers take the offer, she said.
"We're tightening the belt every way we can," Stuckle said.
"This is just one of a number of ways to reduce operating
costs."
Using outdated gaseous diffusion technology, the plant burns as
much electricity as a major city to enrich uranium for use in
nuclear fuel. Last year, USEC spent $305 million — $25.4 million
per month — on electricity, accounting for 60 percent of
production costs. That was despite record efficiency by plant
workers and machinery.
Market prices for power have risen 45 percent since USEC signed
a new contract with the Tennessee Valley Authority in 2000.
Anticipating a big increase in power costs starting next June
when the contract expires, USEC said it continues to explore
cost-cutting measures and increasing efficiency.
USEC is negotiating a better deal with TVA, which last month
raised rates 7.5 percent across the board. The increase is
geared to generate about $524 million a year to help offset
higher fuel prices and the rising cost of supplemental
electricity TVA buys from other utilities. TVA also is under
ongoing pressure from the Office of Management and Budget to
reduce $25 billion in long-term debt. TVA has cut 728 workers
through forced layoffs and incentives since early 2004.
USEC hopes to achieve many of its job cuts by lessening
requirements for full or reduced pensions.
To receive a full pension benefit, employees must be at least 60
with a minimum eight years of company service, or be 48 or older
with combined age and service totaling at least 83 years.
For a reduced pension benefit, employees must be between 48 and
59 and have at least eight years of company service.
Stuckle said the plan is being offered only to salaried
employees because there were substantial reductions in hourly
workers in 2003, first voluntarily through incentives and then
involuntarily. USEC eliminated 220 jobs in 2003 when there was a
five-month strike by the nuclear workers' union.
In the past, many displaced USEC workers have found jobs with
Department of Energy cleanup contractors. Stuckle said that
could happen again this time.
The Paducah plant, which has about 550 cleanup workers, is
scheduled to close starting in 2010 as USEC opens a $1.5 billion
plant in Piketon, Ohio, using less energy-intensive gas
centrifuge.
*****************************************************************
56 AU ABC: Australian mining company scopes Niue for uranium deposits
The World Today - Wednesday, 17 August , 2005 12:50:00
Reporter: Bruce Hill
ELEANOR HALL: The world's smallest independent country could be
sitting on ten per cent of international uranium reserves. The
island of Niue, which lies between Tonga and the Cook Islands,
is about to be surveyed and drilled by Australian mining company
Yamarna Holdings.
Bruce Hill reports.
BRUCE HILL: Yamarna Goldfields saw its share price almost double
yesterday on the announcement it's spending $1.2 million to find
out just how much uranium there is under Niue.
Company Director Richard Revelins says they intend to start
drilling on the 260 square kilometre island within 60-days, but
he says it's early days yet and they still don't know if there's
a commercially exploitable deposit there.
He says the company is very aware of environmental concerns.
RICHARD REVELINS: There are now many new techniques for
extraction of uranium, which don't involve large disruption of
land. There's in situ leaching, for instance, where there's
minimal disturbance to the areas, it can be done on the spot.
BRUCE HILL: How much uranium could there be under Niue?
RICHARD REVELINS: We've run a geological model based on the
information we have at the moment. If the geological model holds
correctly it has the prospect of being very large indeed. Very
early days, but it could be up to 10 per cent of the world's
known uranium.
BRUCE HILL: Niue Opposition MP Terry Coe, a former Finance
Minister, says people on Niue haven't had time to react to the
news yet.
TERRY COE: Not many people know about it because it's just come
across on the news this morning at six o'clock and the
Government hasn't said anything about it.
BRUCE HILL: But Mr Coe believes the economic benefit of uranium
mining for the cash-strapped island could prove extremely
tempting
TERRY COE: It'd certainly boost our finances and I think really
all we've got to be careful is that we do our homework on the
environmental effects, etc. properly and how it's going to be
mined and how that's going to affect the people and also whether
the people want it or not.
BRUCE HILL: The Niue MP says the island has a unique ecosystem,
which means there would be some concerns about the potential
impact of mining.
TERRY COE: Well I think the major one is the (inaudible)
underneath the island that you know, that something could go
wrong with that, either the sea water get in or pollution from
the uranium.
BRUCE HILL: Environmental and anti-nuclear non-government
organisations in the Pacific are likely to strongly oppose the
very idea of mining uranium on Niue.
That's according to Neil Netaf, the Environmental Spokesman at
the Pacific Concerns Resource Center in Suva, the Secretariat of
the Nuclear Free and Independent Pacific Movement.
He points to the devastation caused by phosphate mining on Nauru
as an example of what can go wrong with such projects on small
islands.
NEIL NETAF: We all know Niue, it's a coral atoll, you know,
there's hardly anything there and if this happens it'll have a
devastating impact on that atoll. The (inaudible), that you
know, mining as such, you could make a lot of money out of it
economically, but look at what Nauru is experiencing at the
moment.
I mean, that's a classic example. Nauru has been all along
thought to be one of the richest countries in the Pacific, now
they're faced with a lot of socio-economic problems.
ELEANOR HALL: Environmentalist Neil Netaf ending that report
from Bruce Hill.
*****************************************************************
57 KVBC: Yucca Mountain Shipping Could Cost A Bundle
August 18, 2005
Shipping nuclear waste through southern Nevada would create a
financial burden on Clark County taxpayers. Today county
commissioners are outlining their expense plan on how much money
they would need to protect local families from high-level
nuclear waste.
In all, they say the price tag would be around 2 and a half
billion dollars. That would cover police, fire and emergency
crews over the Department Of Energy's 24-year shipment schedule.
Spent nuclear fuel and high level radioactive waste will come
from more than 100 sites around the country. Most of it by rail
and most of it from the eastern half of the country. Shipments
coming from southern California and other southwestern states
could travel right through Las Vegas, in specially designed
casks. The train would use the existing Union Pacific rail
lines.
Once the shipment arrives at Caliente, the DOE would move it
onto a dedicated rail line to Yucca Mountain. Those shipments
coming by truck from the southern California area would travel
along 1-15, and then use the 215 beltway to avoid the congested
Spaghetti Bowl.
The State of Nevada can request an alternative route for those
truck shipments. Currently, Nevada has a agreement with the
secretary of energy that low level waste not travel through the
Las Vegas Valley.
All content © Copyright 2000 - 2005 WorldNow and KVBC. All
*****************************************************************
58 KLAS: New Yucca Report: Nevada May Have to Pay $4 Billion
August 17, 2005
David Suarez, Photojournalist
The $3.8 billion in estimated public safety expenses for the
Yucca Mountain project should be paid by the federal government,
but Clark County planners believe taxpayers will be the ones to
shell out the money.
Brian Allen, Reporter
Billions of dollars in Yucca Mountain costs may have to be
passed on to Nevada taxpayers. The 3.8 billion in estimated
public safety expenses should be paid by the federal government,
but Clark County planners believe we'll be the ones to shell out
the money.
County leaders are bracing for what may lie ahead. The nearly $4
billion is an estimated cost of what Clark County, Las Vegas,
North Las Vegas, Henderson and Mesquite will have to spend on
public safety during the 24 years when nuclear waste will be
shipped to Yucca Mountain.
Clark County commissioners got their first look at the report
Tuesday that contains 84 pages of charts and graphs, and one big
number -- 3.8 billion.
"Four billion dollars over a course of 24 years is a huge, huge
burden." Irene Navis is the county's liaison to Yucca Mountain.
This nearly $4 billion is money that is to come from the
Department of Energy to be used to bolster public safety
programs to handle any Yucca Mountain related accidents. "The
DOE's own documents admit and acknowledge there will be
accidents that there will be incidents with release of
radiation," Navis said.
So where is the federal money? The report asserts the DOE is
unlikely to hand it over, blaming tight federal finances and the
DOE's history of not fully funding other projects. So where will
this 4 billion come from?
Nevada taxpayers aren't happy. "Well this is insane from the
beginning. Yucca Mountain, when they first started this, was
like winning the lottery." John Baietti owns the Red Apple
Grill. He supports the Yucca Mountain project, but says this
latest turn is ridiculous and insulting to Nevadans. "What's
amazing is the way this thing has been handled is disgusting
beyond belief."
Yucca Mountain is a federal project to be paid for with federal
money -- a project many in Nevada don't want. Ironically, they
-- along with you and me -- may end up footing part of the bill.
Right now, all Clark County leaders can say is if no federal
money comes through, Nevada taxpayers would have to pay up. They
have no idea what type of tax could be increased or initiated
that wouldn't exert some type of pain on taxpayers.
Leaders are very much at a crossroads.
Contact Reporter Brian Allen
Copyright 2000 - 2005 WorldNow and KLAS. All Rights Reserved.
*****************************************************************
59 NEWS.com.au: Making money with uranium
(17-08-2005)
[BHP] The spot uranium price rose 64
per cent in 2004-05 and the prices of uranium miners soared with
it / File
AUSTRALIA possesses about 30 per cent of the world's known
recoverable reserves of uranium, but only mines a fraction of
it. Recent government moves, such as opening up the Northern
Territory to uranium mining, will change that, making this part
of the mining sector more attractive to investors.
Of the nation's estimated recoverable reserves of about 890,000
tonnes of uranium oxide (U3O8), Australia exported 7765 tonnes
of uranium in 2004, worth more than $410 million.
Despite having twice the known uranium reserves of Canada,
Australia produces about 30 per cent less uranium oxide than it.
The best-performing stock in the S/ASX 200 over that financial
year was uranium explorer Paladin Resources, which surged almost
eight-fold in the period (13.5c to $1.175).
Now, uranium is the hottest commodity on the Australian share
market, following the Federal Government's move this month to
take control of the Northern Territory's uranium assets, and
declare them open for business.
For nearly 30 years, uranium mining in Australia was restricted
under a "three mines" policy, which allowed mining only at the
Ranger mine in the Northern Territory (owned by Energy Resources
of Australia), the Olympic Dam mine in South Australia (formerly
owned by WMC Resources, now by BHP Billiton) and the Beverley
mine in South Australia (owned by Heathgate Resources, a
subsidiary of General Atomic of the US).
The Coalition Government ditched the policy after taking office
in 1996, but it has been maintained by Labor-controlled state
governments.
Australia's known uranium resources have barely increased since
1982, except Olympic Dam, where reserves were upgraded in 1992.
But interest in uranium has sparked again, on the back of a
reappraisal of nuclear energy's possible future role. The spot
uranium price rose 64 per cent in 2004-05, and the share market
noticed.
Then there was the Government's statement that Australia wants
to double uranium exports if it can reach a safety agreement
with China, which is increasingly turning to nuclear power
generation.
Earlier this month, Compass Resources, which owns the Batchelor
tenements in the Northern Territory, jumped 55 per cent in a
week.
Jindalee Resources, which holds through soon-to-be-floated
subsidiary Energy Metals Limited, holds a portfolio of Territory
uranium assets, including a 53 per cent stake in the high-grade
Bigrlyi deposits and surged 62 per cent in one three-day stint.
Marathon Resources, which reported a "world-class" uranium-rare
earths system at Paralana in South Australia, more than doubled
in a day.
"It's the dot.coms all over again," says Gavin Wendt, mining
analyst at Intersuisse.
"The day traders are crawling over the uranium stocks. It's
announcement-driven momentum trading. 18 months ago it was
nickel explorers running when the nickel price went to $17,000 a
tonne, then it was copper, then coal, then iron ore. Now it's
uranium's turn."
Adam Conigliaro, energy analyst at Perth broking firm DJ
Carmichael, says at last count, there were 36 listed companies
claiming to offer exposure to uranium.
"At the top we've got ERA, which is our only producer, and then
Paladin is really our only developer. At the bottom end,
announcements look to be pretty opportunistic, whether it's to
get a higher share price or to raise capital."
Conigliaro says investors should note with uranium, there is
not only the exploration risk of defining a resource and taking
the project through to mining – you must also be allowed by a
government to do it.
"Politically, in Australia, it's best to be in South Australia
or the Northern Territory, as they are the places where there
are existing mines. Queensland has not allowed mines and the
West Australian Government actively opposes uranium mining."
Secondly, you have to be able to export it, he says. "Australia
is not going to use uranium domestically for the foreseeable
future, with our abundance of coal and natural gas, so even if
you're able to mine you'd have to be able to export it. As well
as three mines, there are only three export licences."
For "investment-grade exposure", ERA and Paladin are the only
stocks with genuine fundamentals rather than speculative
potential, Conigliaro says.
"If, on the other hand, you are looking for speculative
potential, I prefer Giralia Resources, Energy Metals (when it
lists), Goldstream Mining and Compass Resources, based on where
the resources are located and whether the stock has had a run."
Giralia has attraction because it has a joint venture partner
in Heathgate Resources, which holds one of three export licences.
Intersuisse's Wendt nominates two speculative hopefuls that are
"ahead of the pack" as far as their resources status is
concerned: Redport and Marathon Resources.
Both have JORC (Joint Ore Reserve Committee)-compliant
resources. "Redport has a resource in Western Australia and
Marathon has a resource in South Australia."
Wendt also identifies two stocks he calls up-and-comers,
Pepinnini and Glengarry. "Pepinnini is a South Australian
company that floated a few months ago. It has a large uranium
component to it and has just kicked off their first drilling
program.
"The other is Glengarry, which has been a copper-gold explorer
for several years, but has picked up a uranium project in
northern Queensland, called Greenvale."
He notes that indications show uranium exists, though there are
no uranium mines operating in Queensland. [bigger text]
*****************************************************************
60 UK: News & Star: Dont ship spent fuel to Sellafield
Published on 17/08/2005
ANTI-NUCLEAR protesters are fighting plans by a Swedish company
to send research reactor fuel to Sellafield for reprocessing.
Cumbrians Opposed to a Radioactive Environment (CORE) say that
although the five tonnes of spent fuel is a “drop in the
ocean” for Sellafield, they are opposing the principle that a
foreign utility can dump its nuclear problems on West Cumbria.
Spokesman Martin Forwood said: “We will be looking to the NDA,
in an early test of its true commitment to clean-up, to treat the
plan with the disdain it deserves."
Swedish company Studsvik-SVAFO wants to send the small
consignment of fuel to Sellafield for reprocessing in the B205
Magnox reprocessing plant. The company plans to transport it to
Sellafield in the summer of 2007.
Core says the reprocessed fuel will produce around 1600 litres of
highly active waste and more than 1 kg. A final decision to go
ahead with the shipment is expected to be made this summer.
A Sellafield spokeswoman said today: “'British Nuclear Group
has a contract to reprocess a small quantity of Swedish spent
uranium metal fuel in the Magnox reprocessing plant at
Sellafield.
“The contract provides for waste to be returned to Sweden.
Sellafield, with some 50 years experience of reprocessing uranium
metal fuel is uniquely placed to carry out this work in support
of Swedish decommissioning and clean up.”
*****************************************************************
61 The Olympian: Olympia council votes city nuke-free
Olympia, Washington
Wednesday August 17, 2005
Ordinance returns for final reading next week
BY KATHERINE TAM THE OLYMPIAN
OLYMPIA -- The City Council debate on whether to declare the
city a nuclear-free zone continued Tuesday night, with the
council giving it intitial approval.
For about two hours, council members debated the level of
community support, the potential for getting sued and the staff
cost of creating and enforcing a new law that bans nuclear
weapons from its boundaries. The same law also requires the city
to try not to do business with companies involved in making
nuclear weapons or their components.
A proposal by Mayor Mark Foutch to table the ordinance until
after an advisory vote on the November ballot failed.
Foutch's suggestion had Councilman Matthew Green, a vocal critic
of the now-defunct arts and conference center idea, pointing out
the hypocrisy after the council's earlier decision not to seek a
public vote on the controversial conference center nearly two
years ago.
In the end, council members passed a first reading of the
ordinance 5-2, with Foutch and Doug Mah dissenting. Those who
voted in favor acknowledged that it will be hard to enforce the
law, but said the city can take steps locally against nuclear
weapons. By doing so, it could have a ripple effect
internationally, they said.
"There's no reason to delay, to put it off for more study
because we'll never come up with the perfect ordinance," said
Councilman TJ Johnson, who proposed the ordinance.
Mah, who voted against the ordinance, said, "We're confusing
good intent with good policy. ... It astounds me that we are
saying we're going to pass something we question if we can
enforce it and we question if we can follow through."
The ordinance returns next week for a final reading before it
becomes law.
Foutch raised questions about whether the ordinance applies to
the USS Olympia, the nuclear-powered submarine whose proposed
visit was at the center of controversy last year. Organizers of
Capital Lakefair have invited the sub for a visit next July, he
said.
"I don't think the community can afford yet another divisive
argument over the USS Olympia," Foutch said. "The USS Olympia
episode last year raised enough of a flap that embarrassed state
officials, and they were not happy with that. Are we setting up
another confrontation and codifying it in Olympia law?"
The law would not apply to the sub if the U.S. Navy certifies
that the vessel isn't carrying nuclear weapons. The Navy would
need to break from its policy of neither confirming nor denying
the presence of nuclear weapons, which Foutch said federal
officials aren't likely to do.
The lack of a statement wouldn't trigger sanctions under the
ordinance, Green said. The vessel would be excluded from the
ordinance if it won't confirm or deny for federal security
reasons, Councilman Joe Hyer said.
If the sub comes at Lakefair, "it will be a divisive situation
regardless of whether we act or don't act," Johnson said.
In an earlier interview, Navy spokeswoman Lt. Barbara Mertz said
vessels such as the USS Olympia carry Tomahawk cruise missiles
but do not deploy nuclear weapons.
The ordinance would apply to ships traveling through Budd Inlet.
Bob Van Schoorl, president of the port commission, had not read
the ordinance in detail yet, but said, "We've never had any
cargo that's considered nuclear. We have no intent to do that.
It would probably have little or no effect."
The City Council has received dozens of e-mails from people in
favor of the nuclear-free zone, and heard from about 40
advocates at last week's public hearing. The ordinance may be a
challenge to enforce, but supporter Carrie Lybecker said, "As a
community, if we're saying we don't want that (nuclear weapons)
here, I think that statement is pretty strong."
The council also received a handful of e-mails from people
concerned about the proposal.
"This proposed ordinance has risk -- political, economic, and
legal," Wendy Korthuis-Smith wrote in an e-mail. "As a member of
our community, I am interested in my city council addressing
city issues, not political issues of international peace. This
ordinance will continue to divide our community."
Under the ordinance, the city would try not to do business with
companies that make nuclear weapons or their components.
Companies would sign an affidavit certifying that they're not
involved in nuclear weaponry.
Officials would do business with anyone that doesn't sign the
affidavit if there isn't an alternative, but they would say the
company's name at a public meeting and ask the company to stop
producing nuclear weapons or their components.
It will be tough to enforce all of the ordinance, City Manager
Steve Hall said. The city lacks the staff or the expertise to
monitor whether companies are telling the truth; they will take
them at their word. Nor do officials have the staff to track
whether nuclear cargo is being trucked along Interstate 5 or
U.S. Highway 101 within the city limits.
They said they will rely on community watchdog groups to supply
"hard facts" to ensure the ordinance isn't being broken, Hall
said. They would not accept journal articles, rumors or
allegations as "hard facts."
It won't be difficult to find a group of people willing to be
watchdogs, ordinance supporters Lybecker and Jami Heinricher
said.
Violations are punishable by fines that start at $25 per day on
the first offense, rising to $100 a day on the third offense.
Public works officials can also cut utility service to violators.
The ordinance does not affect nuclear medicine or fissionable
materials used in smoke detectors, light-emitting watches and
clocks. It does not deal with depleted uranium, which has been a
concern among some peace activists who worry about lung damage
and cancer from military equipment being shipped into the port.
Join
SITE MAP: TheOlympian.com home
*****************************************************************
62 Japan Times: Double standards don't help
Thursday, August 18, 2005
By HUGH CORTAZZI
LONDON -- Sixty years ago this month Hiroshima and Nagasaki
were devastated by the first nuclear bombs. The effects of these
bombs on the civilian populations of these cities are a horrific
reminder of why all governments need to redouble their efforts
to prevent nuclear proliferation and to achieve nuclear
disarmament. Unfortunately the threat of nuclear proliferation
has increased rather than diminished, and the nuclear powers
have been dilatory in attempting nuclear disarmament.
The rising price of oil and the inadequacy of "green" energy
alternatives such as wind turbines, solar energy and tidal power
have revived the desirability of developing atomic power. The
risks of a nuclear accident can be reduced by careful management
and stringent discipline in power plants, but it can never be
eliminated. The greatest risk arises from the fact that peaceful
uses of atomic power opens the way to fuel-enrichment processes,
which, if misused, may lead to the development of atomic
weapons. Hence stringent U.N. supervision of the fuel cycle is
vital.
The main nuclear powers, the United States, Russia, China,
Britain and France, have been joined by India, Pakistan and
Israel. North Korea claims to possess a small number of nuclear
warheads, and has declared its intention of going ahead with the
development of atomic weapons.
Iran, which received knowhow and equipment from Pakistani
nuclear scientist Abdul Qadeer Khan, disavows any intention of
becoming a nuclear power, but seems determined to keep its
options open by working on uranium enrichment. It appears
unwilling to make any concession to foreign pressure.
The problem of how to prevent Iran and North Korea from
developing atomic weapons and thus setting a bad example for
other powers remains the subject of much debate, especially in
Washington, where preference for "the stick over the carrot"
still seems to prevail. U.S. President George W. Bush says he
will not rule out military action against Iran if the Iranian
government persists on its present course, but how credible is
such a threat? With the U.S. armed forces bogged down in a war
of attrition against insurgents in Iraq, it is hard to see how
the U.S. could mount an invasion of Iran. Airstrikes are a
possibility, but it seems more likely that, if it were decided
to take forcible action against Iran, the task of taking out
Iranian nuclear facilities would fall to Israel.
Besides the implications of such action for the fight against
terrorism, peace in the Middle East and the development of
democracy in the area, the likely reluctance of America's allies
in Europe and the Far East to endorse such action must surely
make even the most belligerent of "neocons" in Washington think
twice before endorsing the use of force against Iran.
If North Korea does possess nuclear weapons, they pose a
particular threat to Japan and their use against Japanese
targets cannot be ruled out if there were an imminent threat of
military action against North Korea. Thought would also have to
be given to the possibly disastrous effect that any military
action against North Korea would have on U.S. relations with
South Korea and China.
These considerations make it more likely that the "stick," if
used, would take the form of economic and other sanctions under
the auspices of the United Nations. But it would not be easy to
achieve a consensus on sanctions against Iran or North Korea. It
is not clear what attitude Russia would take. China might oppose
sanctions against Iran, with which it is developing trade
relations, and it would not want to take any action against
North Korea that might lead to an influx of North Korean
refugees into China. The French would not want to upset the
Russians or the Chinese.
Even if a consensus on sanctions could be reached, it is
doubtful how effective they would be. The most effectively
invoked economic sanction would be to deprive a state of oil,
but Iran has its own supplies. Sanctions against North Korean
shipping might have some effect, but such sanctions would mainly
worsen the plight of ordinary people.
All this suggests that the "carrot" must be tried again with
greater determination. It will not be easy to persuade Bush
that, for now at least, he must give up military options and
concentrate on negotiations. The hostility between the U.S. and
Iran and North Korea is deep-seated. None of them are inclined
to offer compromises that might cause them to lose face, yet a
continuing standoff would leave the Iranians and the North
Koreans in a position to continue nuclear development.
However unpalatable the two regimes in Iran and North Korea may
seem, we must deal with them, and we must try to understand why
they may feel threatened. Iran has on one side a nuclear state
-- Pakistan -- that is closely bound to the U.S. in the fight
against terrorism, and on other side, Iraq, which now contains
large number of U.S. forces. Beyond Iraq lies Israel, which Iran
refuses to recognize and treats as its enemy.
North Korea should have even less to fear. Japan, South Korea,
China and Russia have clearly no intention of attacking it, and
the U.S., however much it vilifies the North, is not going to
risk unleashing a nuclear holocaust in the Far East. It is never
easy to fathom the intentions of a secretive regime like North
Korea, but the leadership's main aim is presumably survival, and
its fears of a U.S. attack are paranoid.
The nuclear powers need to ask themselves whether they are
doing enough to achieve nuclear disarmament as they have
pledged. The answer has to be "no." They lay themselves open to
charges of hypocrisy and double standards. How can pious
platitudes about nuclear disarmament be translated into real
measures of disarmament? This will be difficult, but Western
politicians need to give this issue a much higher priority.
Hugh Cortazzi, a former British career diplomat, served as
ambassador to Japan from 1980 to 1984.
The Japan Times: Aug. 18, 2005
(C) All rights reserved
*****************************************************************
63 Seattle Times: Workers remove radioactive waste from third Hanford tank
Wednesday, August 17, 2005 - Page updated at 08:59 AM
By Shannon Dininny
The Associated Press
YAKIMA Three down, 174 to go.
Workers at southcentral Washington's Hanford nuclear reservation
have completed the removal of radioactive and chemical waste
from a third underground tank less than 10 miles from the
Columbia River. The milestone marks the second time this year
that workers completed a project to remove solid waste from a
tank. The first tank was emptied of solid waste in 2003.
"The tanks are the most important cleanup project at Hanford.
There's no greater need," said Sheryl Hutchison, spokeswoman for
the state Department of Ecology, which regulates the U.S.
Department of Energy's cleanup operations at the site. "So every
one they get emptied is a big step forward."
For 40 years, the Hanford reservation made plutonium for the
nation's nuclear weapons arsenal. Today, work there centers on a
$50 billion to $60 billion cleanup, to be finished by 2035.
Much of the cleanup involves treating 53 million gallons of
highly radioactive waste that has been stewing in 177 aging
underground tanks. Most critical is the waste in 149 tanks that
have a single-wall construction, making them more susceptible to
leaks as they age.
The single-shell tanks, built from the 1940s through the '60s,
were designed to last about 20 years. An estimated 67 of them
leaked about 1 million gallons of radioactive brew into the
soil, contaminating the aquifer and threatening the river.
Last year, the last liquids were pumped from all the
single-shell tanks into newer, double-walled tanks. However, the
tough job of removing sludge or hardened salt cake at their
bottom remained.
In 2003, workers used a sluicing method to remove sludge from
the first tank, C-106. The method involved adding acid to
dissolved sludge and then washing away waste with water. For
tank C-203, completed in March, workers inserted a vacuum hose
into the tank to suck up sludge containing radioactive cesium
and strontium. The process took nine months.
The vacuum procedure was repeated for tank C-202, a
55,000-gallon tank built in 1944 to store waste from the
production of nuclear materials for the top-secret Manhattan
Project. Removal of solid waste from the tank was completed last
week, six weeks after the project began, said Ryan Dodd, CH2M
Hill vice president of closure operations for one of the tank
farms. CH2M Hill is the contractor hired to handle the tank farm
cleanup.
"From nine months to six weeks is a major accomplishment for us,
and really demonstrates our learning in the process and our
operation getting much more efficient at how to operate this
vacuum system," Dodd said Tuesday when cleanup of the third tank
was announced.
Cleanup at the Hanford site is governed by the Tri-Party
Agreement, the cleanup pact signed by the Energy Department,
state Ecology Department and the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency. Under the agreement, no more than 240 gallons or about
30 cubic feet of waste may remain at the bottom of a tank.
The third tank emptied has less than 20 cubic feet of waste
remaining, Dodd said.
The Tri-Party Agreement calls for emptying the contents of all
149 single-walled tanks by 2018.
How the remaining so-called residue, and the tanks themselves,
will be disposed of has not yet been determined.
From the double-shell tanks, the waste will be piped to a waste
treatment plant, currently under construction, that will use a
process called vitrification to turn it into glasslike logs for
permanent disposal in a nuclear waste repository.
Under the Tri-Party Agreement, the plant must be built by 2009
and fully operating by 2011 following two years of testing.
However, construction problems and a new seismic analysis have
forced the Energy Department to slow construction amid rising
costs.
The Energy Department has not yet said how much more the project
will cost above its current budget of $5.8 billion, or how much
more time will be needed to build it. Congressional leaders have
said the new problems could push the estimated cost closer to
$10 billion and delay the plant's start by four years.
Copyright © 2005 The Seattle Times Company
*****************************************************************
64 Tri-City Herald: Video helps doctors dealing with patients exposed at Hanford
This story was published Tuesday, August 16th, 2005
By Annette Cary, Herald staff writer
When former activist Judith Jurji hears from people who have
just learned they may have been exposed to radiation from the
Hanford nuclear reservation, their first reaction is anger.
Then they often feel betrayed, having been told living downwind
of Hanford was safe. And finally, they're fearful their health
or the health of future generations may be damaged.
But when they take their concerns to their doctors, they may
worry that they are being paranoid or will be perceived as an
oddball, said Jurji, who grew up in Richland when Hanford was
releasing radioactive iodine that drifted over the town.
The worry and uncertainty are typical of people and communities
exposed to environmental toxins, says Dr. Pam Tucker, who is
featured with Jurji in a new video to help physicians better
understand the psychology of patients who lived downwind of
Hanford during World War II and the Cold War.
"We try to get the doctor to see the patient's point of view.
They might not necessarily agree, but they will understand where
they are coming from," Tucker said in a telephone interview.
She's a medical officer specializing in the psychological and
social effects of hazardous waste sites at the Agency for Toxic
Substances and Disease Registry, or ATSDR, of the U.S. Centers
for Disease Control and Prevention.
The Hanford Community Health Project of ATSDR believes the topic
is important enough to devote its final resources from $1.5
million provided by the Department of Energy in 1999.
"The psychological impact of Hanford exposure is a piece of the
puzzle that hasn't gotten a lot of exposure," said Greg Thomas,
the technical project officer for the Hanford Community Health
Project.
People living near hazardous waste sites may never know for
certain what exposure they had to toxic substances, Thomas said.
At Hanford, radioactive iodine from the production of plutonium
for the nation's nuclear weapons program was released to drift
northwest with the wind and settle out on pastures and crops in
the 1940s and 1950s. Other radionuclides were released into the
Columbia River.
"The stress of not knowing is real and can have impacts on
routine health care," Thomas said.
Most people were unaware that they may have been exposed to
radiation from Hanford until government documents were
declassified IN the late 1980s.
Jurji, who learned about her exposure then, became the president
of the former Hanford Downwinder's Coalition, a citizens' group
that helped thousands of people worried about their exposure.
More recently progress and publicity in a 14-year-old federal
lawsuit brought by more than 2,000 downwinders has focused
renewed attention on past Hanford releases.
Communities are commonly split, neighbor disagreeing with
neighbor, over how much damage environmental toxins caused,
Tucker said.
Some people may blame any health problem on the exposure. Others
may question that belief, pointing out that they have no health
problems, Tucker said.
The $22 million Hanford Thyroid Disease Study failed to find an
increase of thyroid disease in downwinders. Radioactive iodine,
the main isotope released from Hanford, concentrates in the
thyroid. But that study addressed the entire group of
downwinders and could not rule out that specific cases of
disease might be tied to Hanford.
"Once people know they are exposed, they can be very stressed
about it," Tucker says in the video. Her goal is to help doctors
give accurate information in less stressful ways.
"Remember the purpose is not to change beliefs, but to convey
information," the video says.
Expressing empathy can calm anxiety. Coming up with a plan of
action, such as annual thyroid tests, also can help.
Good communication benefits both doctor and patient, Tucker
said.
If patients feel their doctor is listening to them, they are
more likely to listen to the doctor and follow instructions, she
said.
The video is available on the Internet. To find it go to
www.cdc.gov and search for "Hanford video" using no quotation
marks.
More information for downwinders is posted at
www.hanfordhealth.info.
© 2005 Tri-City Herald, Associated Press &Other Wire Services
*****************************************************************
65 Tri-City Herald: Puttin' down the hammer
This story was published Wednesday, August 17th, 2005
By Annette Cary, Herald staff writer
The ground shook just south of the Hanford nuclear reservation
at 8 a.m. Tuesday as 1,000 horsepower of vibratory hammer
pounded a 28-foot-long casing into the ground.
It was the final demonstration without using real waste of a new
technology that North Wind of Richland is proposing to dig up
Hanford waste quickly, relatively inexpensively and without
bringing workers into direct contact with buried radioactive and
hazardous chemical waste.
The company, based in Idaho, is proposing driving a casing into
the ground, capping the bottom and top, then lifting the casing
out with waste encapsulated inside.
"Our approach was to look at what was commercially available and
bring it to bear on the (cleanup)," said Mark Riess, vice
president of Washington state operations for North Wind.
Under a $4.7 million Department of Energy grant, it focused on
the problem of digging up vertical pipes used to hold waste in
two of Hanford's most notorious burial grounds, 618-10 and
618-11, not far from the Columbia River.
They were used in the 1950s and 1960s to dispose of laboratory
waste from research and testing for the production of plutonium
for the nation's nuclear weapons program. Some loads hauled from
the 300 Area just north of Richland to the burial grounds were
so radioactive that truck drivers had to be replaced halfway
through their 10-mile drive.
Much of the worst waste was dumped into about five caissons,
underground steel chambers connected to the surface by a crooked
and slanted pipe.
More of the waste was deposited in 148 vertical pipes. Five
55-gallon drums were welded end to end and buried for each. Then
containers of laboratory waste, ranging from about the size of a
juice can to five-gallon buckets, were dropped down the pipes.
It's those vertical pipes North Wind is proposing to encase
within the ground and safely remove intact, even if they've
corroded over the last half-century.
Tuesday morning the vibratory hammer suspended from a crane took
just four and a half minutes to pound a casing into the ground.
It surrounded a mock waste pipe at North Wind's Cold Test
Facility on Horn Rapids Road, five miles south of Burial Ground
618-10. The other burial ground is next to the northwest corner
of the Energy Northwest complex.
The casing was lined with four pieces of rebar that would be
pounded down to bend around the bottom of the vertical pipe and
four tubes for pumping grout to the bottom of the pipe to mix
with the soil. It should have cured overnight into a
rebar-enforced, grout plug to close the bottom end of the pipe.
The casing can be drawn from the ground today and encased in a
bright-yellow sleeve planned to prevent any contamination from
escaping, particularly if pipes have corroded and allowed
surrounding soil to be contaminated.
In actual use, radiation detection equipment would have been
temporarily inserted inside the casing to make sure workers knew
how radioactively hot the pipe was before it was removed.
Part of North Wind's grant, the most recent of two in a phased
program to narrow DOE's search for cleanup technology, was used
to review historical records to better understand what wastes
the pipes might hold.
The company believes that most may contain low enough levels of
radioactive wastes that the enclosed pipes may be taken without
further treatment to the Environmental Restoration Disposal
Facility, a waste site in central Hanford, for permanent
disposal, Riess said.
Tuesday's test was the last of four full-scale demonstrations of
the project at North Wind's Cold Test Facility.
The next step would be to demonstrate it on one of the vertical
pipes in the two burial grounds, which would require about $1.1
million from DOE in a tight budget year.
DOE is interested in proving the technology not just for use at
Hanford, but also possibly other DOE sites, said Mark French,
project director for solid waste disposition with DOE's Richland
Operations Office. DOE also faces a legal deadline to complete
the design, scheduling and planning to cleanup the 618-10 and
618-11 Burial Grounds by March 31, 2007.
© 2005 Tri-City Herald, Associated Press &Other Wire Services
*****************************************************************
66 Tri-City Herald: Hanford tank waste cleanup excels
This story was published Wednesday, August 17th, 2005
By Annette Cary, Herald staff writer
The third of Hanford's underground tanks of radioactive and
hazardous chemical waste has been emptied, leaving 174 to go.
But while the second tank took nine months of work to empty,
work on tank C-202 began only in June. Six weeks later, it's
empty.
"That's the big deal," said Dale Allen, executive vice president
of CH2M Hill. "They plowed the lessons they learned back into
this tank."
Tank C-202 is one of the smallest tanks at Hanford at 55,000
gallons. But it's one of the oldest, built in 1944 and 1945, and
is suspected of leaking waste into the ground in the past.
The Department of Energy is working to empty all of Hanford's
149 tanks built with only a single shell into more protective
double-shell tanks until the waste can be treated for permanent
disposal. The waste is left from processing uranium fuel
irradiated in Hanford reactors to remove plutonium for the
nation's nuclear weapons program during World War II and the
Cold War.
All the pumpable liquid has been removed from the single-shell
tanks, and work is continuing to remove the sludge and solids
that remain.
Each tank holds a different mix of chemicals and different
methods have been needed to retrieve the waste from inside the
closed, buried tanks.
Tank C-202 is the second tank to be emptied using a vacuum with
a hose inserted within the closed tank to suck up a sludge that
contains radioactive cesium and strontium. A high-pressure spray
of water was used sparingly to break up clumps of waste that
couldn't be sucked up otherwise.
The equipment was adapted for Hanford use from the petroleum
industry.
To meet the legally binding Tri-Party Agreement, the tank needed
to be emptied of all but 30 cubic feet of waste, just 1 percent
of its contents, or emptied until current technology could
remove no more.
CH2M Hill believes it has gotten the waste to less than 20 cubic
feet dispersed throughout the huge tank.
"We're confident we've gone to the limits of technology and met
the criteria," said Ryan Dodd, vice president of closure
operations for C Farm at CH2M Hill.
That means for the first time since World War II, cameras
photographing inside the tank produce pictures that show the
welds on its bottom.
They also show debris scattered around the tank's floor that
workers had to carefully vacuum around. That includes a hose, a
roll of tape and pieces of early measuring devices that became
too contaminated to remove from the tank.
"We intend to start vacuuming on the next tank by the end of
September," Allen said. It will be the third of four similar
tanks in the C Tank Farm to be emptied using the vacuum method.
In addition, workers are preparing to remove waste from a larger
tank, C-103, which has a 530,000 gallon capacity.
In a new process, it will use liquid waste now held in a
double-shell tank to mobilize the sludge so it can be pumped. If
clean water were used, that would create new liquid waste that
would need to be stored in double-shell tanks.
The double-shell tanks already are expected to run out of space
for waste from single-shell tanks before the vitrification plant
under construction is ready to turn tank waste into a sturdy
glass form for permanent disposal.
More tests will be needed to confirm the contents of the
residual waste in tank C-202 and how much waste remains.
But the Washington State Department of Ecology agreed Tuesday
that it appears the tank more than meets legal requirements to
be considered empty.
"Tank wastes are our very highest priority at Hanford and every
tank emptied is a great step forward," said Sheryl Hutchison,
spokeswoman for the Department of Ecology.
© 2005 Tri-City Herald, Associated Press &Other Wire Services
*****************************************************************
67 TheNewMexicoChannel.com: Los Alamos Resumes Shipments To WIPP
POSTED: 1:36 pm MDT August 17, 2005
LOS ALAMOS, N.M. -- Los Alamos National Laboratory has resumed
shipments to the federal government's nuclear waste dump near
Carlsbad.
It was the first shipment from the lab since May 2003.
The lab says it sent 14 55-gallon drums of
plutonium-contaminated waste to the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant
on July 28. The waste was from so-called sealed sources. That
means it could be any one of several radioactive isotopes
encapsulated to prevent leakage.
Sealed sources are used for research and a variety of medical
and industrial applications.
They're found in such things as pacemakers, moisture gauges,
oil-well logging equipment and smoke detectors.
Copyright 2005 by The Associated Press. All rights reserved.
This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or
redistributed.
© 2005,Internet Broadcasting Systems, Inc.
*****************************************************************
68 The Olympian: 3rd Hanford tank cleaned
Olympia, Washington
Wednesday August 17, 2005
BY SHANNON DININNY
THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
YAKIMA -- Three down, 174 to go.
Workers at southcentral Washington's Hanford nuclear reservation
have completed the removal of radioactive and chemical waste
from a third underground tank less than 10 miles from the
Columbia River. The milestone marks the second time this year
that workers completed a project to remove solid waste from a
tank. The first tank was emptied of solid waste in 2003.
"The tanks are the most important cleanup project at Hanford.
There's no greater need," said Sheryl Hutchison, spokeswoman for
the state Department of Ecology, which regulates the U.S.
Department of Energy's cleanup operations at the site. "So every
one they get emptied is a big step forward."
For 40 years, the Hanford reservation made plutonium for the
nation's nuclear weapons arsenal. Today, work there centers on a
$50 billion to $60 billion cleanup, to be finished by 2035.
Much of the cleanup involves treating 53 million gallons of
highly radioactive waste that has been stewing in 177 aging
underground tanks. Most critical is the waste in 149 tanks that
have a single-wall construction, making them more susceptible to
leaks as they age.
Single-shelled tanks
The single-shell tanks, built from the 1940s through the 1960s,
were designed to last about 20 years. An estimated 67 of them
leaked about 1 million gallons of radioactive brew into the
soil, contaminating the aquifer and threatening the river.
Last year, the last liquids were pumped from all the
single-shell tanks into newer, double-walled tanks. However, the
tough job of removing sludge or hardened salt cake at their
bottom remained.
In 2003, workers used a sluicing method to remove sludge from
the first tank, C-106. The method involved adding acid to
dissolved sludge and then washing away waste with water. For
tank C-203, completed in March, workers inserted a vacuum hose
into the tank to suck up sludge containing radioactive cesium
and strontium. The process took nine months.
The vacuum procedure was repeated for tank C-202, a
55,000-gallon tank built in 1944 to store waste from the
production of nuclear materials for the top-secret Manhattan
Project. Removal of solid waste from the tank was completed last
week, six weeks after the project began, said Ryan Dodd, CH2M
Hill vice president of closure operations for one of the tank
farms. CH2M Hill is the contractor hired to handle the tank farm
cleanup.
"From nine months to six weeks is a major accomplishment for us,
and really demonstrates our learning in the process and our
operation getting much more efficient at how to operate this
vacuum system," Dodd said Tuesday when cleanup of the third tank
was announced.
©2005 The Olympian
*****************************************************************
69 DOE: Conveyance and Transfer of Certain Land Tracts Administered by
FR Doc 05-16276
[Federal Register: August 17, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 158)]
[Notices] [Page 48378-48380] From the Federal Register Online via
GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr17au05-55]
the Department of Energy and Located at Los Alamos National
Laboratory, Los Alamos and Santa Fe Counties, NM AGENCY:
Department of Energy, National Nuclear Security Administration
ACTION: Amended record of decision.
SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of Energy's National Nuclear
Security Administration (DOE/NNSA) is amending the Record of
Decision (ROD) for the Environmental Impact Statement for the
Conveyance and Transfer of Certain Land Tracts Administered by
the Department of Energy and Located at Los Alamos National
Laboratory, Los Alamos and Santa Fe Counties, New Mexico,
DOE/EIS-0293 (Conveyance and Transfer EIS) to reflect changes in
the need to retain a certain portion of a land tract withheld
earlier due to potential national security mission requirements
for a health and safety buffer area relating to on-going
operations. Specifically, DOE/NNSA has reassessed its need for a
certain portion of a tract to serve as a health and safety buffer
area for current and post-operations cleanup of its
tritium-related activities at Los Alamos National Laboratory's
(LANL's) Technical Area 21 (TA-21). DOE/NNSA no longer needs to
retain a 32.3-acre portion of the Airport Tract located along the
south side of State Road 502 for this purpose.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information
concerning the conveyance or transfer of land tracts or this
amended ROD, contact: Elizabeth Withers, NEPA Compliance Officer,
Los Alamos Site Office, National Nuclear Security Administration,
528 35th Street, Los Alamos, NM 87004 Telephone (505) 667-8690.
For further information concerning DOE's National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA) process, contact: Ms. Carol Borgstrom,
Director, Office of NEPA Policy and Compliance (EH-42), U.S.
Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington,
DC 20585, Telephone (202) 586-4600, or leave a message at
1-800-472-2756.
Additional information regarding the DOE NEPA process and
activities is also available on the Internet through the NEPA
home page at http://www.eh.doe.gov/nepa. Copies of the Conveyance
and Transfer EIS and the 2000 ROD are also available on the NEPA
Web site, along with this and one other amended RODs (discussed
in later paragraphs).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background A. Legal Requirements
for Action LANL is one of several national security laboratories
that support DOE's and NNSA's responsibilities for national
security, energy resources, environmental quality, and science.
Located in north-central New Mexico, LANL is about 60 miles (97
kilometers) north-northeast of Albuquerque, and about 25 miles
(40 kilometers) northwest of Santa Fe. The small communities of
Los Alamos townsite, White Rock, Pajarito Acres, the Royal Crest
Mobile Home Park, and San Ildefonso Pueblo are located in the
immediate vicinity of LANL. LANL occupies an area of
approximately 25,600 acres (10,360 hectares), or approximately 40
square miles (104 square kilometers). DOE also has administrative
control over other properties and land within Los Alamos County
that total about 915 acres (371 hectares).
On November 26, 1997, Congress passed Public Law 105-119, the
Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary, and
Related Agencies Appropriations Act, Fiscal Year 1998 (``the
Act'').
Section 632 of the Act (42 U.S.C. 2391) directs the Secretary of
Energy (the Secretary) to convey to the Incorporated County of
Los Alamos, New Mexico, or to the designee of the County, and
transfer to the Department of the Interior, in trust for the San
Ildefonso Pueblo, parcels of land under the jurisdictional
administrative control of the Secretary at or in the vicinity of
LANL. Such parcels, or tracts, of land must meet suitability
criteria established by the Act. The purpose of the conveyances
and transfers is to fulfill the obligations of the United States
with respect to Los Alamos, New Mexico, under sections 91 and 94
of the Atomic Energy Community Act of 1955 (AECA) (42 U.S.C.
2391, 2394). Upon the completion of the conveyance or transfer,
the Secretary of Energy shall make no further financial
assistance payments with respect to LANL under the AECA.
The Act sets forth the criteria, processes, and dates by which
the tracts will be selected, titles to the tracts reviewed,
environmental issues evaluated, and decisions made as to the
allocation of the tracts between the two recipients. DOE's
responsibilities under the Act include identifying potentially
suitable tracts of land according to criteria set forth in the
law (Land Transfer Report, April 1998); conducting a title search
on each tract of land (Title Report, September 1998); identifying
any environmental restoration and remediation that would be
needed for each tract of land (Environmental Restoration Report,
August 1999); conducting National Environmental Policy Act of
1969 (NEPA) review of the proposed conveyance or transfer of the
land tracts (the Conveyance and Transfer EIS, October 1999,
distributed in January 2000); reporting to Congress on the
results of the Environmental Restoration Report review and the
final Conveyance and Transfer EIS (Combined Data Report, January
2000); and preparing a plan for conveying or transferring land
according to the allocation agreement of parcels for Congress
(Conveyance and Transfer Plan, April 2000). The Act further
states that the Secretary must, to the maximum extent
practicable, conduct any needed environmental restoration or
remediation activities within 10 years of enactment (by
[[Page 48379]] November 26, 2007), and convey and transfer the
tracts meeting the suitability criteria. Under the Act, DOE
neither had a role in the designation of recipients, nor in how
the parcels of land were to be allocated between the recipients.
As specified in PL 105-119, the actual disposition of each tract,
or portion of a tract, would be subject to DOE's need for the
individual tract, or a portion of the tract, to meet a national
security mission support function, which could range from either
direct or indirect activity involvement. Additionally, the
disposition of each tract, or portion of a tract, would be
subject to DOE's completion of any necessary environmental
restoration or remediation required.
B. Previous Decision on the Conveyance and Transfer Actions In
the 2000 ROD for the Conveyance and Transfer EIS (65 Federal
Register (FR), Number 54, Page 14952, March 20, 2000), DOE stated
its decision to convey and transfer each of the ten subject
tracts, either in whole or in part, by November 26, 2007. DOE's
decision, consistent with the Preferred Alternative analyzed in
the Conveyance and Transfer EIS, was to convey or transfer seven
tracts in whole and three tracts (the Airport, TA-21 and White
Rock Y Tracts) in part. Portions of the three partial tracts were
not conveyed or transferred by DOE because of potential national
security mission needs for retaining security, health, and safety
buffer zones surrounding operational areas identified by DOE
prior to the issuance of the ROD. While the suitability criteria
were considered in the formulation of the Preferred Alternative,
the national security mission support criteria led DOE to the
recognition that portions of the these tracts may not be
available for conveyance or transfer within the 10-year period
specified by PL 105-119. DOE's decision at that time was to
convey or transfer 110 acres of the Airport Tract, 20 acres of
the TA-21 Tract, and 125 acres of the White Rock Y Tract. DOE
stated in the ROD that it would make every effort to minimize the
portions of the tracts it retains and only retain essential areas
and convey or transfer the remainder of the tracts before the
2007 deadline.
On June 26, 2002, NNSA issued an Amended ROD [67 FR 45495; July
9, 2002 (No. 131)] that announced NNSA's determination that an
8-acre portion of the Airport Tract at its western end that had
been retained to serve as a health and safety buffer zone was no
longer required for that purpose and could be conveyed. NNSA
additionally identified that two portions of the White Rock Y
Tract containing stretches of public roadways along State Road
502 and State Road 4 totaling about 74 acres that were unlikely
to be needed to serve as health and safety buffers and could be
conveyed as well.
The Airport Tract originally consisted of about 205 acres (83
hectares). Located east of the Los Alamos townsite, it is close
to the East Gate Business Park. The Los Alamos Airport is located
on part of the tract, while other portions of the tract are
undeveloped.
NNSA currently retains about 87 acres of land within the original
Airport Tract under its administrative control.
The TA-21 Tract originally consisted of about 260 acres (105
hectares). This tract is located at the eastern end of DP Mesa
between DP and Los Alamos Canyons close to the business district
of the Los Alamos townsite. LANL's TA-21 is one of the oldest
technical areas at LANL; it is the site of the former plutonium
processing facility and the current location of the Tritium
Science and Fabrication Facility (TSFF). The Tritium Systems Test
Assembly (TSTA) operations were located at TA-21 until about a
year ago when these operations ceased. The NNSA currently retains
about 240 acres of this tract under its administrative control.
The White Rock Y Tract originally consisted of about 540 acres
(219 hectares). It is undeveloped and portions of the tract are
associated with the major transportation routes connecting Los
Alamos with northern New Mexico. The NNSA currently retains about
341 acres of this tract under its administrative control.
II. Need To Change the Conveyance and Transfer Portions of a
Retained Tract The original 2000 ROD for the Conveyance and
Transfer EIS stated that for the tracts that were conveyed in
part, DOE would continue to resolve outstanding national security
mission support issues on the remaining portions of the tracts so
that conveyance or transfer of those portions could occur before
the end of the 2007 deadline stated in the Act. DOE could include
deed restrictions, notices, and similar land use controls as
deemed appropriate and necessary that are protective of human
health and safety to facilitate the transfer of the remaining
portions of tracts.
A. Need for Existing Facilities at TA-21 In 2000, TA-21 Tract
housed both the Tritium Systems Test Assembly (TSTA) and the
Tritium Sciences and Fabrication Facility (TSFF), and both of
these facilities were scheduled to continue operation past the
year 2007. These two research facilities were identified as being
needed for the national security mission and there were no formal
plans to relocate them at that time. However, DOE was even then
in the early stages of assessing the feasibility of relocating
these operations to another facility within LANL. Over the past
four years, NNSA has reviewed both its long-term continued need
for the TSTA facility and the feasibility of relocating the TSFF
tritium operations away from TA- 21 to other tritium operations
facilities at LANL. NNSA concluded in 2002 that the operation of
the TSTA was not needed in the long term and the facility has
since been discontinued. The TSFF is planed for relocation to
another LANL site. The nuclear material inventory of the TA-21
facilities has been reduced according to these changes in site
operations. The discontinuance of the TSTA facility operations
and removal of the TSFF facility operations, together with
removal of TA-21 offices and assorted storage support facilities,
would allow the facility and all of TA-21 to be completely
decommissioned, decontaminated and demolished. It is unlikely,
however, that all three of these steps in the dismantling of the
technical area could occur before 2007. In the near term,
however, NNSA has determined that about an additional 32.3-acre
portion of the Airport Tract situated along the south side of
State Road 502 on the Townsite Mesa top (and to the north of
TA21) that had been retained for the purpose of serving as a
health and safety buffer for the TA-21 TSTA and TSFF operations
is no longer required for that purpose. This partial tract
(referred to as A-5-1) can now be conveyed. This will leave about
55 acres of land within the Airport Tract under the
administrative control of the NNSA.
III. Amended Decision NNSA is modifying its decision on
conveyance and transfer of certain land tracts at LANL as stated
in the following paragraph. Should NNSA no longer need portions
of these and other tracts for national security mission support
needs, NNSA will again reassess the retainment of partial tract
areas and amend the Record of Decision, as needed.
The Airport Tract currently consists of about 87 acres (35
hectares), east of the Los Alamos townsite and near the East Gate
Business Park. The Los Alamos Airport is located on the northern
part of the tract, while other portions of the tract are
undeveloped. Portions of the Airport Tract will continue to be
needed to serve as health
[[Page 48380]] and safety buffer areas for the tritium activities
while they continue within TA-21. In March 2000, DOE decided to
convey or transfer part of the tract, approximately 110 acres
North of East Road. With the planned shutdown of portions of its
tritium activities at TA-21, NNSA conveyed an additional 8-acre
portion of the Airport Tract in 2002. NNSA will now convey a
32.3-acre portion of the Airport Tract located along the south
side of State Road 502 that is on top of Townsite Mesa.
Issued in Washington, DC, July 28, 2005.
Linton F. Brooks, Administrator, National Nuclear Security
Administration.
[FR Doc. 05-16276 Filed 8-16-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
*****************************************************************
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:
*****************************************************************