***************************************************************** 08/19/05 **** RADIATION BULLETIN(RADBULL) **** VOL 13.192 ***************************************************************** 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 RIA Novosti: Iranian leader asks for trust from EU on nuclear progra 2 Xinhua: Iranian supreme leader rejects accusation on nuclear issue 3 Guardian Unlimited Khamenei: Iran Won't Stop Nuke Enrichment 4 Japan Times: NPT fate tied to response to Iran, North Korea crises 5 Reuters: Iran not interested in nuclear arms - Khamenei 6 Guardian Unlimited: Iran is building secret nuclear components, 7 Korea Times: Can Northeast Asians Make Peace? 8 Reuters: N.Korea needs to build trust on nuclear issue-Roh 9 Guardian Unlimited: Bush Appoints Special Envoy for N. Korea 10 US State Dept: U.S. Hopes Six-Party Talks Can Be Model for Northeast 11 US: Magic City Morning Star: Lacking Energy 12 US: ICT: Western Shoshone appeal for United Nations intervention 13 RIA Novosti: Russia, Finland to discuss peaceful nuclear cooperation 14 Daily Times: EDITORIAL: The nuclear road taken NUCLEAR REACTORS 15 US: Re: C.E.C. Docket No. 04-IEP-1J: Dr. Richard Webb on 16 US: NRC: Nuclear Management Company, Llc (Nmc), Point Beach Nuclear 17 US: Reuters: Constellation's Nine Mile 1 nuke in N.Y. shut 18 US: Reuters: Constellation's Nine Mile 1 nuke in start-up 19 US: Vermont Guardian: More radioactive Yankee Rowe waste to pass thr 20 US: Brattleboro Reformer: Anti-nuclear group wants towns to improve 21 US: NRC: NRC Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards To Meet Sept. NUCLEAR SECURITY NUCLEAR SAFETY 22 US: [epa-impact] Nuclear Management Company, Llc (Nmc), Point Beach 23 Record Online: Conference highlights uranium danger 24 US: NRC: Notice of a Public Meeting Regarding Pa'ina Hawaii, LLC, Li 25 US: Hawk Eye: Former IAAP workers warned against con artists NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE 26 Las Vegas RJ: YUCCA MOUNTAIN PROJECT: Lobbyist focuses on reprocessi 27 US: Brampton Guardian: Just say no to nuclear incinerator 28 US: Platts: NRC to complete spent fuel pool analyses this year 29 The Herald: Dounreay to send back waste from abroad 30 Las Vegas SUN: Reid, Ensign question plans for nuke trains 31 Las Vegas SUN: Nevada senators want details about nuclear shipments 32 US: Salt Lake Tribune: Whistle-blowers press lawsuit 33 US: ICT: Federal energy bill, economic opportunity or Bush's fire sa 34 NRC: Notice of Availability of Environmental Assessment and Finding 35 NEI: Yucca Mountain Article Directory 36 US: AU ABC: Mining industry pushes for uranium expansion 37 US: ABC News Online: $1b uranium exports possible, says MP. 38 Pahrump Valley Times: Yucca Mountain exposure 39 AU ABC: Scullion confirms opposition to nuclear waste dump 40 US: AU ABC: Company talks up uranium mine prospects 41 US: Deseret News: Why send 'safe' waste here? 42 US: Las Vegas RJ: Nevada's senators challenge latest nuclear waste t PEACE 43 [NYTr] Landau: Lessons from Nagasaki US DEPT. OF ENERGY 44 New Mexican: Ex-LANL worker files defamation suit 45 lamonitor.com: Retired Los Alamos employee sues lab, others for defa ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** FULL NEWS STORIES ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** 1 RIA Novosti: Iranian leader asks for trust from EU on nuclear program 19/ 08/ 2005 TEHERAN, August 19 (RIA Novosti, Stanislav Khamidov) - Supreme Leader of Iran Ayatollah Ali Khameini appealed to the European Union Friday to create an atmosphere of trust in the talks on Iran's nuclear program. "Iran's policy on developing peaceful nuclear technology is based on dialogue and is built through a mutual understanding and a strengthening of trust," Khameini said. "Of course, trust should come from both sides, so the European Troika [Britain, France, and Germany] must take active measures, and on our part we will respond with trust," he said. Khameini defended Iran's position and reiterated the country's position on outside force. "The Islamic Republic has not breached any international obligations, or bilateral or multilateral agreements," he said. "We have repeatedly said that the Iranian nation will not tolerate any force from outside." Khameini said there is no possibility for creating nuclear weapons in Iran and sharply criticized "propaganda" from the U.S. and other Western countries over the issue. © 2005 "RIA Novosti" ***************************************************************** 2 Xinhua: Iranian supreme leader rejects accusation on nuclear issue www.xinhuanet.com www.chinaview.cn 2005-08-19 19:12:28 TEHRAN, Aug. 19 (Xinhuanet) -- Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei on Friday rejected the US accusation on Iran's nuclear program as "sheer deception," the official IRNA news agency reported. "In their smear campaign, the United States and regrettably some European countries claim they are opposed to Iran's access to nuclear weapons. The accusation is sheer deception and aimed to mislead the public opinion in their own countries," Khamenei was quoted as saying at a prayers sermon. Khamenei urged Europe not to "fall into the US trap," saying the United States has no goodwill toward the European Union (EU) or toward Iran. The Iranian nuclear issue has come to a crucial juncture since Tehran, regardless of stern warnings of the EU, resumed uranium conversion activities on Aug. 8 after rejecting a comprehensive nuclear proposal made by the EU. In the proposal, the EU trio of Britain, France and Germany, the longtime brokers of the Iranian nuclear issue, on behalf of the EU, asked Iran to give up its efforts to build nuclear reactors, including uranium enrichment, to provide the so-called "objective guarantees" that its nuclear research will never be used for military purposes. Under the call of the trio, the Board of Governors of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) opened an emergency meeting on Aug. 9 and approved a resolution on Aug. 11 on the Iranian nuclear file. The IAEA resolution, which has been rejected by Iran, urges Iran to "re-establish full suspension of all enrichment-related activities." Iran's new chief nuclear negotiator Ali Larijani said on Tuesday that Tehran will never give up its plans to develop a full nuclear fuel cycle but is willing to continue talks to resolve the standoff with the EU. "Iran deems it a principle to continue talks and it accepts negotiation as the right manner," Larijani said. The United States accuses Iran of developing nuclear weapons secretly, a charge denied by Tehran. Enditem Copyright ©2003 Xinhua News Agency. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 3 Guardian Unlimited Khamenei: Iran Won't Stop Nuke Enrichment From the Associated Press [UP] Friday August 19, 2005 5:31 PM AP Photo XHS119 By ALI AKBAR DAREINI Associated Press Writer TEHRAN, Iran (AP) - Iran does not intend to build nuclear weapons, but it will continue to enrich uranium because it does not want to be dependent on others for its nuclear fuel needs, the country's supreme ruler said Friday. Ayatollah Ali Khamenei told tens of thousands of worshippers at Tehran University that Western allegations his country is secretly trying to make weapons are ``a propaganda trick to deceive their own public opinion.'' ``They (the West) speak as if Iran is seeking nuclear weapons and they oppose it,'' said Khamenei, who has the final say on all state matters. ``I've said it repeatedly that we are not seeking nuclear weapons.'' Rather, Tehran wants to enrich uranium to low levels to use in reactors that will generate electricity, he said. Khamenei said Iran's next step will be to build nuclear power plants without outside help. Russia currently is putting the finishing touches on a new nuclear power plant in Bushehr on the shores of the Persian Gulf in southern Iran. It is expected to be operational by August 2006. ``We want to enrich our own uranium explored from our own mines with equipment and technology that belongs to ourselves developed by our young scientists to produce fuel for our nuclear power plants,'' Khamenei said. Iran plans to build six more 1,000-megawatt nuclear power plants until 2021, by when its electricity consumption will reach 56,000 megawatts. Iran says it will need to produce 70,000 megawatts of electricity, with 7,000 megawatts to be generated by nuclear power plants. Khamenei's comments follow Iran's recent rejection of a European offer to permanently suspend uranium enrichment activities in return for a package of incentives, including supplying Iran with nuclear fuel. ``They (Europeans) say, 'Purchase it (nuclear fuel) from us.' That means dependency,'' the supreme leader said. Iran suspended uranium enrichment in 2003 and expanded its suspension in November to include uranium reprocessing activities and building centrifuges used to enrich uranium. The moves were made to avoid referral to the U.N. Security Council for possible sanctions and to build trust in negotiations with Europe. Efforts by Germany, Britain and France to rein in Tehran's nuclear program suffered a blow earlier this month when Iran partially ended the nine-month suspension and restarted work last week at its Uranium Conversion Facility in the central city of Isfahan. The move was sharply criticized by the West. President Bush indicated the military force may be an option if diplomacy fails to curb the nuclear program, which is a source of national pride for Iranians. German Chancellor Gerhard Shroeder, who is campaigning for national elections next month, opposes that option. Iran has called on the Europeans to start negotiations to allow Tehran to restart actual uranium enrichment - injecting gas into centrifuges used to enrich uranium. Tehran says it will never again suspend uranium conversion and has warned that Europe's reaction to Iranian demands will largely influence Iran's decision when to restart the work at its enrichment plant in Natanz, central Iran. Khamenei said Iran will not give up its attempts to control the whole nuclear fuel cycle - from extracting uranium to enriching it - in line with rights granted by the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. Iran said it rejected the European package because it failed to recognize Iran's right under the NPT to enrich uranium. ``We don't fear anybody. We have the necessary might and means to defend our rights and we won't give up our rights,'' he said while drawing shouts of ``Never! Never!'' from worshippers. ``No one has the right to compromise over the rights of the nation.'' Some 500 worshippers demonstrated outside the university after Friday prayers to support Iran's decision to resume uranium conversion in Isfahan. Demonstrators shouted, ``Nuclear energy is our right!'' Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2005 ***************************************************************** 4 Japan Times: NPT fate tied to response to Iran, North Korea crises Friday, August 19, 2005 By ERIC JOHNSTON Staff writer KYOTO -- The atomic ambitions of North Korea and Iran offer direct challenges to the credibility of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, while the international community's response to these challenges will greatly influence global opinion as to whether the treaty itself is still viable. These were some of the messages delivered Thursday by 55 delegates to a United Nations conference on disarmament issues. The delegates to the convention, which began Wednesday and ends Friday, include ambassadors, academic experts on disarmament and officials from the International Atomic Energy Agency. The Kyoto conference was the first gathering of international disarmament experts since the collapse of the NPT talks in New York in May. While some delegates attempted to put a brave face on the talks, insisting they weren't a failure, most disagreed on the basis that they resulted in nothing concrete. "The NPT conference became bogged down in procedural issues, and did not produce a document of substance," said Rudiger Ludeking, deputy commissioner for arms control and disarmament for Germany. The challenge now, the delegates noted, is to figure out how to deal with both North Korea and Iran and their nuclear aims. In the case of North Korea, Lu Kang, director of the Chinese Foreign Ministry's department of arms control and disarmament, urged patience, caution, and the continuation of the six-way talks. These involve China, North Korea, South Korea, Japan, the United States, and Russia. "These talks are the best approach toward the issue of denuclearization on the Korean Peninsula and we have achieved much progress since beginning them in August 2003. Sincerity, patience and flexibility are needed," he said. The six-nation talks are to resume at the end of this month, having been suspended in early August when no agreement was reached. "It will take at least several more rounds of talks in order to reach a concrete action plan for implementing a basic agreement," said Lew Kwang Chul, minister counselor for South Korea at the U.N. Other delegates, however, warned that while talks with North Korea were fine in principle, there was a danger of talking too much without concrete results. "Each day that passes with no result gives North Korea time to develop nuclear weapons," said James Cotton, a professor at the Australian Defense Force Academy. In the case of Iran, Ludeking stressed that the issue was about re-establishing international confidence in the proclaimed peaceful nature of Iran's nuclear program, not denying the country access to nuclear fuel and technology for peaceful purposes. On Aug. 8, Iran rejected a series of proposals that would reaffirm Iran's rights to peaceful use of nuclear power. It resumed nuclear conversation activities the same day. The Japan Times: Aug. 19, 2005 (C) All rights reserved ***************************************************************** 5 Reuters: Iran not interested in nuclear arms - Khamenei Fri Aug 19, 2005 6:29 AM ET TEHRAN, Aug 19 (Reuters) - Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei on Friday reiterated that the Islamic state had no interest in atomic arms but would never halt its nuclear programme. Addressing worshippers at Friday Prayers at Tehran University, Khamenei accused Western officials of misleading public opinion by suggesting that Iran was secretly building nuclear weapons. "They talk as if Iran seeks nuclear weapons and that they oppose it," he said in a sermon broadcast live on state radio. "That is lie and they know it. They use it to deceive their own public opinion. "There's no talk about nuclear weapons in Iran. We don't want nuclear weapons," he said. "They make a propaganda lie about a global consensus against Iran," he added. "There is no global consensus against Iran and even if there was, our nation wouldn't abandon its rights." Iran, which says its nuclear facilities will only be used to generate electricity, upped the ante in its nuclear standoff with the West earlier this month, resuming uranium conversion -- a preliminary step in the process to make fuel for nuclear reactors or bomb-grade nuclear explosive. The board of the U.N.'s atomic watchdog has called on Iran to halt uranium conversion. Iran says it will not and insists it will soon resume the most sensitive part of the process -- uranium enrichment. Displaying a grasp of technical issues, Khamenei said Iran wanted to enrich uranium to a grade useable in atomic reactors but not to the higher grade needed to make atom bombs. "We want to produce the fuel for our power plants by ourselves, and they say don't. "They say buy the fuel from us. What does that mean? It means we should stay dependent. They want the Iranian nation to stay dependent on the powers which produce nuclear power," he said. The European Union has called on Iran to resume the suspension of nuclear fuel activities to build trust, a suggestion Khamenei rejected. "I tell them now, you should do something to make us trust you," he said. "The Europeans should not talk in a demanding tone. Today is not like the 19th century ... we are not afraid of anybody. We have the power to defend our rights and we will not give up our rights," he said. © Reuters 2005. All Rights Reserved. ***************************************************************** 6 Guardian Unlimited: Iran is building secret nuclear components, says rebel group Ian Traynor Friday August 19, 2005 The Guardian Iranian opposition activists said yesterday that Tehran was rushing to build nuclear components in breach of its commitments to the UN. The National Council of Resistance of Iran, the political wing of the outlawed Mujahideen-e-Khalq guerrilla movement, which is classified as a terrorist organisation in Europe and the US, said the Iranian authorities were covertly building and concealing thousands of centrifuge rigs used to enrich uranium for nuclear fuel or weapons. The NCRI regularly makes claims about Iran's nuclear operations which are impossible to corroborate. But three years ago it was the first to disclose secret Iranian centrifuge operations in Natanz. Those allegations turned out to be largely true and triggered the international crisis over Iran's nuclear activities that has been running for two years. Under agreements with the International Atomic Energy Agency and the EU troika of Britain, Germany, and France, Iran halted operations at Natanz where, for 18 years, it was clandestinely developing a uranium enrichment facility entailing the manufacture and assembly of tens of thousands of centrifuges. The centrifuges are assembled into cascades and spun at supersonic speeds to process gaseous uranium into enriched nuclear fuel which can also be used for the core of a nuclear bomb, depending on the degree of refinement. In London yesterday the Iranian activists said Tehran has been fooling the UN and the EU by secretly constructing some 4,000 centrifuges while pursuing negotiations. The centrifuges were said to be hidden at military and Iranian revolutionary guard facilities, off limits to the UN. Earlier this month a senior Iranian nuclear negotiator, Hosein Mousavian, said on television that Tehran had exploited the two years of negotiations with the EU to refine some of its nuclear activities at Natanz and the uranium conversion centre at Isfahan. "The regime adopted a twofold policy here," he said. "Thanks to the negotiations with Europe we gained another year, in which we completed [the work] in Isfahan ... In Natanz, much of the work has been completed." As far as the UN inspectors are aware, the Iranians have less than 200 assembled centrifuges at Natanz. Tehran lifted its suspension of operations at Isfahan last week in defiance of the EU and the IAEA, plunging the negotiations into a fresh crisis. An emergency IAEA board meeting last week ordered the the Iranians to reinstate the Isfahan suspension or face a possible referral to the UN security council where sanctions could be imposed - though this seems unlikely as yet. Tehran dismissed the ultimatum and said it has no intention of reinstating the freeze at Isfahan, calling the west's bluff. While the claims of secret centrifuge manufacture cannot be verified, the Iranians are demanding that they be allowed to operate a minimal uranium enrichment operation at Natanz, entailing the use of several thousand centrifuges. This would enable them to maintain that they are running their own nuclear fuel cycle, their fundamental demand in the dispute with the west. But the Europeans reject this because they say it would allow Iran to develop the expertise for a nuclear bomb. [UP] Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2005 ***************************************************************** 7 Korea Times: Can Northeast Asians Make Peace? Hankooki.com > The Korea Times > Arts &Living > Books By Kim Ki-tae Staff Reporter Security experts note that South Korea, China and Japan have not had a regular three-way regional summit due to thorny issues in their relationships and, instead, meet only in the frame of the annual ASEAN+3 talks. Seen is the three-party summit held in Vientiane, Laos during the ASEAN+3 meetings in November last year. Korea Times file photo Carrying out diplomacy in Northeast Asia is like walking through a battlefield peppered with land mines. You can¡¯t go far without bumping into a myriad of thorny issues: the conflicting claims of Korea and Japan to the Dokto Islets; the Chinese/Japanese dispute over the island of Diaoyu or Senkaku; the issue between Korea and China over Koguryo history; the ``comfort women¡¯¡¯ dispute between Korea and Japan; the controversial visits of the Japanese prime minister to the Yasukuni Shrine; Japan¡¯s history textbooks controversy and, thorniest of all, North Korea¡¯s nuclear weapons program. As most other regions head toward regional integration, Northeast Asia is experiencing a flare-up of nationalism, fueled in large part by grudges and antagonisms. In this background, it is not surprising that Northeast Asia does not have a regional security body such as NATO in Europe, or any regular summit among the nations. The Korean-language quarterly ``Creation and Criticism¡¯¡¯ raised this challenging question in its autumn edition: ``Can Asians Make Peace in Northeast Asia?¡± The magazine discusses this timely but complicated issue using a panel discussion and four dissertations. In the discussion, Yonsei University professor Park Myung-lim¡¯s approach stands out. At first, he pins down the peculiarities of the nation states in the region. Quoting historian E. Hobsbawm, Park says nationalism in the region has a strong presence historically with the modern nation state as ``the political unit,¡¯¡¯ historically coinciding with an ¡®¡¯ethnic unit,¡¯¡¯ or people. However, he noted that there could be certain challenges to the deep-rooted nationalism, especially from economics. The economies of Northeast Asia are fast being integrated. Exclusive nationalism conflicts with this economic trend, he said. Secondly, with the rising numbers of migrant workers, the labor market is rapidly merging in the region. It is no longer easy for each nation to pursue its own identity or interests in a growing international region. ``It is an irony that the region¡¯s arms race is the most heated in the world and disputes over histories and territories are intensifying while its markets are being integrated,¡¯¡¯ Park said. According to Park, the region has already reached a certain level of economic integration with the ratio of its internal trade equivalent to that of the European Union. He suggests that Northeast Asia form a regional security body following the lead of Europe after World War II. ``It is critical that the region adopt the concept of collective security and establish a regional security body, as the securities issues are (always) serious.¡¯¡¯ He noted that the regional integration of Europe is based on collective security cooperation rather than on economic integration. He also suggests Northeast Asia form a regional community of intellectuals and settle controversies over its history. ``Many European intellectuals recalled the history and tradition of `one Europe¡¯ not for the past, but for the future. It was like a future vision for them,¡¯¡¯ he said. Park also pointed at how Germany and France overcome their bloodstained past, taking as an example the Elysee Treaty, or Treaty of Franco-German Cooperation signed by de Gaulle and Adenauer in 1963. For such reconciliation to happen in Northeast Asia, Park said, Northeast Asia¡¯s governments and civil societies would have to join hands. And, for that, he emphasized that each Asian nation needs to be democratized. ``Japan¡¯s distortion of its history is related to its lagging democratization,¡¯¡¯ he said. Park further suggests a new regional governance model - ``mezzo integration,¡¯¡¯ which would fit between the nation state and the regional union. In the model, he said, there could emerge international bodies each handling various issues such as human rights, the environment, labor and history. ``Strangely enough, only Asia does not have a regional pact on human rights,¡¯¡¯ Park said. On top of the bodies, he said, there could be a ``peak association,¡¯¡¯ encompassing the subgroups and participated in by each nation state in the region. Other panelists in the discussion, however, raised questions about whether other Asian nations are democratized enough or whether their civic societies are well formed enough to seek refined international cooperation. In a contribution to the quarterly¡¯s special, Nan Fangshuo, a Taiwanese journalist, also addressed the securities issue in Northeast Asia and praised the South Korean government¡¯s ``sunshine policy¡¯¡¯ for creating a new opportunity for a peaceful settlement of a regional securities issue. He wrote that by declining to be frontline in ideological confrontations, South Korea has made Japan regard itself, for the first time, as a bridgehead of the U.S. regional policy in Northeast Asia. That¡¯s not what Japan favors and explains why Japan¡¯s rightwing tries to move the ideological frontline in the region to the strait between China and Taiwan. ``That¡¯s the prime reason that Japan¡¯s hawkish groups straightforwardly support Taiwan¡¯s independence (from China),¡¯¡¯ he wrote. The editor of the Taiwanese magazine ``The Journalist¡¯¡¯ noted that the Taiwanese opposition leaders¡¯ reconciliation policy toward the mainland is expected to pave the way for peace in the strait, chasing the dominant U.S. influence from the region. ``In the end, an independent Asia can give birth to a new concept of `Asia by Asians¡¯ which is not afraid of the U.S. any more and becomes like Europe,¡¯¡¯ he wrote. Creation and Criticism Autumn Edition (Changjakkwa Pipyong) Changbi Publishers: 407pp., 12,000 won kkt@koreatimes.co.kr 08-19-2005 19:28 ***************************************************************** 8 Reuters: N.Korea needs to build trust on nuclear issue-Roh Thu Aug 18, 2005 11:28 PM ET SEOUL (Reuters) - South Korea's president has said he supports the principle of countries having the right to peaceful nuclear programmes but North Korea needs to build international trust on this issue, a presidential spokesman said on Friday. The question of whether North Korea should be allowed a civilian nuclear programme was one of the main stumbling blocks in six-party talks earlier this month, in which regional powers tried to coax Pyongyang to abandon its nuclear weapons programmes. "Our principal position is that all countries have the right to use nuclear energy for peaceful purposes," President Roh Moo-hyun said in a meeting with political editors and journalists from South Korean newspapers on Thursday. "North Korea needs time to gain the trust of the international community," the spokesman quoted Roh as saying. Roh did not say whether he supported the idea of a peaceful nuclear programme for North Korea, the spokesman said by telephone. U.S. officials say they worry North Korea could easily convert a civilian nuclear programme to military use and build nuclear weapons. North Korea earlier this year said it had nuclear weapons and planned to build more. North Korea threw out International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspectors at the end of 2002 and withdrew from the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) in January 2003. Pyongyang has said the sole purpose of a civilian nuclear programme would be to generate electricity. South Korean Foreign Minister Ban Ki-moon will head to Washington this weekend for meetings with senior Bush administration officials on North Korea. Ban said earlier this week if North Korea dismantled all of its nuclear programmes, returned to the NPT, complied with IAEA safeguard measures and worked to gain the trust of the world community, then others could consider whether it should be allowed to pursue a peaceful nuclear programme. Six-party talks involving the two Koreas, China, Japan, Russia and the United States went into a three-week recess on August 7 and are scheduled to resume in Beijing in the week of August 29. © Reuters 2005. All Rights Reserved. ***************************************************************** 9 Guardian Unlimited: Bush Appoints Special Envoy for N. Korea From the Associated Press [UP] Friday August 19, 2005 7:16 PM By BARRY SCHWEID AP Diplomatic Writer WASHINGTON (AP) - Backed by a $2 million budget, a former adviser to President Bush will take charge of a high-profile effort to advance human rights in North Korea, even as negotiations on the country's nuclear weapons program enter a critical stage. The appointment Friday of Jay Lefkowitz, who helped shape domestic policy at the White House, frees Assistant Secretary of State Christopher Hill to concentrate on efforts to end the weapons program. With talks in suspension, Hill and top diplomats in China, South Korea, Japan and Russia, are trying to finalize with North Korea a so-called statement of principles designed to set up another round of six-party negotiations. Hill said this week that ``if we can get through this,'' an agreement might be possible in late September or in October. Human rights conditions in North Korea have been discussed periodically during the weapons negotiations, but have not been a central issue. Meanwhile, the Bush administration has dealt separately with hunger in North Korea. In June, a U.S. donation of more than 50,000 tons of food was announced as a humanitarian decision unrelated to efforts to get Pyongyang to end its nuclear weapons program. Lefkowitz, whose post was authorized by Congress, is unlikely to travel to Pyongyang in the absence of normal diplomatic relations. But he will talk to officials in Asia and Europe, participate in human rights conferences and might meet with North Koreans if they attend international meetings. The Texas White House, announcing the appointment, said Lefkowitz ``will increase awareness and promote efforts to improve the human rights of the long-suffering North Korean people.'' The new post, special envoy on human rights in North Korea, will be set up at the State Department's bureau of democracy, human rights and labor. As part of his job, Lefkowitz also will be responsible for expanding U.S.-financed Radio Free Asia broadcasts to the area. Besides his past assignment as deputy assistant to President Bush for domestic policy, Lefkowitz has served on the U.S. delegation to the U.N. Human Rights Conference in Geneva, Switzerland, and the U.S. delegation to the International Conference on Anti-Semitism. ``His appointment will greatly enhance our efforts to encourage North Korea to accept and abide by internationally accepted human rights standards and norms,'' said the White House statement issued in Crawford, Texas, where Bush is on a monthlong vacation. On the Net: State Department: http://www.state.gov CIA Factbook on North Korea: http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/kn.html Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2005 ***************************************************************** 10 US State Dept: U.S. Hopes Six-Party Talks Can Be Model for Northeast Asia By Todd Bullock Washington File Staff Writer Washington - The United States hopes that the six-party process to persuade North Korea to dismantle its nuclear weapons programs can serve as an "embryonic structure for Northeast Asia" to create new bilateral and multilateral ties, says Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs Christopher Hill. Northeast Asia is one of the most dynamic regions in the world, and while its countries are exporting various consumer goods, those countries also need to promote political stability and good relations, Hill said August 17 in remarks to the Asia Society. Hill recently returned from Beijing where he has been participating in the fourth round of Six-Party Talks involving North Korea, South Korea, China, Japan, Russia and the United States. Thirteen days of negotiations did not result in a final agreement, and the six parties will return to the negotiating table the week of August 29. According to Hill, the current round of Six-Party Talks has demonstrated cooperative relationships, particularly between the United States and China, on issues of mutual concern. The assistant secretary noted that while the Six-Party Talks were under way, U.S. Deputy Secretary of State Robert Zoellick was engaged in another set of talks with his Chinese counterpart on the overall strategic relationship between their countries. "We have really found ways to communicate and found ways to cooperate," Hill said. China has taken a very important role in the Six-Party Talks, not only by hosting the talks but by producing a succession of draft agreements, he said. "[B]asically what they have done is taken the comments from the various participants and tried to meld those together into a draft," he said, adding that "this [effort] was a good example of the Chinese trying to keep everyone working together" on this process. Turning to the status of the negotiations, Hill said the recess is important in helping North Korean officials make a decision regarding what they want for the country's future. "It's not just a question of giving up weapons programs ... that they've been developing for some two or three decades, it's also a very fundamental question of which way North Korea wants to go," he said. The assistant secretary cited China and South Korea as possible economic development models for North Korea. "North Korea is a country that is having a continued deterioration in electricity supply," Hill said, noting the country is currently generating less than 30 percent of its overall capacity. "You cannot make progress without electricity, without energy," he said. "And so there's a very serious issue there that needs to be addressed, and this overall proposal does address this." Hill said the participants were encouraging North Korea's involvement in bilateral economic programs, especially with South Korea, and also were trying to develop a "road map" to help North Korea establish multilateral relationships - for example, with the World Bank and other development banks. The assistant secretary said the parties are discussing a package of issues related to normalization of North Korea's bilateral relations with its negotiating partners, including eventual normalization of relations with the United States. "[W]hat will provide security to North Korea is not a few nuclear weapons," he said, "but rather … good relations with neighbors and good relations with the United States." According to Hill, there was "very strong unanimity among all our delegations" on the need for North Korea to end its nuclear programs as soon as possible and to look for ways to re-enter the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty with safeguards from the International Atomic Energy Agency. Hill also said it is important for North Korea to understand that the "price of joining the international community is that people are going to start looking at your human rights record." "I think that's just inevitable, and the sooner they understand it, the more progress we can make," he said. [Embassy of the United States] ***************************************************************** 11 Magic City Morning Star: Lacking Energy Last Updated: Aug 19th, 2005 - 00:40:24 By Ed Feulner Ed Feulner is the president of The Heritage Foundation. It sometimes seems the longer a bill hangs around Washington, the worse it gets. That's certainly the case with the recently signed energy bill. President Bush had been trying for years to convince lawmakers to pass an energy bill. But when they finally did, all the ... well, energy had been sucked out of it. In the end, it was typical Washington pork. There's plenty of new spending - an estimated $12.3 billion over 10 years, twice as much as the original proposal - but few real solutions. Start with oil. When most people think of energy, they think of gasoline. Any sensible bill would take steps to increase the domestic production of oil. It's critical we start reducing our dependence on foreign providers, especially since so many of them are in bad neighborhoods. We happen to have large oil reserves waiting to be tapped beneath the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska. But the bill Congress passed specifically ignores ANWR. "If we put it in, we wouldn't be here," Sen. Pete Domenici, R-N.M., chairman of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, explained to reporters. It's true that previous energy bills had failed because liberals wouldn't agree to pass a measure that allowed drilling in ANWR. But no bill is better than a bad bill. If we're not going to take the most reasonable step available to boost energy production, there's really no point in passing an energy bill at all. (ANWR, fortunately, isn't dead; it's likely to pass when lawmakers try to reconcile the budget in September.) Not only does this bill ignore potential solutions, it actually recycles the failed policies of the past. The bill provides tax breaks for homeowners who install solar panels - a "reform" measure first drafted by the Carter administration. President Reagan removed those tax breaks when it became clear they wouldn't work, just as a future administration is certain to remove them again. In the meantime, another generation of homeowners will learn to their chagrin that the upfront cost of solar panels is larger than the amount they're likely to save by installing them. Lawmakers deserve credit for at least attempting to take a step forward on nuclear power. Nuclear plants are efficient and produce zero emissions, and we need to build more of them to fill our growing need for electricity. The bill provides billions of dollars in tax credits for utilities, which could translate into as many as six new nuclear plants. But the energy bill leaves the big question unanswered. Until utilities are assured they will have a permanent place to store their nuclear waste, they're not likely to break ground on new plants, regardless of tax breaks. At one existing plant in Illinois there are 24 silos, each packed with 13 tons of nuclear waste. No utility wants to assume that sort of headache. A useful energy bill would do something to fix the problem. Having the waste stored in a secure, central location would be far safer than storing it on-site at scores of plants around the country. Plenty of studies have shown Yucca Mountain is the best place to put our nuclear waste. But again, lawmakers ducked that issue in the energy bill. Washington insiders, even conservative officials, seem resigned to the big spending status quo. "It's the best energy bill that can be passed," Deputy Energy Secretary Clay Sell said. Respectfully, sir, it isn't. It must be possible to "solve" a problem without throwing tens of billion of dollars at it. And it must be possible for lawmakers to target bills narrowly - so the new law will solve problems rather than merely providing tax breaks to the energy industry. Something good can still come out of this bill, if it energizes conservatives in Congress to finally take charge and crack down on wasteful spending. Otherwise, the bill's merely another waste of time, money and power. © Copyright 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005 by Magic City Morning Star ***************************************************************** 12 ICT: Western Shoshone appeal for United Nations intervention [2005/08/19] Radiation standards by: Brenda Norrell / Indian Country Today GENEVA - In an urgent appeal to halt the assault on ancestral lands, the Western Shoshone Nation filed an urgent action request before the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination in August. The request challenges the U.S. government's assertion of federal ownership of nearly 90 percent of Western Shoshone lands. Joe Kennedy, Western Shoshone, was among those urging immediate action to halt the United States and gold and energy corporations. ''Our traditional laws tell us we were placed here as caretakers of the land,'' Kennedy said. ''As part of the Western Shoshone Nation, we will not stand idly by and allow the U.S. federal government to cement its hold on our ancestral land base.'' The Western Shoshone land base covers approximately 60 million acres, stretching across what is now referred to as the states of Nevada, Idaho, Utah and California. The lands include the proposed Yucca Mountain high-level nuclear waste facility and lands targeted for expanded gold extraction. ''Western Shoshone rights to the land - which they continue to use, care for and occupy today - are recognized by a ratified treaty with the United States,'' said the Western Shoshone delegation in Geneva, Aug. 8 - 19. In its 2005 CERD written request, the Western Shoshone seek a halt to all further U.S. actions against Western Shoshone and the expansion of any extractive or other activities permitted by the United States. Western Shoshone said the United States has conducted numerous military-style seizures of Western Shoshone livestock, has transferred alleged Western Shoshone trespass fines to the Internal Revenue Service and private collection agencies, and has reinvigorated federal efforts to open a nationwide nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain. ''In 2003, the U.S. Congress passed legislation allowing for distribution of a highly controversial Indian Claims Commission award for [the] alleged extinguishment of Western Shoshone land. ''Since that legislation was passed, efforts to privatize Western Shoshone lands for transfer to multinational extractive industries and energy developers have been intensified,'' the delegation said. Western Shoshone asserted that these actions, justified by racially discriminatory legal doctrines enshrined in the domestic law of the United States, demonstrate a serious, massive and persistent pattern of racial discrimination against the Western Shoshone Nation and its people in accordance with CERD urgent action and early warning procedures. The U.N. committee established the early warning/urgent action procedures in 1993 in order to act quickly in preventing the further escalation of human rights abuses. Western Shoshone have also raised concerns before the U.N. Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights. ''The role of non-state actors, or multinational corporations, in the ongoing human rights violations against indigenous peoples is also being addressed by the delegation in response to the influential posture of the gold companies and the energy industry under the current administration,'' Western Shoshone said. Previously, CERD expressed concern about the ongoing struggle of the Western Shoshone people and the continued violation of indigenous human rights in the United States. In 2001, the committee questioned the United States' continued application of the ''doctrine of discovery,'' a racially based legal fiction that was used to justify the genocide of Indian peoples and the taking of their lands due to their ''inferior'' status as non-Christians. The committee also questioned the U.S. delegation about why domestic law allowed the U.S. government to unilaterally abrogate Indian treaties, to which the United States never provided an answer. Western Shoshone said the situation has become even graver. CERD is slated to meet with U.S. government representatives in August to hear the government's response. © 1998 - 2005 Indian Country Today. All Rights Reserved  ***************************************************************** 13 RIA Novosti: Russia, Finland to discuss peaceful nuclear cooperation 19/ 08/ 2005 MOSCOW, August 19 (RIA Novosti) - Russia and Finland will hold talks on security regulations and peaceful use of nuclear energy, the Russian government said Friday. The government accepted the proposal of the Federal Service for the Supervision of the Environment, Technology and Nuclear Management to hold talks with Finland on these issues. The proposal was coordinated with the Foreign Ministry and the Federal Agency for Nuclear Power. 2005 "RIA Novosti" ***************************************************************** 14 Daily Times: EDITORIAL: The nuclear road taken Saturday, August 20, 2005 A study titled Nuclear Arsenals by the Non-proliferation Centre of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in Washington DC says India could be producing significant quantities of weapons-grade uranium at its gas-centrifuge plant in Trombay, outside Mumbai, though the amounts of highly enriched uranium produced remain unknown. The study also says that by the end of 2005 Pakistan will have produced enough weapons-grade uranium to manufacture 50 to 110 nuclear weapons against India’s 75 to 110. According to the authors, both India and Pakistan have the ability to deploy a small number of nuclear weapons within a few days or weeks, with fighter-bomber aircraft being the most likely delivery vehicle. Pakistan’s nuclear weapons are stored in component parts, with the fissile core separated from the non-nuclear explosives. It is not known where the fissile material and warheads are stored and how far away — in distance and time — they are stored from each other. Neither India nor Pakistan has officially declared the number of weapons they currently have in their arsenal. The report also criticises the India-US nuclear pact and argues that by according India a seat, even if outside the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty, the Bush administration has not only reversed decades of US non-proliferation policy but also endangered the entire non-proliferation regime. The study also says that the Bush administration has forgotten the benchmarks set by the Clinton administration and that in fact it has gone ahead and forged defence and strategic ties with India. What does the study mean and what can it possibly achieve? To the second question the answer can only be: not much, at least in the foreseeable future. India and the United States see eye-to-eye with each other on most issues related to nuclear strategy. Ballistic missile defence is one, as is the attempt by both of them to break free of the current normative constraints informing the development, deployment and possible use of nuclear weapons. While India is attempting to find legitimacy for its de facto nuclear status, the US is trying to wriggle out of the broad multilateral framework it helped create since the time of President John F Kennedy. It now wants a regime which, while constraining other states, can nevertheless give it the freedom to employ the deterrent threat of its arsenal both at the tactical and strategic levels. Thus there is a commonality of interest here between the US and India. Add to that other factors that nudge both states to come closer to each other and we have a realpolitik situation in which the US’ preferential treatment of India can be placed. In fact, this is the message of another report put out by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace titled India as a New Global Power: An Action Agenda for the United States. This report is authored by Ashley J Tellis, an Indian-American considered close to the Bush administration. Looking at the trajectory of US-India relations, we find that Tellis’ report reflects more accurately the current US policy on India than does the other report by the same think tank. The issue, when shorn of its various technicalities, is quite simple. Is there a possibility of the five “legitimate” nuclear-weapon states moving towards disarmament, a commitment explicitly mentioned in article VI of the NPT and on whose basis other states accepted their non-nuclear status? If the answer is ‘yes’, then the world can hope to strengthen the non-proliferation norm and be in a much better position to put a recalcitrant state in the doghouse. If, on the other hand, the answer is ‘no’ — which is what has happened in reality — then, on the very basis of strategic realism that informs the decision by the nuclear-weapon states to continue with their nuclear option, others will try and take the same route. India, Pakistan and Israel decided to reject the discriminatory norm from the word go. Others, like Libya, Iran and North Korea, have tried to subvert the NPT from inside. The US, under the Bush administration, is unable to check increased possibility of proliferation — except through force — because the administration itself does not put much premium on that norm for itself and its allies. As the Carnegie report shows, the US pact with India flouts many aspects of the multilateral export control guidelines of the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG). Other states, like China, could take the cue and also strike agreements for supply of components that violate the NSG guidelines. Bilateralism would then upstage the multilateral export control regime under the NSG. The world today stands at a crucial juncture as far as issues of security are concerned. The United States needs to think hard about its own conduct and how that is likely to impact other states. The non-proliferation regime has taken many hits from the Bush administration and the NPT review conference in June this year showed how little regard the administration has for a multilateral, treaty-based framework. The policy of the administration seems predicated on the premise that nuclear weapons are not bad in and of themselves but they must not fall into the hands of those who are opposed to the US or, more appropriately, who the US thinks are opposed to it. Therefore, it wants, on the one hand, to allow the norm against the nuclear weapons to be diluted while, on the other, it is prepared to use force to prevent a state it considers rogue from developing the capability. This strategy might work in the short-term but it will definitely fail in the long-term. Almost all experts are agreed on that. There’s a fork in the road at this point and the Bush administration must know that it cannot travel both roads. * Home | Editorial EDITORIAL: The nuclear road taken VIEW: Madrassas and militancy —Abbas Rashid VIEW: How to be weapon-ready NPT members —Leonard S Spector VIEW: Pipeline politics and South Asia —Shaukat Qadir COMMENT: A bleak future —IM Mohsin PURPLE PATCH: Life and death —Gabriel Garcia Marquez LETTERS: ZAHOOR'S CARTOON: Daily Times - All Rights Reserved ***************************************************************** 15 Re: C.E.C. Docket No. 04-IEP-1J: Dr. Richard Webb on Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2005 18:45:43 -0700 Subject: Re: C.E.C. Docket No. 04-IEP-1J: Dr. Richard Webb on nuclearrisks: "imminent danger of a catastrophic accident of immense scale"(1990; and nothing's changed since then except the plants are olderand more worn) To: California Energy Commission Dockets Unit; Attn: Docket No. 04-IEP-1J 1516 Ninth Street, MS-4 Sacramento, CA 95814-5512 Re: Energy Report: Nuclear Power, 2005 Workshops Subject: C.E.C. Docket No. 04-IEP-1J: Dr. Richard Webb on nuclear risks: "imminent danger of a catastrophic accident of immense scale" (1990; and nothing's changed since then except the plants are older and more worn) Date: August 19th, 2005 From: Russell D. Hoffman, Concerned Citizen, Carlsbad, CA To The Commission, When I attended the California Energy Commission workshop earlier this week, I brought with me approximately sixty books on the subject of radiation, nuclear power, nuclear engineering, atomic theory, terrorism, nuclear war, nuclear war's aftermath, proliferation, and related subjects. I left a copy of one of them, Bennett Ramberg's "Nuclear Power Plants as Weapons for the Enemy: An Unrecognized Military Peril" with the Commission. During the public comment period, I also quoted a second book, "The Anti-Nuclear Handbook", to show that the threat from airplane strikes against nuclear power plants was WELL KNOWN AND IGNORED decades ago. So the question must be asked: Who was asleep at the wheel back then? We NEVER needed these plants, and they have left us with a terrible mess, and they put us at constant risk of catastrophe. Who in the world EVER thought this was a good idea? Regardless of past mistakes, it's time for California's state government to stop ignoring the facts about the completely unnecessary risks from nuclear power. It's time to try to save our state, instead of letting "doing the right thing" slip and slip and slip until it's TOO LATE, which may be tomorrow, or even today. Another one of the books I brought (from my collection of over 500 books, videos, and bound government documents on nuclear issues) was Dr. Richard E. Webb's "The Accident Hazards of Nuclear Power Plants" (University of Massachusetts Press, 1976), about which Barbara Byron of the CEC, who saw the book in my collection, stated she also had a copy, which I assume she will loan to any Commissioner upon request. I decided to check on the Internet to see what I could find by Dr. Webb that was more recent. Commissioners: I hit the jackpot! This is a very sad thing for you, because you are duty-bound to read Webb's document, and to understand how significant Dr. Webb's comments are to the issues at hand. Dr. Webb is a very "real" expert on nuclear power. Unfortunately, you can bank on his words. You could just as well bank on (and heed the warnings of) 1,000 other experts who have broken rank -- dozens of their books are available in any major city, if you scour the bookstores. But as in Ray Bradbury's "Fahrenheit 451," the books disappe - nuclear runaway (power excursions); - core meltdown upon loss of cooling or loss of reactor coolant, due to fission product heating and exothermic zirconium-steam chemical reactions; - reactor vessel ruptures, spontaneously or due to an over-pressurization; and - reactor containment vessel ruptures on over-pressurization. -- Dr. Webb -------------------------------------- (You may want to take a look at my animation of PWR reactors (and BWRs, if you're interested) which is available online -- I've provided the URL in previously docketed testimony. The animations are based on government and industry documents.) And then, there is the added problem of CASCADING NUCLEAR CATASTROPHES. The containment dome, for example, is not designed to protect against multiple steam generator (heat REMOVAL systems) failures, only against the failure of ONE steam generator. California's N.P.P.s' steam generators are old and one steam generator might burst INTO another steam generator, an accident the NRC claims cannot happen (see below). Hogwash! The Commission heard enormous amounts of evidence and reviews of misbehavior on the part of the NRC and the DOE at the "workshop" this week, from the State of Nevada, from other agencies in California, and from citizens including the undersigned, who complained that those federal agencies lied, ignored the obvious, are guilty of gross obfuscation of the facts before numerous state agencies and The People, of gross incompetence, gross ignorance, and criminal negligence in the performance of their duties, if not in so many words in all instances, certainly in so many examples. -------------------------------------- "Official secrecy on the subject of the reactor accident hazards still prevails." -- Dr. Webb -------------------------------------- It's safe to say that you have been lied to by the best the NRC and DOE have to offer, let alone the NEI (whom I think we were all PARTICULARLY polite while listening to) and many others! As you may recall, only one interruption came from the floor during the entire workshop: from a Dr. Robert Williams. Had a rational person interrupted every time a pro-nuker made an irrational, unproven, hopelessly optimistic, or patently false statement (all of which do, in fact, deserve hooting and hollering and derision, in my opinion) there would have been pandemonium throughout the pathetic presentations by the NEI, NRC, DOE, PG&E and SCE representatives (not to mention the professor from Berkeley, who was the most confused (if not downright dishonest) of them all). Until, of course, you had thrown us all out and there was no one left to witness (or try to prevent, as is our duty as citizens) the crime which was being committed against YOU (a separate letter to follow will have some examples from notes I took during the meeting, and I'm sure I'll be able to describe many more lies after the transcript of the workshop becomes available). Dr. Webb goes into great detail (see below) about some of the run-arounds a nuclear scientist/whistleblower such as himself has gotten from various governments (including and in particular our federal government) as well as from the entirely pro-nuclear so ---------- Items included below: 1) A review in Foreign Affairs of Dr. Webb's 1976 book: "civilian nuclear reactors should be shut down." 2) Dr. Webb's 1990 comments given in Spain 3) A revision to Dr. Webb's TMI comments, from April, 2000 (with an introduction by this concerned citizen) ---------- Below is a review of Dr. Webb's 1976 book. Note the reviewer's description of Dr. Webb's conclusion: That "Civilian nuclear reactors should be shut down" From: http://www.foreignaffairs.org/19770101fabook14882/richard-e-webb/the-accident-hazards-of-nuclear-power-plants.html The Accident Hazards of Nuclear Power Plants. Richard E. Webb. Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press, 1976, 228 pp. $6.95 (Paper) Reviewed by Andrew J. Pierre, Foreign Affairs, January 1977 This study of possible malfunctions of nuclear reactors, written by a nuclear engineer with AEC experience, comes to the controversial conclusion that because the risks of accidents have not been adequately examined, civilian nuclear reactors should be shut down, and a moratorium placed on the construction of new plants until society fully evaluates the balance of risks and benefits in the nuclear program. ---------- The following is from: ---------- http://technidigm.org/c5001/nucl_haz.htm The Risks of Catastrophic Accidents at Nuclear Power Plants by Dr. Richard E. Webb ---------- A paper for the Conferència Catalana per un Futur Sense Nuclears, Barcelona, Spain, 25 April 1990 ---------- Preface (6 October 1999): This paper needs considerably updated, particular in regards to the health hazards of nuclear radiation and also the Three Miles Island nuclear accident of March 28, 1979. The information given in this paper, The Risks of Catastrophic Accidents at Nuclear Power Plants, is all still valid; but my subsequent research has uncovered that the nuclear accident hazards are far worse even than evaluated in this paper particularly in respect to the health hazards of nuclear radiation and the potential catastrophic consequences to life on Earth in the event of another nuclear eruption (the Chernobyl eruption is small compared to the full potential for explosion and radioactivity releases in the type of reactors used in United States, France, Germany, Britain, Japan, Sweden, &c., mainly, the PWRS, BWRs, AGRs and Magnox). I refer to the letter/essay addressed to the People of the Area of the Three Mile Island Nuclear Power Plant, September 12, 1996. See especially Section V on the "Damaging Action of Nuclear Radiation on Body Tissues (Health Harm). I refer also to my June 1998 Harmful Effects of the Radioactive Fallout in Bavaria from the Chernobyl Reactor Eruption of April 26, 1986 A Mathematical Analysis of the Official Statistics on Still Births and Infant Deaths in Bavaria and other Parts of West Germany (1980-1993) Preview Report. ---------- Present address (6 October 1999): Raiffeisenstrasse 1 86868 Mittelneufnach Bavaria, Germany ---------- Table of Contents Introduction 1 Webb's Qualifications and Experience 2 Webb's Research of the Nuclear Accident Hazards 3 Brief Summary of Webb's Analysis of the Nuclear Accident Hazards 5 Some examples of specific accident mechanisms: 6 Nuclear Excursions 6 Boiling Water Reactors (6) Pressurized Water Reactors (7) Advanced Gas-Cooled Reactors (AGRs) (7) Fast Breeder Reactors (8) Loss of Water Coolant Accidents (PWRs and BWRs) 8 Other Types of Reactor System Rupture 10 Release of Radioactive Materials 11 Potential Accident Consequences 11 Accident Probability 12 Webb's Treatises and Reports 15 The Great Necessity for an Urgent Review and Investigation of the Nuclear Accident Hazards 16 Credibility of R.E. Webb's Analyses and Warnings of the Nuclear Accident Hazards 20 Our Situation 23 Constitutional Law Perspective 26 What Should be Done? 27 NOTES ---------- The Risks of Catastrophic Accidents at Nuclear Power Plants by Dr. Richard E. Webb ---------- A paper for the Conferència Catalana per un Futur Sense Nuclears, Barcelona, Spain, 25 April 1990 ---------- I am very honored to be invited to appear before this conference in Catalonia and give my views of the risks of accidents in nuclear power reactors. I believe the organizations who are sponsoring this conference are very wise to have called together this conference to review the matter of the nuclear accident hazards, and in particular to learn about my research and analyses of the accident hazards of nuclear power reactors. For I have determined by my research and scientific analyses and calculations that there are extremely grave and imminent dangers of catastrophic reactor accidents - reactor eruptions and nuclear explosions - which potentially could be ruinous for most of Europe, due to enormous releases of radioactive substances into the Earth's atmosphere and its fallout on the land. The People of the world, especially in Europe, America, and Japan, where nuclear power plants are concentrated, are in an extremely difficult predicament - having become more and more dependent on nuclear energy while exposing ourselves to increasing risks of a radioactive cataclysm, which the public is all too slowly becoming aware of. The issue of the safety of nuclear power plants has been vigorously debated in America and Europe since about 1970 (the year of the first "Earth Day"), beginning mainly with the public hearings in the atomic licensing proceedings for the Shoreham nuclear power plant on Long Island in New York. I participated in the Shoreham hearings in 1970 and raised in public for the first time my questions about the safety of nuclear power plants. {See note no. 1.} In the last twenty years throughout America and Europe, there have been countless public meetings, law suits in courts, books and published articles, reactor licensing proceedings, Government hearings, and public debates on the issue of "nuclear safety" and the reactor accident risks. During these years we have experienced a reactor core meltdown accident at the Three Mile Island nuclear power plant in 1979, which by sheer luck ended without a catastrophic explosion, and a catastrophic reactor accident in 1986 in the Soviet Union, which contaminated most of Europe - the Chernobyl accident. Fortunately, the Chernobyl reactor eruption was relatively small (roughly three percent release of the radioactive material), compared to the full nuclear accident potentials of the reactors used in western Europe, America, and elsewhere in the world, namely, Pressurized Water Reactors (PWRs), Boiling Water Reactors (BWRs), Gas-Cooled Reactors, and Fast Breeder Reactors. We also have had many near accidents, which are generally not known about. In addition, our body of knowledge of the nuclear accident hazards, the potentials for reactor eruptions, and the potential harmful radiation consequences of catastrophic accidents has been considerably extended over the years by the scientific research of many different scientists and nuclear laboratories, including my research. Yet, despite all of this debate and advancements of scientific kn Pressurized Water Reactors (PWRs), Boiling Water Reactors (BWRs), Fast Breeder Reactors (FBRs), Advanced Gas-Cooled Reactors (AGRs), CANDU (Canada's Heavy Water Moderated, Pressure-Tube Reactor), Soviet's RBMK (Chernobyl type reactor), and High Temperature Gas-Cooled Reactors. I have concentrated in my research, however, on the PWRs, BWRs, FBRs, and the AGRs. My investigations of the reactor accident hazards covered all types of reactor accidents, namely: super-prompt critical power excursions; loss of reactor coolant (e.g., coolant system pipe ruptures); loss of reactor cooling (e.g., loss of feedwater to the steam generators in PWRs); reactor vessel rupture; steam generator rupture; reactor over-power transients; and loss of cooling of the on-site spent fuel storage basins following a reactor accident. Furthermore, I have thoroughly investigated the Three Mile Island accident, the Chernobyl accident, and many other mishaps that are not generally known, in order to assess the probability or likelihood, hence the risks, of catastrophic accidents. In addition, since my calculations and analyses indicate that there exists potentials for reactor eruptions and near full releases of radioactive fission products and plutonium into the Earth's atmosphere as vapors and smoke, my hazards analyses are extended to evaluate the potential consequences of reactor eruptions in terms of the size land areas of contaminated land which could have to be abandoned, the size land areas ruined for food growing agriculture, the radiation doses to the affected human population, and even estimates of the possible number of cancer deaths due to radiation exposures from a reactor accident. Over the years of my research I have written and issued many treatises and reports which set down my various analyses. See Attachment 2 for a list of my various reports and treatises. My first comprehensive treatise, The Accident Hazards of Nuclear Power Plants, was published in 1976 by the University of Massachusetts Press, Amherst, Massachusetts. In order to subject my analyses to critical scientific reviews, I have submitted my works to the atomic licensing authorities and nuclear scientists in various nuclear laboratories in the United States, West Germany and Great Britain, and to some extent in Sweden. Most recently, I have participated in the British Government's Hinkley Point 'C' Public Inquiry, which was held to consider the application of the Central Electricity Generation Board to build a second Pressurized Water Reactor (PWR) in Great Britain (modified Westinghouse design Sizewell-B type) at the Hinkley Point nuclear power station in western England. In addition, I held over the years countless discussions with nuclear experts in the U.S. Government and in the nuclear laboratories, mostly in America, but also in West Germany and Great Britain, when making my investigations, theoretical calculations, and my various analyses. In 1981-1982 I participated in the West German Government's study project for analyzing the explosion accident risks of the SNR-300 fast breeder reactor at Kalkar, North-Rhein Westfalia in West Germany - a project which I believe was undertaken by the West German federal Government as a result of a series of treatises I issued in 1977-1979 on the "nuclear explosion potentials" of that reactor. I also was involved in the Three Mile Island accident, giving technical advice to the Pennsylvania state government officials and the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission on how to cool down the reactor core, which I determined was destroyed, with the least risk of a catastrophic eruption. My technical advice was followed. (See item of my list of works.) In August 1984 I issued a report Catastrophi - nuclear runaway (power excursions); - core meltdown upon loss of cooling or loss of reactor coolant, due to fission product heating and exothermic zirconium-steam chemical reactions; - reactor vessel ruptures, spontaneously or due to an over-pressurization; and - reactor containment vessel ruptures on over-pressurization. The first two types of accidents - nuclear runaway and core meltdown - can result in enormous "steam explosions," by the process of mixing molten fuel with water, like an explosive volcano. The last two have the potentials for enormous explosions due simply to the explosive release of pressure energy. The fast breeder reactors have nuclear explosion potentialities, defined as a super-prompt critical power excursion which vaporizes the nuclear fuel and results in the explosion of the reactor core by the force of high fuel vapor pressure generated extremely rapidly by the power excursion. The Advanced Gas-Cooled Reactors (AGRs) used in Britain also have nuclear explosion accident potentials, due to an "autocatalytic reactivity effect" of fuel expansion in the coolant channels of the reactor's graphite block during a nuclear runaway caused by the melting down of the steel cladding of the fuel rods. (I have not been able to analyze the Soviet's RBMK/Chernobyl type reactor adequately for its full accident potentials; but I can conclude that the Western reactors (PWRs, BWRs, AGRs, and fast breeder reactors) are in most respects much more dangerous than the RBMK reactor. (I refer to my Chernobyl Report, item in Attachment 2.) Some examples of specific accident mechanisms are as follows: 1. Nuclear Excursions (a) Boiling Water Reactors. The worst-case nuclear excursion accident potentially in a BWR could occur by a sudden closure of the isolation valves of the steam outlet pipes from the reactor vessel, while the reactor is operating at full power, followed by a failure of the automatic shutdown of the reactor (control rods scram), plus a failure of an additional reactivity control action involving the automatic stoppage of the reactor coolant recirculation pumps. In this event the reactor steam pressure rises rapidly due to the closed steam valves and the continued full reactor power level, causing steam bubbles to be rapidly compressed in the reactor core, which, in turn, causes a rise in the reactivity, and consequently a power excursion. The heat of the excursion worsens the pressure surge, which, in turn, causes continued steam bubble compression and still more reactivity increases, which causes the power level to rise still more and at a faster rate - an unstable positive reactivity feedback process. The result, by my calculations, is a potential catastrophic nuclear excursion within ten seconds! There is a great amount of reactivity potential in the steam bubbles in the core, which would be released by compressing the bubbles (pressure rise), or collapsing the bubbles by cold feedwater injection, or sweeping the bubbles out of the core by a surge in coolant flow through the core. This reactivity potential creates catastrophic power excursion accident hazards, and even unstable power oscillations, if the recirculation pumps were shut off (natural circulation coolant flow through the reactor core). - Hinkley Point Nuclear Accidents Hazards (two parts); - Chernobyl and the Accident Hazards of Western Reactors. For more details I draw special attention to the following treatises: - The Accident Hazards of Nuclear Power Plants (University of Massachusetts Press, 1976). - Catastrophic Nuclear Accident Hazards - A Warning for Europe, August 1984. - The Chernobyl Nuclear Accident: A Summary Analysis of its Cause and Consequences with a Comparative Analysis of the Accident Hazards of the Western Reactors, August 1, 1986. - An Analysis and Evaluation of the Accident Hazards of, and the official Safety Arguments for, the Sizewell-B Type Pressurized Water Reactor proposed for the Hinkley Point Reactor Site in England, Preliminary Report, Evidence for Submittal to the Hinkley Point 'C' Public Inquiry, February 27, 1989, typed March 10, 1989, corrected for typing errors and grammar, November 20, 1989. - The Nuclear Explosion Accident Hazards of the British Advanced Gas-Cooled Reactors (AGRs), June 20, 1988. - Nuclear Explosion Hazards of the Advanced Gas-Cooled Reactors (AGRs) - a Critical Review of the Article "Transients in Gas-Cooled Reactors," by Dr. John Askew, AGR Programme Director, UKAEA and related correspondence, August 8, 1988. - Boiling Water Reactors: Reactivity Accidents and Unstable Power Oscillations. The Great Necessity for an Urgent Review and Investigation of the Nuclear Accident Hazards In my opinion the Public, the scientific community, Governments and their atomic licensing and supervising authorities, and the Legislatures of the various Countries that operate nuclear power reactors must undertake urgently a full review and investigation of the nuclear accident hazards, including a review and evaluation of my various analyses of the nuclear accident hazards. We must take measures to make certain that no catastrophic nuclear accident occurs; for the notion that we can tolerate accidents is unfounded. The first step is to seriously and fully investigate the nuclear accident hazards, and the analyses of these hazards which I have developed. There is the great necessity for forming a scientific consensus on the extent of the accident hazards. Only qualified scientists can make the needed rational evaluations of the nuclear accident hazards for the people of society. In order to make the evaluations and perceive the accident risks, scientists must study: (a) the details of the reactor plant designs to perceive the mechanisms of the many different accident possibilities; (b) the detailed physics and mathematical models of the reactor systems in accident conditions and transients; and (c) the details of the available published analyses of the accident hazards; and they must check the details of my calculations and those of the nuclear industry and laboratories, and make independent calculations of accident potentials. It is a complicated and formidable task, which requires substantial funding support. A Plan of work that I propose and urge to be undertaken is as follows: 1. Study my various treatises. Toward this end my various treatises and reports should be printed and distributed. In this way scientists can have the benefit of my twenty years of full time research. 2. Develop a document library, and acquire the essential literature on reactor safety and hazards analyses. 3. My treatises and reports need to be supplemented with write-ups of the details of my calculations, theoretical models, assumptions, and mathematical methods of calculations. The enormous complexity of the nuclear hazards analyses, and the necessity over the years to make a great many calculations, to develop many different kinds of theoretical models of reactor accident processes and spent fuel heat up, and to analyze or investigate one thing after another and research so many things, in order to make a sound, substantive analysis of the nuclear accident hazards, has left little time to set down in treatise form the full details of my various calculations. Examples of the topics which I have investigated are as follows: the Three Mile Island Accident, Chernobyl, spent fuel storage heat-ups in loss of cooling, steam explosion experiments, mechanisms for nuclear explosions in fast breeder reactors, heat transfer coefficients for AGR fuel rods in a loss of flow accident, reactor vessel rupture, the Davis-Besse loss-of-cooling mishap in 1985, atomic bomb size explosion potentials in the fast breeder reactor, sodium vapor explosion models in fast breeder reactor accidents, AGR nuclear explosion potentials, the Hinkley Point Public Inquiry - a one year effort - potential consequences of large releases of radioactivity into the atmosphere, mathematical analyses of the cancer mortality statistics of radiation workers and the atomic bomb survivors, neutron streaming reactivity effects in fast breeder reactor accidents, and so on ad infinitum (a very great many more matters). It was not possible to write up detailed mathematical treatises of each analysis and calculation that I have made. Consequently, my reports and treatises are of the nature of summary analyses with the details of the calculations and mathematical theory omitted for the most part. One exception is my 1980 treatise on the potential accident consequences, which includes the mathematical details of my accident consequence calculations. Yet, in order to prove the claims I make in my reports, the details of the calculations must be supplied. This is a serious deficiency of my works; though you will find that the voluminous reports of the official nuclear hazards and safety analyses have the same deficiency - the reports are little more than a presentation of results without the details of the calculations. The great problem in my case is the lack of financial support to be able to write up the details of my calculations. To take an example, after I made a set of complicated computer calculations which led to my discovery of nuclear explosion hazards of the British Advanced Gas-Cooled Reactor - a year of full time research - I estimated that it would take about six months to compose and write a full mathematical treatise, to prove scientifically the nuclear explosion hazards that I have calculated. There is a very great amount of detail. It took over one month just to write a summary report, which is about 200 pages. Green1. A full analysis of the accident potentialities in the Sizewell-B type PWR. My Hinkley Point Evidence, cited on page 15, though quite comprehensive, is still only a "preliminary report." The rest of my analysis needs to be set down in a full report. 2. A mathematical analysis of the cancer mortality statistics of radiation workers, to evaluate the probability of cancer death per unit dose of whole body gamma radiation. I have drafted a mathematical treatise. It needs to be printed up and additional calculations made. 3. Calculations of an estimate of the reactivity effect of neutron streaming in an fast breeder reactor core - a quantity which is needed to evaluate a possible nuclear explosion potential in a fast breeder reactor due to a "neutron streaming cutoff" effect (see my August 1984 report, Warning for Europe, cited earlier on page 15. I have found in my research that the various conventional theories for calculating the neutron streaming reactivity based on the use of neutron diffusion theory are unsound (useless), and have developed a mathematical solution to the problem based on neutron transport theory. I need to make the necessary computer calculations based on this mathematical solution, and write up a treatise on the subject of neutron streaming in fast breeder reactors. This work is essential. 4. Finish and write my detailed critical evaluation of the analyses of the potential consequences of "beyond design basis accidents" in the Hinkley Point 'C' PWR which has been made by the National Radiological Protection Board of Britain. 5. Complete my critical analysis of the steam explosion experiments made in the Molten Fuel Test Facility at the U.K. Atomic Energy Authority's Winfrith Laboratories (see the Addendum to my Hinkley Point Evidence). 6. Write a full treatise of my calculations of atomic bomb size explosion potentials in the fast breeder reactor. I refer to the April 4, 1986 Addendum to my Warning for Europe report. A way must be found to establish an international scientific consensus of the accident hazards of nuclear power plants. Surely, in order to achieve this necessary goal, scientific proofs of the many various accident potentials must be made and set down in treatise form, not mere reports of results of analyses. We need scientific proofs not mere statements in an official report, or in papers such as this present one. Toward this end, I suggest the development of an International Nuclear Hazards Analysis Treatise - a loose leaf multi-volume work that would contain analyses of the most major nuclear accident possibilities and their potential consequences, including the complete details of the theoretical/mathematical models and the calculations. I further suggest the convening of a series of scientific conferences to debate the analyses of the Hazards Analysis Treatise, toward establishing the accident potentials, including reaching a consensus of the radiation exposure and contamination limits for assessing the potential consequence of nuclear eruptions. In addition, of course, I suggest that every nation who operates nuclear power plants create its own internal forums for reviewing and investigating the nuclear accident hazards. In this regard I suggest two models: 1. The SNR-300 Risk Oriented Analysis Study Project in West Germany (1981-1982). This project was commissioned by the West Germany federal Government and consisted of a pro-nuclear group and a nuclear critics group. The pro-nuclear group was the West German company which makes reactor safety analyses for various licensing authorities in West Germany, Gesellschaft für Reaktorsicherheit. The critics group consisted of a group of physics students and professors who were critical of the fast breeder project. (I was asked to join the critics group.) The project had a mandate to conduct scientific debates between the pro-nuclear group and the critics group with the aim of resolving as many technical issues as possible, and to issue a single report to the West Germany Parliament. The actual working of the project did not reach the goal of a unified report, nor were the promised conferences with the pro-nuclear group (GRS) held - conferences in which I was to debate the GRS about my analyses of the nuclear explosion potentials of the SNR-300 reactor. Still, the project was nevertheless very productive from my point of view, and useful. Besides each side submitting written analyses, the project held a scientific debate between a group of experts of Karlsruhe Nuclear Research Center and myself, which was tape recorded and transcribed. I issued a treatise which analyzed the debate in detail. The conference did much toward establishing the facts of the accident hazards. This type of project could be improved upon. The shortcoming of the project, however, was that it was controlled by the pro-nuclear interests, and the promised series of debate conferences with GRS about my analyses of the SNR-300 nuclear explosion potentials were never held. The remedy would be to put the direction of such a project under control of independent scientists. 2. The Hinkley Point 'C' Public Inquiry of the British Government (1988-1989). The Inquiry was a public forum conducted by a presiding officer (called the "Inspector"), who was joined by two engineering and scientific experts (called "Assessors"), appointed by the Secretary of State for Energy of the British Government. In the Inquiry the issue was whether or not the Inspector should recommend consent to build a Sizewell-B type pressurized water reactor at the Hinkley Point nuclear power station, which already has two AGRs and two Magnox gas-cooled reactors. The Central Electricity Generation Board (CEGB) presented their scientific evidence in favor of their application for consent to build a PWR (or PWRs) at Hinkley Point, and I was given the privilege of questioning (cross-examining) the CEGB officials and other nuclear experts giving evidence, including the atomic licensing authority officials and the director of the National Radiological Board. Likewise, I presented my evidence and various supporting treatises, and underwent cross-examination by the CEGB lawyer. The Inspector and the assessors also took part in questioning each side during the debates; and the entire proceeding was thoroughly documented, including a verbatim transcript of the proceedings. The inquiry ended on December 4, 1989. By law the Inspector must issue a report of the Inquiry with his recommendation on whether or not consent to build a PWR station at Hinkley Point, and he must attach any report which an Assessor may want to write. However, whether a report will ever be issued remains to be seen; for near the end of the Inquiry the Secretary of State for Energy and his Department of Energy announced a cancellation of their plans to build any more PWRs, including the PWR station planned for Hinkley Point and three other PWRs that were planned, subject to a nuclear policy review in 1994. The change in policy is confusing, for CEGB still maintained its application for consent to build the reactors. I fear that the change in policy may be just a scheme to avoid a legal requirement for issuing a report of the inquiry, so that my analyses of the nuclear accident hazards will not have to be addressed and dealt with in a published Government report. I believe that the most effective way to investigate the nuclear accident hazards within a nation is the creation of a special Scientific Commission of experts whose only mandate is to determine the nuclear accident hazards (develop objective information), and not to judge the acceptability of the risks and make subjective judgments. The subjective judgments can be made by the politicians representing the public in the parliament of a country. {See note no. 4.} Credibility of R.E. Webb's Analyses and Warnings of the Nuclear Accident Hazards I believe that my warnings of nuclear accident hazards ought to be taken seriously. A few points in this regard: 1. My book The Accident Hazards of Nuclear Power Plants, which was published in 1976, warned that accidents worse than the "design basis accidents" - mainly, multiple-failure accidents - are credible, at a time when the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, followed by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory commission, asserted that such accidents are "incredible." They asserted that multiple-failure accidents are so extremely low in probability that they may be disregarded. Two and a half years later the Three Mile Island accident occurred, which was caused by a multiple of failures, hence a beyond-design-basis accident. 2. During the Three Mile Island (TMI) accident, about five days into the accident, I had determined that the core was destroyed. The NRC did not reveal his fact to the public until I caused them to admit it, after reporters of a major newspaper listened to tape recordings of my discussions with a key NRC technical official 24 days into the accident. Early in the accident (five days into it) I advised the NRC and the Pennsylvania Government officials not to turn off a large reactor coolant circulation pump that was running, because the core was destroyed, I contended. I reasoned that we ought to maintain the forced coolant circulation, since forced coolant flow through the collapsed core had up to that time been successful in avoiding a catastrophic core meltdown/steam explosion, and that such forced flow could very well be necessary to assure adequate coolant circulation through the disintegrated core mass (collapse of the normal coolant flow channels between the fuel rods). At that time the NRC was preparing to turn off the pump and attempt to cool the core by natural convection. Fortunately, my technical advice was followed - the pump was left running. I refer to my analysis of the Three Mile Island accident, and to the Transcript of my telephone discussions during the accident (see item ___ in Attachment 2). Later in the accident - about one month - I met with the chief safety managers of the NRC to debate a planned experiment with the destroyed core - the experiment was to turn off the coolant circulation pump. In the meeting I argued that the reactor core was destroyed, that its condition with regard to whether or not it was already molten or on the verge of melting down was unknown, and that, therefore, turning off the pump (by stopping the forced coolant circulation flow) could cause or worsen a core meltdown, and thereby threaten a catastrophic steam explosion. I therefore argued against the experiment. The NRC safety managers in the meeting contended that the TMI reactor core was severely damaged and partially crumbled, but not molten, and that the core material was being adequately cooled with water coolant circulating through the +crumbled core material by the pumped flow, and that it would continue to be adequately cooled by natural convection flow when the pump is turned off. {See note no. 5.} The next day the NRC ordered the pump turned off. Ten years later, we learned by probes of the destroyed reactor core that half of the core was molten (a molten pool), and indeed threatened a catastrophic steam explosion. As we know now from the Sandia steam explosion experiment, it was pure luck that a catastrophic steam explosion did not occur in that accident. Such an explosion could have caused the adjacent reactor to erupt as a consequence, to compound the catastrophe. Also, the Three Mile Island core meltdown could have occurred as a result of turning off the coolant pump, as I warned in my meeting with the NRC. 3. My book, The Accident Hazards of Nuclear Power Plants (1976) and my 1984 Warning for Europe report both warned that nuclear runaway accidents, including autocatalytic power excursions, are the most serious type of accident; whereas the report of the U.S. Government's official Reactor Safety Study played down the nuclear runaway type of accident potentiality. Indeed, the report mentions this class of accidents only in an addendum to the report, in response to the comments on the draft report which I sent to the NRC. The Chernobyl accident in 1986 was caused by a nuclear runaway, more specifically, by an autocatalytic power excursion. The specific mechanism was due to something called a "positive void coefficient of reactivity." My book Accident Hazards warned (warns) about the danger of an autocatalytic power excursion occurring in the Canadian type, CANDU reactor, due to a positive void coefficient of reactivity in that type of reactor. CANDU was a pressure tube reactor, where the neutron moderator is separate from the reactor coolant, which causes the positive void coefficient. The Chernobyl reactor was also a pressure tube reactor, and, therefore, it also had a positive void coefficient. (Incidentally, I have learned that in the early 1980's Romania has begun construction of five CANDU reactors.) 4. My 1984 Warning for Europe report warned of the potential for the reactor containment building of a PWR exploding upon over-pressurization; whereas the official hazards analyses assume a small-hole rupture - a relatively minor rupture upon over-pressurization. Several months after my report was issued, a small-scale containment vessel exploded in an over-pressure experiment, contrary to the official laboratory predictions of a small leak that was to develop upon the over-pressurization and which was to vent the pressure with a catastrophic-type rupture. The fragments were blown to heights that were previously predicted in my August 1984 Warning for Europe report (500 feet!). 5. In the Hinkley Point Public Inquiry, the British nuclear authorities confirmed my research discovery of nuclear runaway hazards in the AGRs, after earlier denying publicly that the AGR could suffer a nuclear runaway (their denial was made before I undertook my research). Moreover, a senior CEGB reactor physicist, Dr. John Young, has written an evaluation of my treatise on the AGR nuclear explosion accident hazards; but the CEGB has refused to give me and the Hinkley Point Public Inquiry a copy of Dr. Young's evaluation, which suggests that my treatise is right. 6. My book Accident Hazards and other treatises and papers which I have issued in the past have warned that the theoretical models and calculations used to make the official evaluations of the nuclear industry's design basis accidents for reactors cannot be relied on, because the theoretical models lack experimental verification and other shortcomings. In 1988 a loss of flow fault in a BWR in America triggered unstable, divergent power oscillations; though previous reactor design calculations predicted stable, decaying power oscillations following such a reactor coolant flow disturbance. The incident underscores my warning. 7. In my works I argued that a full thermodynamically efficient steam explosion could occur upon a core meltdown in a PWR or BWR accident; whereas, the nuclear establishment contended that the efficiency of any real steam explosion in a core meltdown accident would be low. My contentions were partly based on a successful theoretical model of sodium vapor explosions which I developed for evaluating accidents in fast breeder reactors. (My model explains very well observed sodium vapor explosions in miniature-scale experiments.) The Sandia steam explosion experiment, which I have mentioned before, has confirmed my warning: the efficiency of the observed steam explosion, which destroyed the experimental test facility, could not be determined, but according to the Sandia scientist who conducted the experiment, Dr. Marshall Berman, the possibility that the explosion was fully efficient thermodynamically cannot be excluded. 8. The Soviet authorities now are saying that the radiation consequences of the Chernobyl accident are far worse and more extensive than previously reported. This tends to confirm my analysis of the possible consequences of the Chernobyl accident. I refer to my 1986 Chernobyl report, where I warned that the consequences could be far worse than the authorities had projected, and that urgent counter measures were (and still are) needed to limit the exposures to radiation that the human population would receive, especially in eastern Europe. 9. The State of North Rhein Westfalia in West Germany has refused to grant an operating license for the SNR-300 fast breeder reactor at Kalkar. I believe that this position of the atomic licensing authority there is mainly due to my analyses of the nuclear explosion potentials/hazards of the SNR-300 reactor, which I have set down in a series of ten treatises that have been submitted to the nuclear authorities in West Germany over the years. Also, the U.S. Government cancelled plans to build a fast breeder reactor in America, after I issued analyses of the nuclear explosion hazards of fast breeder reactors. 10. Finally, the British Government has cancelled plans to build a PWR station at Hinkley Point (and at three other plants). The Government announced their cancellations near the end of the Hinkley Point Public Inquiry. Though there were many press stories suggesting that the reason behind the Government's decision to cancel the PWRs is economics, the fact is that the Government has not given the reasons for its decision. I believe that we must assume that the decision was largely due to my Evidence on the PWR accident hazards which I presented to the Hinkley Point Public Inquiry, as well as the facts which were disclosed and established in the debates in the Inquiry as a result of my cross-examination of the nuclear officials in the Inquiry. This can only be appreciated by studying the record of the Inquiry - the transcripts of my cross-examinations of the officials and my evidence and statements given at the Inquiry. I truly believe, therefore, that my analyses of the nuclear accident hazards must be taken seriously. Our Situation The industrialized countries of America, Europe, and Japan are in a most difficult predicament in regard to nuclear power plants and their accident hazards. There are hundreds of nuclear power reactors located throughout America and Europe, and with them the imminent danger of a catastrophic accident of immense scale potentially. The responsible thing to do is to carefully shut down all nuclear power reactors while we investigate the reactor accident hazards and resolve the safety/risk issue. However, the nuclear problem is extremely difficult now to resolve, because of the enormous vested interests and money behind the nuclear development, including jobs and fortunes, and the enormous revenues and money profits from the sale of electricity from the reactor plants, and the politics of Government power, as well as modern society's heavy dependency now on electricity from the nuclear power plants. For example, France claims over 70% to 80% of their electric power comes from nuclear energy, and in Catalonia the situation is similar, according to what I have been told. Also, there are about 125 reactors operating in America. Even if we resolve to shut down the reactors, it would still be difficult to do so, because of the large amounts of electric power needed to maintain cooling of the reactors, to continuously remove the fission product heat from the reactor cores, which is practically perpetual. Without electric power for reactor cooling, a catastrophic reactor eruption or explosion would likely occur. At least there should be a full scientific investigation of the nuclear accident hazards; but our situation is that there is no mechanisms for the financial support - funding - for this urgently needed international undertaking. Virtual total control over the funding for nuclear hazards research is exercised by Governments, and they seem bent on promoting nuclear power, and ignoring my hazards analyses. Fortunatel1. Form a committee of scientists to study my treatises and the record of the Hinkley Point Public Inquiry in regard to my Evidence and my cross-examinations of the nuclear establishment officials in the Inquiry; and arrange for copies of my works be made and distributed. 2. Support the completion of the various works that I have undertaken (see page 17-18). {See note no. 9.} 3. Create a Scientific Commission in Spain to fully investigate the nuclear accident hazards and issue an evaluation report. 4. Join in and support the formation of an International Scientific Commission to investigate the nuclear accident hazards and work for an international scientific consensus of the hazards. 5. Support and contribute to the making of a Nuclear Hazards Analysis Treatise for each type of nuclear reactor in operation in the world. 6. Form a committee of political scientists, legal experts, and democratically minded politicians to review the principles of democracy and United States constitutional law, and then review the government policy making processes in Spain (the system of government), and other nations in Europe, and work for developing a sound democratic process for resolving the nuclear problem, which necessarily includes reviewing the present modern way of life and systems of industry and economics. 7. In parallel to the investigation of the nuclear hazards, investigate the feasibility of alternatives to nuclear energy, including changes in the way of life, to see if there is a way of life without nuclear energy and the heavy chemical pollution of modern society - a way of life that we might find would be better - one that we would be more happy with and one which hopefully could be powered by renewable energy sources. ---------- This concludes my paper. I wish your country success in resolving the nuclear issue wisely. Thank you for your attention. ---------- ___________________________ Notes 1. The Shoreham reactor - a Boiling Water Reactor - was eventually built and tested at low power, but has not yet been operated at high power, and may never be, due to a political struggle led by the State of New York Government to scrap the reactor plant, which seems to be succeeding, though the U.S. Government is apparently bent on trying to put the reactor into full operation. 2. The major so-called anti-nuclear campaign organizations based in Washington, D.C. actually support nuclear energy, though they gave the opposite impression to the public over the years in their mass-mailing brochures for fund raising. Their campaigns have pursued really minor or false issues over the years, in my opinion, and gave no support toward promoting any of the nuclear hazards issues that I have tried to push. I believe that this accounts for the poor state of the nuclear risks debate in America. 3. Perhaps influenced by my advices, and my report Catastrophic Nuclear Accident Hazards - A Warning for Europe, which was hand delivered to the Soviet Embessy during the accident, the Soviet engineers at Chernobyl drained the water basin beneath the reactor to preclude a possible steam explosion if molten fuel should collapse into the basin. 4. By my remarks about the SNR-300 Risk Study and the Hinkley Point Public Inquiry I do not mean that these particular forums were well conducted. On the contrary I found that they were irresponsibly conducted. The Hinkley Point Inquiry Inspector, Mr. Barnes, has recently issued his report, which I find is terrible. The report is replete with false statements that give false impressions of a fair, objective inquiry, and essentially ignores the wealth of evidence that I submitted, except for several topics, which the report treats, but in way that distorts my evidence and paints my evidences as some outsider scientists who doesn't know very much about what he has written about. I plan to thoroughly refute the Inquiry report in a future treatise. The same with the SNR-300 risk study; though I have already published a through critique in a report I issued in January 1984. 5. In the meeting the NRC managers gave me the official safety analysis reports for the planned experiment, which set down the official contentions about the state of the reactor core. 6. NRC is the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commision. The Study was made by a group associated with the American Physical Society. See Chapter 8 of my book "The Accident Hazards of Nuclear Power Plants," which critically reviews the report of this study. 7. I refer to my 1977 treatise "An Inquiry into the Safety of Nuclear Waste Disposal." 8. I refer also to Chapter 13 of my book The Accident Hazards of Nuclear Power Plants. This chapter, which is titled, "Who Should Decide?", contains my constitutional law analysis. I have also made a paper which contains additional proof of my contention that the whole nucle ---------- (End of Dr. Webb's 1990 comments) ---------- Comment by Russell D. Hoffman: The following is from a secondary web page at Dr. Webb's web site. While it admits that proof has been hard to come by for the use of the word "far" it asserts that things are almost certainly at least worse than the official government sources would suggest. Perhaps most important is all the things it does NOT revise. He's been thinking about these issues not just so we don't have to, but because most of us are INCAPABLE of resolving these issues. Dr. Webb states unequivocally that no one has corrected any of his conclusions about how dangerous nukes really are. -- rdh ---------- From: http://technidigm.org/c5001/revision.htm Revision for TMI Essay In Section V of my TMI essay, To the People of the Area, &c., the following statement is given: "I have also analyzed the semi-official cancer mortality statistics of the atomic bomb survivors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, who suffered varying degrees of nuclear radiation exposure from the bombs, and found by mathematical calculations that the cancer effect of nuclear radiation as indicated by these statistics is far greater than that officially assessed. [See note no. 24 in the appendix.] I am preparing a treatise on the health hazard of nuclear radiation which will contain my full scientific analysis of the health hazard of nuclear radiation, including my statistical analyses, and my physics analysis of the damaging action of radiation on the living cells of human body tissue." The note No. 24 is as follows: "(Note No. 24) I find that the official statistical analyses on "radiation effects" are mathematically unsound. The reports and articles which present these analyses do not derive and prove the mathematical theory used for making the analysis calculations, nor is the theory described enough to be able to figure out just what the mathematical theory ("models") are that have been used, nor is the data used in the analysis verifiable, and in most cases, the data which was used to make a statistical analysis are not even made available." I have since improved on the mathematical calculations for my statistical analysis, and do not now calculate for certain that the cancer risk coefficient is "far greater" than what has been official evaluated, but that a value far greater cannot be excluded that there are positive indications that it is far greater. However, I also find that the statistics are not reliable; and so any mathematical analysis is not wholly meaningful. This will be elaborated upon in a scientific article which I am preparing for publications. Also, the official view, at least as of about 1990, was that there is no evidence of any cancer death effects of the radiation exposure among the atomic bomb survivors at doses less than 50 rads. I found the contrary. I refer to my 1991 treatise A Mathematical Analysis of the Cancer Mortality Statistics of the Japanese Atomic Bomb Survivors and Workers at the Hanford Nuclear Installation - An Evaluation of the Probability of Cancer Death by Exposure to Nuclear Radiation at Low Dose. My final calculations as of March 2000 show positive risk coefficient for doses less than 20 rads even. Richard E. Webb, Ph.D. Present Address (as of April 2000): Raiffeisenstrasse 1 86868 Mittelneufnach Bavaria, Germany Telephone: (49) 8262 - 960 857 ---------- =======================================================The above text has been submitted to the California Energy Commission by:======================================================== Russell D. HoffmanConcerned Citizen Carlsbad, CA *************************************************** THE ANIMATED SOFTWARE COMPANY** Russell D. Hoffman, Owner and Chief Programmer** P.O. Box 1936, Carlsbad CA 92018-1936** (800) 551-2726** (760) 720-7261** Fax: (760) 720-7394** Visit the world's most eclectic web site:** http://www.animatedsoftware.com************************************************* IF YOU RECEIVED THIS EMAIL IN ERROR AND/OR DO NOT WISH TO RECEIVE ANY MORE EMAILS FROM US FOR ANY REASON, PLEASE CONTACT RUSSELL HOFFMAN AT: rhoffman@animatedsoftware.com MailTo:rhoffman@animatedsoftware.com?Subject=Unsubscribe-me-please .Please be sure that "Unsubscribe-me-please" appears in the subject line. ***************************************************************** 16 NRC: Nuclear Management Company, Llc (Nmc), Point Beach Nuclear FR Doc E5-4530 [Federal Register: August 19, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 160)] [Notices] [Page 48784-48785] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr19au05-84] Plant, Units 1 and 2; Notice of Availability of the Final Supplement 23 to the Generic Environmental Impact Statement Regarding License Renewal for Point Beach Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2 Notice is hereby given that the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (Commission) has published a final plant-specific supplement to the ``Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants'' (GEIS), NUREG-1437, regarding the renewal of operating licenses DPR-24 and DPR-27 for an additional 20 years of operation at Point Beach Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2 (PBNP). PBNP is operated by Nuclear Management Company, LLC (NMC) and is owned by Wisconsin Electric Power Company (WEPCO). PBNP is located on the western shore of Lake Michigan in Two Rivers, Wisconsin, approximately 30 miles southeast of Green Bay, Wisconsin. Possible alternatives to the proposed action (license renewal) include no action and reasonable alternative energy sources. As discussed in Section 9.3 of the final Supplement 23, based on (1) The analysis and findings in the GEIS, (2) the NMC Environmental Report; (3) consultation with Federal, State, and local agencies; (4) the staff's own independent review; and (5) the staff's consideration of public comments, the recommendation of the staff is that the Commission determine that the adverse environmental impacts of license renewal for PBNP are not so great that preserving the option of license renewal for energy-planning decision makers would be unreasonable. The final Supplement 23 to the GEIS is publicly available at the NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS). ADAMS is accessible at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html; a link is provided to access documents through the Internet-based component of ADAMS. The accession number for the final Supplement 23 to the GEIS is ML052230490. Persons who do not have access to ADAMS, or who encounter problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS, should contact the NRC's PDR Reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, or 301-415-4737, or by e-mail at pdr@nrc.gov. In addition, the Lester Public Library, located at 1001 Adams Street, Two Rivers, Wisconsin, has agreed to make the final [[Page 48785]] Supplement 23 to the GEIS available for public inspection. For further information, contact: Ms. Stacey Imboden, License Renewal and Environmental Impacts Program, Division of Regulatory Improvement Programs, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC, 20555. Ms. Imboden may be contacted at 1-800-368-5642, extension 2462 or via e-mail at SXF@nrc.gov. Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 12th day of August, 2005. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Andrew Kugler, Acting Program Director, License Renewal and Environmental Impacts Program, Division of Regulatory Improvement Programs, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. [FR Doc. E5-4530 Filed 8-18-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P ***************************************************************** 17 Reuters: Constellation's Nine Mile 1 nuke in N.Y. shut Fri Aug 19, 2005 7:15 AM ET NEW YORK, Aug 19 (Reuters) - Baltimore-based Constellation Energy Group Inc.'s (CEG.N: Quote, Profile, Research) 620-megawatt unit 1 at the Nine Mile Point nuclear power station in New York was shut as of early Friday, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission said in its power reactor status report. On Thursday, the unit was operating at full power. The 1,755 MW Nine Mile Point station is located in Scriba in Oswego County, about 90 miles east of Rochester, New York. There are two units at the station: the 620 MW unit 1 and the 1,135 MW unit 2. Unit 2, meanwhile, continued to operate at full power. One MW powers about 800 homes, according to the North American average. Constellation, which owns all of unit 1, operates the station for its owners. Constellation (82 percent) and Long Island Power Authority (18 percent) own unit 2. The company has applied for 20-year operating license extensions for both units in May 2004. The current 40-year operating license for unit 1, which is one of the oldest operating reactors in the nation, is set to expire in 2009, while the license for unit 2, one of the newest reactors in the nation, will not expire until 2028. It usually takes the NRC about 22 to 24 months to grant a new operating license. © Reuters 2005. All Rights Reserved. ***************************************************************** 18 Reuters: Constellation's Nine Mile 1 nuke in start-up Fri Aug 19, 2005 1:32 PM ET LOS ANGELES, Aug 19 (Reuters) - Baltimore-based Constellation Energy Group Inc.'s (CEG.N: Quote, Profile, Research) 620-megawatt unit 1 at the Nine Mile Point nuclear power station in New York was in start-up on Friday after tripping off-line the previous day, a plant spokeswoman said. The unit automatically shut on Thursday morning following a series of events partly related to some system testing. The 1,755 MW Nine Mile Point station is located in Scriba in Oswego County, about 90 miles east of Rochester, New York. There are two units at the station: the 620 MW unit 1 and the 1,135 MW unit 2. Unit 2, meanwhile, continued to operate at full power. One MW powers about 800 homes, according to the North American average. Constellation, which owns all of unit 1, operates the station for its owners. Constellation (82 percent) and Long Island Power Authority (18 percent) own unit 2. The company has applied for 20-year operating license extensions for both units in May 2004. The current 40-year operating license for unit 1, which is one of the oldest operating reactors in the nation, is set to expire in 2009, while the license for unit 2, one of the newest reactors in the nation, will not expire until 2028. It usually takes the NRC about 22 to 24 months to grant a new operating license. © Reuters 2005. All Rights Reserved. ***************************************************************** 19 Vermont Guardian: More radioactive Yankee Rowe waste to pass through Vermont By Kathryn Casa | Vermont Guardian posted August 19, 2005 BRATTLEBORO As much as 23 million pounds of tritium-laced construction waste could be trucked through southern Vermont within a stones throw of two elementary schools after Massachusetts regulators turned thumbs down on a request to leave the low-level radioactive material on site. Officials of the shuttered Yankee Rowe nuclear power plant near Rowe, MA, had asked the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MassDEP) for a beneficial use determination (BUD) permit, which proposed leaving in place building foundations and other underground structures of the reactor containment building, one of the few structures left standing at the site. They also asked for permission to fill holes left by demolished foundations and other excavations with about 20 tons of concrete rubble from demolition of other structures at the site. Yankee Rowe, the nations third-oldest nuclear power plant, began decommissioning in 1993. Late last year, officials there estimated there were about 1,000 shipments left before decommissioning was complete. But in a July 29 decision, MassDEP said the proposal could complicate cleanup of soil and groundwater contamination. MassDEP has concluded that the BUD approval to abandon-in-place subsurface structures and reuse concrete rubble as fill shall be limited to only those materials with no distinguishable plant-related radioactivity above background level, said MassDEP Commissioner Robert W. Golledge, Jr. While the risk posed to the public by Yankees proposal may be low, tritium-contaminated rubble is low-level radioactive waste which cannot be left on site. Further interring the material on site may exacerbate or complicate the clean up of existing soil and groundwater contamination at the site, he determined. Tritium, a known carcinogen, is released in steam from commercial nuclear reactors and may leak into the underlying soil and ground water, according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. It has a half-life of about 12 years. The EPA considers tritium one of the least dangerous radionuclides because it emits very weak radiation as it decays, and leaves the body relatively quickly. But Diane DArrigo, a low-level radiation specialist with the Nuclear Information and Referral Service in Washington, said that when tritium enters the human body, if it were to displace a hydrogen atom in our DNA we would have potential genetic damage. Because tritium is almost always found as a water contaminant, it goes directly into soft tissues and organs, according to the EPA. Tritium is very much something that can be taken up by the body, DArrigo said. It gives off beta emissions, so wherever it lodges it will give off radioactivity in that region. A National Academy of Sciences panel in June said that even very low doses of radiation pose a cancer risk over a persons lifetime. It is unlikely that there is a threshold [of radiation exposure] below which cancers are not induced, the scientists stated. Yankee Rowe spokeswoman Kelley Smith said that plant officials and Massachusetts state officials are in negotiations about how much of the 23.7 million pounds of concrete in the reactor support structure will have to be shipped out. That determination will be made after officials measure tritium background levels, she said. MassDEP spokeswoman Elizabeth Stinehart said the process used to determine background levels is still under development. Kelley said that if left in place, the tritium would result in exposure levels that exceed only those set by MassDEP, but would be within the limits set by both the Massachusetts Department of Health and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. According to NRC criteria, Kelley said, decommissioning plants must demonstrate that a hypothetical resident living on a reclaimed site would not be exposed to more than 25 millirems of radiation in addition to the 360 millirems that resident would receive during the course of a normal year. She said the increased dosage must take into account all possible pathways, including drinking water from a well drilled on the property, or drinking milk from a cow raised on the land. Because Massachusetts restricts the transport of radioactive waste through various towns and on certain roadways, the concrete will be shipped north on Route 100 through Readsboro and Whitingham, VT, then east on Route 9, a windy highway that crosses Hogback Mountain and comes within yards of Marlboro Elementary School and the Academy School in West Brattleboro. The trucks will connect to Interstate 91 at exit 2, where they will head south, eventually ending up at a rail line in Worcester, MA, where the waste is loaded onto railcars and transported to a nuclear waste facility in Utah, Smith said. Yankee Rowe notifies the Vermont Department of Health in advance about the shipments, which in turn notifies Vermont State Police headquarters in Waterbury. But local emergency response officials have told the Vermont Guardian that they are not notified of the shipments. State records showed that 250 shipments had passed through southern Vermont as of November 2004, the last time the Vermont Guardian requested the information. Current statistics were unavailable this week because the Vermont Department of Health Protection was moving. Past shipments have contained low levels of the radioactive isotopes cobalt 60; nichol 63; iron 55; cesium 137; cesium 134; americium 241; CM-243; plutonium 238, 239, 241, 245; and depleted uranium said Carla White, Vermonts senior radiological health specialist. During the busiest demolition periods, about one truck per week has passed through southern Vermont, state records showed. Marlboro School Board Chairwoman Lauren Poster said the elementary school has long been concerned with traffic on Route 9, which includes a passing lane in front of the school, where the speed limit is 50 miles per hour. She said traffic accidents and jack-knifed trucks are routine on the roadway during the winter months. Vermont Guardian PO Box 335 Winooski, VT 05404 ©2005 Vermont Guardian | Visit us: www.vermontguardian.com This document can be located online: www.vermontguardian.com/local/0904/YankeeRowe.shtml ***************************************************************** 20 Brattleboro Reformer: Anti-nuclear group wants towns to improve VY evacuation plans August 19, 2005 Brattleboro, VT By MIKE KALIL Reformer Staff BRATTLEBORO -- An anti-nuclear group is making the rounds in front of area selectboards, making recommendations on how to improve evacuation procedures. Nuclear Free Vermont by 2012 wants the selectboards of Brattleboro, Dummerston, Guilford and Halifax to request additional sirens and an unannounced transportation test for public, private and nursery schools and child-care programs. The requests would be made to Vermont Emergency Management during the budgeting process. Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee in Vernon would be responsible for paying for the requests. Nuclear Free representatives have already appeared before Brattleboro and Dummerston selectboards, said Ed Anthes of Dummerston, a member of the organization. They'll finish the rounds in the coming weeks. A simultaneous drill would cost about $2,000 per town, according to the group's calculations. Sirens would cost about $25,000 apiece. The group is not yet suggesting how many sirens should be purchased. Anthes said the towns should start off with one or two sirens to see how effective they are, and then go from there. He said additional sirens would strengthen evacuation plans. About one-third of Brattleboro can hear the five sirens that are already installed, he said, and the communities of Dummerston, Guilford and Halifax should also have them. Many people don't have tone-alert radios to notify them of an evacuation, he said, and other methods of notification can't reach every single resident. "We need to have redundant ways of notifying people about an evacuation," Anthes said Thursday, adding, "None of (the other methods) will reach everybody who needs the message, so we need to have overlapping." During Tuesday's Brattleboro Selectboard meeting, Chairman Stephen Steidle said the board will take the issues up in the near future. Last year, the board endorsed most of the recommendations made by the group. "There's plenty of opportunity to discuss these issues and get some feedback on them," Steidle said. Copyright ©1999-2005 New England Newspapers, Inc., ***************************************************************** 21 NRC: NRC Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards To Meet Sept. 8-10 in Rockville, Maryland 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. 05-113 August 19, 2005 Reactor Safeguards will hold a public meeting Sept. 8-10 in Rockville, Md., to discuss, among other items, the license renewal application for the Millstone Power Station, Unit 2 and 3, in Connecticut. The committee will also be briefed by NRC staff and Exelon Generation Company officials regarding an early site permit application and draft Safety Evaluation Report for the possible construction of a nuclear power reactor on the site of the existing Clinton nuclear power plant, about six miles east of Clinton, Ill. The meeting, to be held in Room T-2B3 of the agencys Two White Flint North building, at 11545 Rockville Pike, will begin at 8:30 a.m. each day. The meeting will end at 7 p.m. on Thursday and Friday, and at 3:30 p.m. on Saturday. A complete agenda is available on the NRCs Web site at: http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/acrs/agenda/2005/. Anyone with questions or those wanting to make public statements during the meeting should contact Sam Duraiswamy at 301-415-7364. Last revised Friday, August 19, 2005 ***************************************************************** 22 [epa-impact] Nuclear Management Company, Llc (Nmc), Point Beach Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2005 12:20:55 -0400 (EDT) autolearn=ham version=3.0.4 X-Spam-filter-host: pascal.ctyme.com - http://www.junkemailfilter.com http://epa.gov/EPA-IMPACT/2005/August/Day-19/ ======================================================================= [Federal Register: August 19, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 160)] [Notices] [Page 48784-48785] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr19au05-84] ======================================================================= ----------------------------------------------------------------------- NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION [Docket Nos. 50-266 and 50-301] Nuclear Management Company, Llc (Nmc), Point Beach Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2; Notice of Availability of the Final Supplement 23 to the Generic Environmental Impact Statement Regarding License Renewal for Point Beach Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2 Notice is hereby given that the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (Commission) has published a final plant-specific supplement to the ``Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants'' (GEIS), NUREG-1437, regarding the renewal of operating licenses DPR-24 and DPR-27 for an additional 20 years of operation at Point Beach Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2 (PBNP). PBNP is operated by Nuclear Management Company, LLC (NMC) and is owned by Wisconsin Electric Power Company (WEPCO). PBNP is located on the western shore of Lake Michigan in Two Rivers, Wisconsin, approximately 30 miles southeast of Green Bay, Wisconsin. Possible alternatives to the proposed action (license renewal) include no action and reasonable alternative energy sources. As discussed in Section 9.3 of the final Supplement 23, based on (1) The analysis and findings in the GEIS, (2) the NMC Environmental Report; (3) consultation with Federal, State, and local agencies; (4) the staff's own independent review; and (5) the staff's consideration of public comments, the recommendation of the staff is that the Commission determine that the adverse environmental impacts of license renewal for PBNP are not so great that preserving the option of license renewal for energy-planning decision makers would be unreasonable. The final Supplement 23 to the GEIS is publicly available at the NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS). ADAMS is accessible at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html; a link is provided to access documents through the Internet-based component of ADAMS. The accession number for the final Supplement 23 to the GEIS is ML052230490. Persons who do not have access to ADAMS, or who encounter problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS, should contact the NRC's PDR Reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, or 301-415-4737, or by e-mail at pdr@nrc.gov. In addition, the Lester Public Library, located at 1001 Adams Street, Two Rivers, Wisconsin, has agreed to make the final [[Page 48785]] Supplement 23 to the GEIS available for public inspection. For further information, contact: Ms. Stacey Imboden, License Renewal and Environmental Impacts Program, Division of Regulatory Improvement Programs, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC, 20555. Ms. Imboden may be contacted at 1-800-368-5642, extension 2462 or via e-mail at SXF@nrc.gov. Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 12th day of August, 2005. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Andrew Kugler, Acting Program Director, License Renewal and Environmental Impacts Program, Division of Regulatory Improvement Programs, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. [FR Doc. E5-4530 Filed 8-18-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P ------------------------------------------ http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA-IMPACT/index.html Comments: http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/comments.htm Search: http://epa.gov/fedreg/search.htm EPA's Federal Register: http://epa.gov/fedreg/ ------------------------------------------ You are currently subscribed to epa-impact as: NEWS@energy-net.org To unsubscribe, send a blank email to leave-epa-impact-46782Y@lists.epa.gov OR: Use the listserver's web interface at https://lists.epa.gov/read/all_forums/ to manage your subscription. For problems with this list, contact epa-impact-Owner@lists.epa.gov ------------------------------------------ ***************************************************************** 23 Record Online: Conference highlights uranium danger www.recordonline.com August 19, 2005 Sterry, who was stationed in Kuwait in 1992, calls such weaponry "a war on generations yet unborn." Sterry served in the National Guard, cleaning out and preparing tanks that had been part of the depleted uranium weapons program. While the Pentagon has denied that depleted uranium weapons, such as missiles, pose a health problem for American troops, Sterry feels otherwise. The session will be held from 10 a.m. to 4 p.m. Saturday at New Paltz Village Hall. For more information, call 255-8285. Jeremiah Horrigan Record Online is brought to you by the Times Herald-Record, serving New York's Hudson Valley and the Catskills. 40 Mulberry Street * PO Box 2046 * Middletown, NY 10940 Telephone 845-341-1100 or 800-295-2181 outside the Middletown, N.Y., area. CopyrightOrange County Publications. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 24 NRC: Notice of a Public Meeting Regarding Pa'ina Hawaii, LLC, License FR Doc E5-4529 [Federal Register: August 19, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 160)] [Notices] [Page 48786] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr19au05-86] Application Request for the Operation of an Irradiator In Honolulu, HI AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission. ACTION: Notice of meeting. SUMMARY: The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) received on June 27, 2005, from Pa'ina Hawaii, LLC, a Hawaiian owned company, an application to build and operate a commercial pool type industrial irradiator in Honolulu, Hawaii, near the Honolulu International Airport. This commercial irradiator will irradiate fresh fruit and vegetables bound for the mainland from the Hawaiian Islands, cosmetics, and pharmaceutical products. The irradiator will also be used by the applicant to conduct research and development projects, and irradiate a wide range of other materials as specifically approved by the NRC on a case-by-case basis. The NRC plans to hold a public meeting to solicit comments from members of the public on the proposed license application. The meeting is open to the public and all interested parties may attend. This meeting is the first of several public meetings that the NRC will hold in Hawaii to enhance public awareness of the NRC's independent regulatory role in protecting public health and safety and the environment, to allow public involvement in NRC decision-making matters associated with this license application, and to promote two-way communication on matters related to the NRC's licensing and inspection processes. The public is invited to participate in this meeting by providing comments and asking questions throughout the meeting. DATES: Wednesday, August 31, 2005, from 7 p.m. to 9 p.m. ADDRESSES: Ala Moana Hotel, 410 Atkinson Drive, Honolulu, Hawaii 96814. Telephone number 808-955-4811. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Roberto J. Torres, Acting Chief, Nuclear Materials Licensing Branch, Division of Nuclear Materials Safety, Region IV, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 611 Ryan Plaza Drive, Suite 400, Arlington, Texas 76011, telephone (817) 860-8189, fax (817) 860-8188, or by e-mail: rjt@nrc.gov. Agenda: Welcome; NRC staff presentation on licensing and inspection processes; public comment. Dated in Arlington, Texas this 10th day of August, 2005. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Roberto J. Torres, Acting Chief, Nuclear Materials Licensing Branch, Division of Nuclear Materials Safety, Region IV. [FR Doc. E5-4529 Filed 8-18-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P ***************************************************************** 25 Hawk Eye: Former IAAP workers warned against con artists Friday, August 19, 2005 Site updated daily at 11 a.m. CST Those in line for compensation told to be wary of deals that sound too good to be true. By KILEY MILLER kmiller@thehawkeye.com WEST BURLINGTON — Imagine you're a grifter — a con artist, a criminal, a dirty rotten scoundrel. You've got itchy feet and you're prowling for a mark. But where to go? How about a small town, a trusting Midwestern place, with a bunch of folks about to pocket hefty government settlements? Sound pretty juicy? "Whenever there is money, and it's known there is money, someone will be there looking for it — both the crooks and the legitimate businessmen," said Gary Marquett, a consumer relations specialist for the Iowa Securities Bureau. Marquett offered advice for dealing with the con men and the straight shooters alike at a "consumer protection event" Thursday at Southeastern Community College. Organized by Sen. Tom Harkin's office, the gathering of financial experts was intended for anyone with wallet worries — meaning just about everyone. But the real attention was on a host of former Iowa Army Ammunition Plant workers in line for $150,000 or more from Washington, compensation for illnesses they endured after exposure to radiation on the nuclear weapons line. The Labor Department issued $2 million in compensation checks earlier this week, according to Alison Hart, a Harkin staffer. At least some of that money should land locally, but when and how much remains up in the air. The fight for compensation has been long — six years — and drawn constant, incessant, undying news coverage, coverage that undoubtedly pricked the attention of some unsavory types on the lookout for easy cash. "We see this sometimes when there are disasters and roofs are blown off," Hart said. "People load up their trucks and come to town because they know government checks are coming." Along with the securities bureau, representatives from the state attorney general's office, Iowa State University Extension, the Iowa Credit Union League and the Iowa Bar Association provided some basic dos and dont's for personal investing. And most, if not all, gave straight–forward guidance on avoiding fraud and theft: Don't invest with people you don't know, don't give out personal or account information, and ... "If it sounds too good to be true, it probably is." That last axiom came from Assistant Attorney General Rod Reynolds. At his display table in the college's small theater, Reynolds showcased an array of half a dozen pamphlets with inflammatory titles like "Donor Beware!" and "Guard Your Bank Accounts!" "So much of it is really slowing down and using your common sense," he said. "Don't rush into decisions." Specifically, Reynolds warned against fake telephone charities — the attorney general recently sued a law enforcement retirement fund from Louisiana — and unlicensed, unprofessional contractors offering cut–rate home improvements. A lesser–known threat is theft of a person's checking account routing number, a simple pilfer that enables a thief to siphon every last dime out of the account. Unlike credit card theft, there is no protection. Reynolds compared stopping such criminals to Whack–a–Mole: "We hit them here and they pop up over there." He asked those at the meeting to report scams immediately, and urged them to stay alert. "There's a lot of money coming in to the hands of a lot of people, and we want to empower them to protect themselves." Ed Webb learned the value of that protection just the other day. He signed up for a cell phone, only to have the clerk tell him his identity had apparently been stolen. While Webb did explain his problem to Reynolds, that wasn't what brought him to the college. For him, the real concern was when his compensation check would clear: "Christ, I've got two cancers and screwed up lungs." Unfortunately, for that question, there were no definite answers. The Hawk Eye 800 S. Main St., Burlington, Iowa 52601 319-754-8461 · 1-800-397-1708 · FAX 319-754-6824 · webmaster@thehawkeye.com ***************************************************************** 26 Las Vegas RJ: YUCCA MOUNTAIN PROJECT: Lobbyist focuses on reprocessing option Friday, August 19, 2005 Nuclear industry emphasizes possible retrieval of spent fuel By TONY BATT STEPHENS WASHINGTON BUREAU WASHINGTON -- Nuclear waste may be retrieved from Yucca Mountain for up to 300 years after it is stored, the nuclear power industry's chief lobbyist said Thursday, adding that the development of reprocessing technology could make retrieval more likely. Frank L. "Skip" Bowman, president of the Nuclear Energy Institute, said it is important for the Department of Energy to maintain the option of reprocessing spent nuclear fuel even though the United States hasn't done it since 1977. "A lot of people have the image that the idea is to put this stuff in, close the door, walk away, and that's the end of it," said Bowman, a retired Navy admiral. "Not true. That would be irresponsible, and it never has been the plan." An environmental impact statement prepared by the Energy Department requires the DOE to maintain the ability to retrieve highly radioactive spent nuclear fuel from Yucca Mountain for at least 100 years and possibly for as long as 300 years, Bowman said. Reprocessing allows spent nuclear fuel rods to be recycled through a chemical operation that separates useful fuel remaining in the rods from the waste. Although reprocessing would not eliminate the need for a repository at Yucca Mountain, it could reduce the amount of waste stored there. The Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 calls for the mountain, 100 miles northwest of Las Vegas to store 77,000 tons of nuclear waste. Bowman acknowledged that it would not be easy to revive reprocessing in the United States. "Frankly, we've been out of (reprocessing) in this country for a long time, and we don't have the infrastructure now to step up to the plate and start doing it," Bowman said. Bowman also acknowledged that plans to begin storing nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain by 2010 have slipped. "For sure, there's not a drop-dead date, but we do have to see progress," Bowman said. Bowman made his remarks at a news conference including six other energy lobbyists who discussed the energy bill signed by President Bush on Aug. 8 in Albuquerque, N.M. The bill includes language supporting reprocessing but does not allocate money to develop the technology, according to an NEI spokesman. Bob Loux, chief of Nevada's Nuclear Projects Agency, expressed skepticism about Bowman's remarks on reprocessing. "I don't think anyone believes we can go into Yucca Mountain even 50 years after storage and retrieve this stuff," Loux said. "We're talking about internal temperatures above the boiling point of water with 100 percent humidity. It would be difficult for any robotic equipment to operate in that environment." Loux criticized Bowman's call for legislation that would require Congress to direct all money from the federal nuclear waste fund to the Yucca Mountain repository. "If the past is any indication, that is not going to happen," Loux said, referring to previous unsuccessful efforts to take the nuclear waste fund "off budget." "Congress is not going to turn loose of the purse strings and oversight for this project, which needs more oversight than ever." Copyright Las Vegas Review-Journal ***************************************************************** 27 Brampton Guardian: Just say no to nuclear incinerator Friday, August 19th, 2005 It has come to our attention Mississauga Metals &Alloys Inc., has applied for a waste nuclear substance license to incinerate low-level radioactive materials at 75 Sun Pac Blvd. We, the undersigned, strongly oppose any and all radioactive materials being incinerated in the City of Brampton. In our opinion, Brampton has plenty to lose and nothing to gain by this endeavour. If said license was awarded for above-mentioned purpose, it is our opinion this could cause extra danger on our roads, be detrimental to our health and make our old age home and nearby condos obsolete. We think the assessment value of all property in the area would drop and make it much harder for the developers and the city as a whole. Last, but certainly not least, our children, grandchildren and great grandchildren would be the biggest losers. Please put this idea to rest forever, say no! Snowden Girard, Eleanor Girard, Syd Girard, Jason Girard, Marcella Girard, Brampton Our Newspapers: Brampton Guardian | Orangeville Banner | Georgetown Independent &Free Press © Copyright 1996-2005 Metroland Printing, Publishing and Distributing, North Peel Media Group ***************************************************************** 28 Platts: NRC to complete spent fuel pool analyses this year + NRC started conducting site-specific spent fuel pool assessments in July and will complete them by year-end, the agency reported to a congressional oversight committee. NRC finished nine assessments last month and has 24 scheduled this month. The rest will be completed before 2006, according to information provided in an Aug. 11 letter to Senate Environment &Public Works Committee Chairman George Voinovich (R-Ohio). The letter, posted publicly today on NRC's electronic database Adams, was signed by NRC Commissioner Jeffrey Merrifield, who was serving as acting chairman the day it was signed. "The NRC is conducting these assessments to identify additional mitigation strategies to enhance the spent fuel pool cooling safety function under severe circumstances challenging the functional capabilities of the plant," he wrote. Washington (Platts)--18Aug2005 Copyright © 2005 - Platts, All Rights Reserved [The McGraw-Hill Companies] ***************************************************************** 29 The Herald: Dounreay to send back waste from abroad Web Issue 2336 August 19 2005 DAVID ROSS and IAIN GRANT August 19 2005 NUCLEAR waste sent to Dounreay from abroad will be returned to its country of origin as soon as 2008. Work is now under way on a new £16m plant which should finally rid the Caithness complex of its reputation as "the world's nuclear dustbin". The facility will enable the UK Atomic Energy Authority to repatriate consignments of nuclear waste controversially sent to Dounreay for reprocessing in the 1980s and 1990s. Although commercial reprocessing stopped in 1996, the terms of historic contracts with the operators of overseas reactors included return-of-waste clauses, which would normally cover a 25-year period. The UKAEA is making preparations to enforce these clauses and ship up to 400 drums back to its former customers in Germany, Belgium, Australia and Spain. The Dounreay Cementation Plant Import/Export Facility is being built beside the plant where batches of liquid raffinate  a by-product of reprocessing  are immobilised in 500-litre concrete-filled steel drums. Colin Punler, Dounreay's spokesman, said yesterday: "The terms of the contracts mean that the radioactive equivalent of what came in from the foreign customer has to go back. This new building will give us the capacity from 2008 to return the waste." Mr Punler said that once it is operational, the UKAEA will also be able to charge the reactor operators for the storage of the waste  which should serve as an incentive to speed up the process. The new building is to have 4ft thick reinforced concrete walls. As well as handling the foreign-bound waste, the new building will also store more than 4000 drums of processed raffinate earmarked to end up in the UK's yet-to-be-built national waste dump, as well as drums of solid waste. Copyright © Newsquest (Herald & Times) Limited. All Rights Reserved ***************************************************************** 30 Las Vegas SUN: Reid, Ensign question plans for nuke trains Today: August 19, 2005 at 11:0:53 PDT By Benjamin Grove SUN WASHINGTON BUREAU WASHINGTON -- Nevada's senators are demanding that the Energy Department more fully explain its plan to use nuclear waste-only freight trains to haul the radioactive material to Yucca Mountain. In a letter to Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman, Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., and Sen. John Ensign, R-Nev., slam the department for "gaps and inconsistencies" in its newly announced plan to use what are often called "dedicated" trains -- trains that contain only one kind of cargo: highly radioactive waste. "Like all things Yucca, the conclusions in this policy statement are seemingly pulled from thin air," the senators said in a joint statement released Thursday. The Energy Department has not yet received the letter, a spokesman said Thursday. He declined to answer questions posed in the letter. "We remain committed to opening Yucca Mountain using the best science and technology available to ensure the safety and health of all citizens," spokesman Craig Stevens said. The Energy Department for years has said it would rely mainly on trains, as opposed to trucks, to haul 77,000 tons of spent nuclear fuel from the nation's nuclear power reactors to a proposed underground nuclear dump at Yucca Mountain, 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas. On July 18, the department further refined the plan, announcing it would use dedicated trains, as opposed to trains hauling waste along with other types of cargo. Nevada officials have long advocated dedicated trains. But Reid and Ensign said the announcement raised troubling questions about the department's shipping plan. They asked for answers by Sept. 1. The senators asked the department to explain: + What prompted the department after 20 years to last month announce it would use dedicated trains. + How dedicated trains could be used at 24 reactor sites that are not accessible by train. + Policy language that states that the department will use dedicated trains for its "usual" waste shipments to Yucca. They ask the department to define "usual." + How waste would be shipped to "marshaling yards." Before waste at about 50 Eastern reactor sites can be loaded at the yards onto dedicated trains for shipment to Yucca, it must first make the trip from the reactors to the yards. Would those be "dedicated" shipments? + How long waste would sit in rail yards. + How the department evaluated the radiation risk of dedicated trains to the public. + How dedicated train shipments would affect radiation exposure by yard workers, train crews, inspectors and escorts. + Whether the policy contradicts other department policy language that states, "DOE shipments have been and will continue to be made secure using both (dedicated train shipments) and general freight service." + When the department would release a comprehensive shipping plan and cost assessment. All contents copyright 2005 Las Vegas SUN, Inc. ***************************************************************** 31 Las Vegas SUN: Nevada senators want details about nuclear shipments by rail Today: August 19, 2005 at 15:40:11 PDT ASSOCIATED PRESS LAS VEGAS (AP) - Nevada's senators are demanding the Energy Department more fully explain its plan to use dedicated freight trains to haul spent nuclear fuel to a national radioactive waste dump at Yucca Mountain. In a letter this week to Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman, Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., and Sen. John Ensign, R-Nev., complain of "gaps and inconsistencies" in a recently announced plan to have trains haul just one kind of cargo: highly radioactive waste. "Like all things Yucca, the conclusions in this policy statement are seemingly pulled from thin air," the senators said in a joint statement released Thursday. Reid and Ensign oppose the Yucca Mountain project. The Energy Department had not received the letter, and spokesman Craig Stevens declined to answer questions it raised. "We remain committed to opening Yucca Mountain using the best science and technology available to ensure the safety and health of all citizens," he said. The Energy Department has said it would rely more on trains than trucks to haul 77,000 tons of spent nuclear fuel from sites in 39 states to a proposed underground nuclear dump at Yucca Mountain, 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas. The department announced July 18 it would use dedicated trains instead of linking cars carrying nuclear waste with cars containing other freight. Nevada officials have long advocated dedicated trains. But Reid and Ensign said the plan was incomplete. Among other questions, they asked how the department plans to move waste from 24 reactor sites that have no train tracks; how long waste would sit in rail yards and whether rail employees would be exposed to radiation; how the public risk of radiation was evaluated; and when the department would release a comprehensive shipping plan and cost assessment. They sought answers by Sept. 1. In another development, the nuclear power industry's chief lobbyist said in Washington, D.C., that reprocessing technology could make retrieval of spent fuel from the Yucca Mountain project more likely. "A lot of people have the image that the idea is to put this stuff in, close the door, walk away, and that's the end of it," said Frank L. "Skip" Bowman, president of the Nuclear Energy Institute. "Not true. That would be irresponsible, and it never has been the plan." The Energy Department requires the DOE to be able to retrieve highly radioactive spent nuclear fuel from Yucca Mountain for at least 100 years and possibly for as long as 300 years, Bowman said. Bowman acknowledged that the United States has not reprocessed spent nuclear fuel since 1977. Bob Loux, chief of Nevada's Nuclear Projects Agency, called it unlikely that radioactive material could safely be retrieved from tunnels where internal temperatures will be above the boiling point of water. The Energy Department plans to submit a license application for the Yucca repository to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission next year. Recent setbacks have pushed back the target date for receiving waste from 2010 to 2012 or later. All contents copyright 2005 Las Vegas SUN, Inc. ***************************************************************** 32 Salt Lake Tribune: Whistle-blowers press lawsuit Updated: 08/19/2005 01:09:11 AM Envirocare: A federal judge has dismissed more of their claims By Judy Fahys The Salt Lake Tribune Whistle-blowers suing Envirocare of Utah over allegedly shoddy work for the federal government will go forward with their lawsuit even after a federal judge dismissed more of their claims. Jeffrey Eisenberg, a Salt Lake City lawyer representing three former workers, called the Wednesday ruling by U.S. District Judge Bruce Jenkins a victory. He said it gives his clients limited access to company documents that will strengthen their claim. “Although the judge has said the past complaint needs more detail, this is a victory for our clients from our perspective,” said Eisenberg, noting that the judge gave plaintiffs 60 days to file updated paperwork. “Envirocare doesn't want that.” But Envirocare attorney Rod Snow disputed there is any future for the case. The Tooele County radioactive and hazardous waste company has said all along the whistle-blowers' charges have no foundation, and Jenkins previously has thrown out a few of the whistle-blowers' claims. “The bottom line is they are out of court for the second time,” he said. “I don't think there will be any different result if they amend their complaint.” Under the Civil War-era federal False Claims Act, whistle-blowers can initiate a lawsuit on behalf of the federal government. The thinking behind the law is that workers with inside knowledge can bring to light wrongdoing within a company that has federal contracts. Envirocare counted on federal government cleanup contracts from the Pentagon, the Environmental Protection Agency and the Energy Department for about 80 percent of its business in 2002 when the suit was initially filed. The federal agencies, offered the first crack at taking the case forward, bowed out. That has left the three former Envirocare workers - Roger Lemmon, Patrick Cole and Kyle Gunderson - to pursue the case with private attorneys. The whistle-blowers' case so far is based on personal notes and records. So far, they have not had access to the billing documents that might help them prove the allegations that Envirocare billed the government for work that was below standards, such as improper burial of low-level radioactive waste. fahys@sltrib.com © Copyright 2005, The Salt Lake Tribune. ***************************************************************** 33 ICT: Federal energy bill, economic opportunity or Bush's fire sale? Posted: August 19, 2005 by: Brenda Norrell / Indian Country Today Photo courtesy Rebecca Lichtenfeld -- Winona LaDuke and Margene Bullcreek spoke in Washington, D.C. against nuclear dumping on tribal lands. EPA radiation standards called 'deceptive' Part three WASHINGTON - The the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's pledge to protect the people for one million years near the proposed Yucca Mountain nuclear waste storage facility is self-congratulatory and a public relations campaign, said a nuclear specialist in the nation's capital who supports Western Shoshone land rights. Kevin Kamps, nuclear waste specialist with the Nuclear Information and Resource Service, said the EPA's information has a ''deceptive, self-congratulatory spin.'' ''The EPA's new regulations are actually quite outrageous and dangerous. The EPA would allow for a doubling of the radiation dose that persons living near Yucca Mountain currently receive from 'background radiation.' ''The EPA would deem it legal and permissible for 1 in 30 women, and 1 in 40 men, to receive radiation doses high enough to cause cancer. Half of those contracting cancer from the leaking dump would die of it,'' Kamps told Indian Country Today. ''In addition, the EPA refuses to examine the Western Shoshone Indian traditional lifestyle, which have lived at and near Yucca Mountain since time immemorial and could very well return. Over the many thousands of years, the atomic wastes will remain deadly. ''Unfortunately, living so close to the Earth means that traditional Native Americans would receive even higher radiation doses from the contaminated groundwater and wildlife than the 'dose receptors' - as the federal agencies call people downwind and downstream - living today's modern lifestyle of bottled water and processed food. ''In complete violation of the seventh-generation philosophy, the EPA's regulations would doom future generations to extremely high rates of cancer death.'' The federal energy bill, signed into law by President Bush in August, created incentives to revive the nuclear energy industry, which opponents say will create more high-level nuclear waste targeted for Indian lands. With no safe way to dispose of it, cancer and disease await those living nearby and the transport of nuclear waste by truck or rail would endanger citizens in their homes across the nation, say those opposing such a revival. Kamps said, ''EPA's Yucca regulations set a dangerous precedent that must be opposed before the nuclear establishment tries to apply it on Native American and other lands elsewhere across the United States.'' Further, he said the nuclear establishment is behind the weak regulations. ''The reason EPA has released such outrageously weak regulations is - under pressure from the nuclear establishment in industry and government - to keep the Yucca dump project alive. Regulations have been weakened or entirely eliminated time and time again because Yucca's geology is so bad the dump will leak massively.'' Meanwhile, opposing the federal energy bill and nuclear waste dumping on Skull Valley Goshute land in Utah, Margene Bullcreek took her message to Washington. Bullcreek is a member of the Ohngo Gaudadeh Devia Awareness, a grassroots group opposing the proposed nuclear waste dump of Private Fuel Storage Limited Liability Consortium. PFS plans to store more than half of the nation's high-level nuclear waste on 17,444 acres of Goshute land, located 45 miles upwind and west from Salt Lake City. ''Our treaty protects our sovereignty as caretakers of our land,'' Bullcreek said in Washington, joined by Anishinabe activist Winona LaDuke and the musical group, Indigo Girls. ''We have been brought up - taught from the stories passed down from generations that tell us why we became the people we are - to protect nature; to protect our air, water and land; and not to disturb our sacred harmony. ''PFS will not bring economic development to our traditional indigenous land, but will bring devastation to our people and to others along the transportation routes. There is no gain to our prosperity when there is poison spilled. The radioactive waste would bring harm to our medicine wheel in four areas: physical, mental, emotional and spiritual. ''The real issue has never been money or power for indigenous people, although this country's backbone is built on indigenous peoples' lands and resources.'' Bullcreek said the Goshute now live in a serene atmosphere. ''We don't want to be forgotten behind the scenes; to suffer from nuclear threats, potential terrorist attack or political abuse,'' Bullcreek said, adding that the less privileged in the nation should not be forced to suffer for the common good because of the bias that exists against them. ''Indigenous people within this nation have always been victimized to provide national security,'' Bullcreek said during her appeal in Washington. ''Help us and stop this destruction, this genocide to our indigenous people of this great nation that was founded on our indigenous land.'' (Continued in part four) © 1998 - 2005 Indian Country Today. All Rights Reserved  ***************************************************************** 34 NRC: Notice of Availability of Environmental Assessment and Finding FR Doc E5-4531 [Federal Register: August 19, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 160)] [Notices] [Page 48785-48786] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr19au05-85] of No Significant Impact for License Amendment for Sequoyah Fuels Corporation, Gore, OK AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission. ACTION: Notice of availability. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Myron Fliegel, Project Manager, Fuel Cycle Facilities Branch, Division of Fuel Cycle Safety and Safeguards, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555. Telephone: (301) 415-6629; fax number: (301) 415-5955; e-mail: . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Introduction The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is issuing a license amendment to Materials License No. SUB-1010 issued to Sequoyah Fuels Corporation (the licensee), to authorize the licensee to implement a ground water monitoring plan (GWMP) at its Gore, Oklahoma facility. The NRC has prepared an Environmental Assessment (EA) in support of this amendment in accordance with the requirements of 10 CFR part 51. Based on the EA, the NRC has concluded that a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) is appropriate. The amendment will be issued following the publication of this Notice. II. EA Summary The proposed action is implementation of the GWMP. The GWMP identifies well, seep, and surface water locations where samples would be collected, the schedule for sample collection, and the constituents that would be analyzed for. The licensee has been monitoring ground water at the site since the 1970's under requirements in its NRC license and as a result of U.S. Environmental Protection Agency requirements under the Resource Conservation Recovery Act. The GWMP would rely in large part on existing monitoring points. However, 157 existing wells would be abandoned and plugged and 10 new wells would be installed. Abandoned wells would be plugged in accordance with Oklahoma requirements to ensure that they would not provide pathways between aquifers. New wells would be drilled and completed using standard equipment and techniques for shallow wells (the deepest well to be drilled would be approximately 78 feet below ground surface). The licensee estimates that well drilling and plugging activities would be completed in about 4 months. Drilling additional groundwater monitoring wells would consist of using a drill rig to bore holes into the subsurface and then constructing monitoring wells using PVC piping, with sand and grout placed in-between the PVC pipe and the soil. The licensee has not contracted with a drilling company, pending NRC approval of the GWMP, but expects that the bidder chosen would likely use one or two drill rigs to accomplish this work. Drill cuttings and the small potential for a minor amount of dust may occur while drilling with minor surface disruption. In addition, a number of monitoring wells would be abandoned in accordance with the State of Oklahoma well abandonment criteria. A drill rig may also be used to accomplish this and a small amount of dust may occur. Cement grout would be placed into the borehole to seal the hole in order to prevent surface runoff from migrating down the drill hole. On June 12, 2003, the licensee requested that the NRC approve the proposed amendment. As a result of NRC staff review, the GWMP was revised several times, and the final version was submitted on February 25, 2005. The licensee's request for the proposed amendment was previously noticed in the Federal Register on August 25, 2003, (68 FR 51033) with a notice of an opportunity to request a hearing. The staff has prepared the EA in support of the proposed license amendment. The only potential environmental impacts of implementing the GWMP, would be those associated with the necessary physical activities of plugging abandoned wells and drilling and completing several new wells. The drill rigs to be used would generate a moderate amount of noise (most operators wear ear protection) but as the nearest resident is about a half a mile away with a buffer zone of trees, noise impacts are not expected. The drilling and plugging operations may also generate a small amount of dust but the impact offsite would be minor to nonexistent. These impacts would only exist for the short period of time necessary to complete these actions and are very minor. III. Finding of No Significant Impact On the basis of the EA, the NRC has concluded that there are no significant environmental impacts from the proposed amendment and has determined not to prepare an environmental impact statement. IV. Further Information Documents related to this action, including the application for amendment and supporting documentation, are available electronically at the NRC's Electronic Reading Room at . From this site, you can access the NRC's Agencywide Document Access and Management System (ADAMS), which provides text and image files of NRC's public documents. The ADAMS accession numbers for the documents related to this notice are: ----------------------------------------------------------------- ------- ADAMS accession Document No. Date ----------------------------------------------------------------- ------- SFC's Amendment Requests................. ML031710847 06/12/2003 SFC's Amendment Requests................. ML050680226 02/25/2005 NRC's Environmental Assessment........... ML052200616 08/09/2005 ----------------------------------------------------------------- ------- [[Page 48786]] If you do not have access to ADAMS or if there are problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS, contact the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR) Reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, (301) 415-4737, or by e-mail to . These documents may also be viewed electronically on the public computers located at the NRC's PDR, O 1 F21, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 20852. The PDR reproduction contractor will copy documents for a fee. Dated at Rockville, Maryland this 10th day of August, 2005. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Myron Fliegel, Project Manager, Fuel Cycle Facilities Branch, Division of Fuel Cycle Safety and Safeguards, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards. [FR Doc. E5-4531 Filed 8-18-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P ***************************************************************** 35 NEI: Yucca Mountain Article Directory Yucca Mountain Resource Book 1. Project Overview + Brochure: Safely Managing Used Nuclear Fuel: Transportation and Disposal Plans for Yucca Mountain (Part 1) + Brochure: Safely Managing Used Nuclear Fuel: Transportation and Disposal Plans for Yucca Mountain (Part 2) + Policy Brief: Enhanced Repository Monitoring Offers Greater Confidence in Yucca Mountain Safety + Policy Brief: Government Must Complete Yucca Mountain Repository To Fulfill Public Trust + Fact Sheet: Used Nuclear Fuel Management + Fact Sheet: Yucca Mountain – Myths & Facts + DOE Fact Sheet: Overview: Yucca Mountain Project 2. Frequently Asked Questions + Fact Sheet: Frequently Asked Questions: Yucca Mountain and Used Nuclear Fuel Management + Department of Energy FAQs 3. Site Suitability + Letter: President Bush’s letter to Congress recommending Yucca Mountain Site + Letter: Recommendation by the Secretary of Energy Regarding the Suitability of the Yucca Mountain Site for a Repository Under the NWPA of 1982 + Fact Sheet: Federal Projects Benefit Host States: New Mexico's Experience With WIPP + Fact Sheet: Nevada Denies DOE Water Permits at Repository Site + Fact Sheet: Reprocessing and Transmutation of Nuclear Waste: Possible Technologies for Tomorrow + Fact Sheet: Potential for Earthquake Damage Slight at Yucca Mountain + NEI Backgrounder: Sound Science Supports Yucca Mountain Decision + DOE Fact Sheet: Understanding the Potential for Volcanoes at Yucca Mountain 4. Legal Issues + Policy Brief: Progress Continues at Yucca Mountain While EPA Standard Is Addressed + NEI Backgrounder: Yucca Mountain Court Decision: Quotes and Facts from Official Sources 5. Licensing + Fact Sheet: Yucca Mountain Licensing Process Ensures Safe, Well-Designed Facility + The NRC's Licensing Support Network (http://lsnnet.gov) + Links to Federal Regulations on Licensing Yucca Mountain: Ø Disposal of High-Level Radioactive Wastes in a Geologic Repository at Yucca Mountain, Nevada (10 CFR Part 63) Ø Procedures Applicable to Proceedings for the Issuance of Licenses for the Receipt of High-Level Radioactive Waste at a Geologic Repository (10 CFR Part 2, Subpart J), Scroll down to Subpart J. 6. Funding + Table: Nuclear Waste Fund Commitments + Letter: 78 Members of U.S. Congress Urge House Leadership to Maintain Adequate Funding for Yucca Mountain Project, Oct. 22, 2003 7. Transportation + Fact Sheet: Requirements for Safeguarding Shipments of Used Nuclear Fuel + Fact Sheet: Transporting Radioactive Materials + Fact Sheet: Experience, Analyses Confirm Transportation of Used Nuclear Fuel Is Safe, Reliable + Brochure: The Safe Transportation of Used Nuclear Fuel + Brochure: What State and Local Officials Are Saying About Transporting Used Nuclear Fuel + Presentation: Countering the Fear Campaign - Transportation Specifics (Energy Resources International Inc.) + DOE supplement to the draft EIS for Yucca Mountain on transportation 8. State Government Support + Various letters from state governors to former Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham, Lake Barrett (Former Acting Director, Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management), and former NRC Chairman Richard Meserve: Alabama, Colorado, Connecticut, Connecticut2, Connecticut3, Georgia, Kansas, Maine, Maine2, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Pennsylvania2, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Carolina2, Tennessee1, Tennessee2, Tennessee3, Vermont1, Vermont2 9. Web Resources + NEI's official site (http://www.nei.org) + DOE's official Yucca Mountain Project Site (http://www.ocrwm.doe.gov/) + The NRC's Licensing Support Network (http://lsnnet.gov) 10. Media/Editorial Since Site Selection + California (July 22, 2004; July 18, 2004) + Colorado (May 14, 2004) + Georgia (June 20, 2004) + Illinois (Aug. 18, 2004) + Michigan (Aug. 24, 2004; July 16, 2004) + New Mexico (June 13, 2004) + New York (Aug. 23, 2004) + North Carolina (Aug. 13, 2004; Aug. 2, 2004) + Ohio (Aug. 23, 2004; July 20, 2004; May 24, 2004) + Pennsylvania (Aug. 18, 2004) + South Carolina (Feb. 20, 2005; Aug. 17, 2004; Aug. 16, 2004; July 20, 2004; July 20, 2004 (2); July 19, 2004; July 14, 2004; June 18, 2004) + Texas (Aug. 14, 2004; Nov. 18, 2003) + Utah (Aug. 29, 2004) + Virginia (July 28, 2004; July 19, 2004) + Washington, D.C. (Aug. 12, 2004; July 10, 2004) + Washington State (Aug. 17, 2004; July 15, 2004) In Support of Site Selection + Alabama (Jan. 14, 2002; Jan. 16, 2002; May 11, 2002) + California (Jan. 17, 2002; Jan. 7, 2002; April 10, 2002; May 28, 2002) + Colorado (June 5, 2002) + Connecticut (April 12, 2002; June 2, 2002; June 20, 2002; July 7, 2002) + Florida (Jan. 18, 2002; Jan. 13, 2002; Jan. 12, 2002; Jan. 11, 2002; May 10, 2002; July 2, 2002; July 8, 2002) + Georgia (May 8, 2002; June 10, 2002; July 8, 2002) + Iowa (March 17, 2002) + Idaho (Jan. 22, 2002) + Illinois (Feb. 22, 2002; Feb. 18, 2002; Feb. 13, 2002; May 13, 2002) + Kansas (May 1, 2002) + Massachusetts (Jan. 14, 2002) + Michigan (Feb. 20, 2002; March 6, 2002; April 3, 2002; April 14, 2002; May 7, 2002) + Minnesota (Jan. 21, 2002; Jan. 22, 2002; April 14, 2002; April 20, 2002; June 7, 2002) + Nebraska (Feb. 5, 2002; March 3, 2002) + New Hampshire (Jan. 23, 2002) + New Mexico (Jan. 16, 2002) + New York (April 9, 2002; March 9, 2002; May 13, 2002; May 29, 2002; July 1, 2002) + North Carolina (Jan. 24, 2002; May 10, 2002) + Ohio (March 17, 2002; Feb. 21, 2002; Jan. 14, 2002) + Oregon (February 12, 2002; June 8, 2002) + Pennsylvania (Feb. 26, 2002; Feb. 19, 2002; March 2, 2002; March 11, 2002; May 18, 2002; June 18, 2002; June 20, 2002) + Rhode Island (March 30, 2002) + South Dakota (June 9, 2002) + Tennessee (April 8, 2002) + Utah (Feb. 19, 2002; Feb. 28, 2002; April 28, 2002; May 15, 2002) + Washington, D.C. (Feb. 25, 2002; Feb. 19, 2002; April 30, 2002) + Washington State (April 24, 2002; June 2, 2002; June 5, 2002; June 10, 2002) + Wisconsin (April 16, 2002) + Wyoming (May 26, 2002) 11. Maps/Visuals + Used Nuclear Fuel¾VISUALS Copyright © 2004 Nuclear Energy Institute. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 36 AU ABC: Mining industry pushes for uranium expansion The World Today - Friday, 19 August , 2005 12:38:00 Reporter: Lynn Bell ELEANOR HALL: To Melbourne now, where a federal parliamentary inquiry is being held into how Australia should deal with its uranium resources. Industry leaders are talking up the benefits of expanding Australia's uranium industry, with some warning that a chronic skills shortage and a lack of coherent Government policy is holding the industry back. But the Australian Conservation Foundation is arguing that Australia should not consider increasing uranium exports. In Melbourne, Lynn Bell reports. LYNN BELL: Australia exports about 10,000 tonnes of unprocessed uranium each year. It's a small amount when compared with the millions of tonnes of coal that are also sent offshore, and Dr Rod Hill from the CSIRO says Australia has the potential to export much more. ROD HILL: Australia has a major opportunity, not only to increase that contribution to the world's energy demands, emerging now from increased uses in China and India, etcetera, but it also has the opportunity to add further value down the energy chain by processing that uranium into more higher value-added products, and thereby generating more wealth for Australia. LYNN BELL: But expanding Australia's uranium industry and increasing exports to Asia, particularly to China, is controversial. Dr Hill says Australia's uranium reserves are a key resource in the region. ROD HILL: They’re very strategically important. We already supply something like 20 per cent of the world's uranium, we have in our… on our continent, something like 40 per cent of the world's reserves of uranium, and with an increasing expected requirement for energy as countries develop, that demand for all energy sources will increase dramatically over the next… well, over the foreseeable future. LYNN BELL: The mineral exploration company Southern Gold wants to start mining uranium in South Australia. The company's Chairman Rick Horn told the parliamentary inquiry in Melbourne this morning that the Government should remove some of the barriers to expanding Australia's uranium industry. RICK HORN: We see the inconsistency of policies between States and regulatory activities between States as being conflicting and difficult at times, so we'd see… we'd like to see some sort of consistency brought onboard. We do see a shortage of technicians and people that work in the industry, geoscientists, we're short of geoscientists, short of drilling operators, drilling companies, so it's difficult sometimes to access drilling. We also see a need for increased infrastructure in regional Australia, because that's where we're exploring, that's where most of the activity is. LYNN BELL: With the price of uranium more than trebling in the past two years, Rick Horn believes Australia should be moving to supply much more to the global market. RICK HORN: Well we believe that Australia has the ability to become a dominant producer in world terms. In fact, we're certainly large at the present times. However, we believe that we could take up a large shortfall that is being forecast, and there's a significant worldwide shortfall being forecast over the next two or three years, and we could take a large chunk of that, if not all of it. In contrast, the Australian Conservation Foundation says the push to increase uranium exports to China and India compromises regional security and Australia's nuclear non-proliferation responsibilities. The ACF and Friends of the Earth will make their submissions to the inquiry later this afternoon. Dr Rod Hill, from the CSIRO, says whatever the future this is an important debate for the Australia. ROD HILL: At last it's back on the table as a source of discussion. I'm not saying that we'll end up having a nuclear industry, I don't know. That's what the debate will produce as an outcome hopefully. Whether or not we have a nuclear industry will be the outcome of debate, so I'm delighted that it's started. It wasn't right in the scientific context to have a debate stifled for whatever reason, because we don't advance unless we continue to assess options in relation to the contemporary issues. ELEANOR HALL: Dr Rod Hill from the CSIRO ending Lynn Bell's report on that federal inquiry being held in Melbourne. ***************************************************************** 37 ABC News Online: $1b uranium exports possible, says MP. 19/08/2005. The chairman of a parliamentary inquiry looking at the nation's uranium industry says Australia has the opportunity to double its uranium exports to $1 billion. The Melbourne sitting of the House of Representatives Committee on Industry and Resources is hearing submissions from mining companies, conservation and industry groups. Chairman Geoff Prosser says in an energy hungry world the attitude of the state governments to further uranium mining needs to be considered. "It would seem a bit unusual that of course we've got mining in South Australia and the Territory when other states are not doing it," he said. "I think that if the country has the view that we should export uranium, it would seem sensible that all states, if they wish to, participate in it." ***************************************************************** 38 Pahrump Valley Times: Yucca Mountain exposure August 19, 2005 'SMALL' PERCENTAGE OF NUKE WASTE CANISTERS WILL LEAK By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS LAS VEGAS - A small percentage of nuclear waste containers is expected to arrive at Yucca Mountain with undetected leaks and cracks, potentially exposing workers at the proposed repository to high levels of radioactive contamination, the Las Vegas Review-Journal reported Saturday. Without special precautions, spent nuclear fuel contained in these damaged tubes could trigger chemical reactions when extracted from protective canisters in preparation for long-term storage, according to an Energy Department study obtained by the newspaper under the federal Freedom of Information Act. Completed in March by the Energy Department and outside engineers, the study concluded the department had not fully evaluated the hazards associated with handling damaged fuel at the site, nor designed a process for effectively managing it. "It is rather late in the day for these people to be thinking about this stuff," said Arjun Makhijani, a nuclear engineer and president of the Institute for Energy and Environmental Research. "It is truly astonishing that they have not thought about this issue thoroughly a quarter of a century after serious work on repositories began.'" Earlier this year, DOE officials abandoned a 2010 opening date for the repository, saying it could be 2012 or later before Yucca Mountain could begin accepting nuclear waste. The government plans to bury 77,000 tons of highly radioactive waste at the Yucca Mountain site, located in Nye County roughly 50 miles northeast of Pahrump, with a population of roughly 34,000 and growing, and 20 miles north and east, respectively, from Amargosa Valley and Beatty. "There have been a lot of meetings on this,'' a DOE official wrote in an e-mail to the Review-Journal on condition of anonymity. "You are talking about design, and you can't have a license application without a design." The tubes carrying the spent fuel are expected to arrive at Yucca Mountain at a rate of about 9,000 per year for 25 years. About 4 percent are expected to have varying degrees of damage, according to the study. Most are expected to be identified through reactor records, but a small percentage, about 0.4 percent, are expected to have unknown or undetected damage that could allow the fuel to oxidize and possibly trigger a chemical reaction during the storage process. Although machinery and robots would handle the tasks, workers would be present. The study identified areas to research, including the rates at which fuel might degrade, the potential exposure risk for workers and the chances of a chemical reaction. "The process for handling failed fuel in damaged fuel cans is not yet detailed in current design documents, and the related hazards have not yet been evaluated," the study said. Among the options considered by DOE is the addition of pools at the repository to handle damaged fuel rods underwater, a process currently used at nuclear power plants, according to the Review-Journal. Bob Loux, director of the Nevada Agency for Nuclear Projects, said it appears DOE has overlooked an important safety issue. DOE "has not thought through the issues of the surface operations, from what we've seen," said Loux, who coordinates Nevada's opposition to the repository. If DOE decides to install such pools, it would create questions about earthquake vulnerability, Loux said. Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada, a Yucca Mountain opponent, said the study proves the project is flawed and should not move forward. "At no point while moving waste off site, to transportation to proposed storage, can DOE protect workers and communities from being exposed to dangerous levels of radiation," Reid said. For comment or questions, please e-mail Copyright © Pahrump Valley Times, 1997 - 2005 ***************************************************************** 39 AU ABC: Scullion confirms opposition to nuclear waste dump Friday, 19 August 2005. 14:24 (AEST)Friday, 19 August 2005. The Northern Territory's Country Liberal Party (CLP) Senator, Nigel Scullion, says he will continue to oppose Commonwealth plans to build a nuclear waste dump in the Territory. The Territory's Labor Senator, Trish Crossin, has accused Senator Scullion of deliberately being out of the chamber when a motion opposing the dump was passed yesterday. The motion called on the Commonwealth to honour its promise not to build the dump in the Territory. Senator Scullion says he has crossed the floor to vote against the dump in the past and will continue to do so in the future. "I already crossed the floor to support a motion that says the Commonwealth shouldn't do this," he said. "Now, any motion of that type, I will also cross the floor to support or if there's any legislation that comes before the Senate that can prevent the Commonwealth from providing this in the Northern Territory I'll vote against it". ***************************************************************** 40 AU ABC: Company talks up uranium mine prospects Friday, 19 August 2005. 15:34 (AEST)Friday, 19 August 2005. Compass Resources has confirmed it could open the Northern Territory's next uranium mine 75 kilometres south of Darwin. The company is exploring near the town of Batchelor in an area thought to be one of most prospective for uranium. Director Malcolm Humphreys says new drill results at the prospect known as Mount Fitch are very encouraging. Mr Humphreys says deposits belonging to Energy Resources of Australia, at East Alligator River, would probably be closer to commencement but might be more complicated because they were located in Kakadu National Park. "Those deposits also being within the national park, you know, may be a longer lead time for regulatory approval compared to the type of area in which our Mount Finch deposit exists, you know, which could therefore bring that forward," he said. ***************************************************************** 41 Deseret News: Why send 'safe' waste here? [deseretnews.com] Friday, August 19, 2005 The Deseret Morning News looked at the U.S. 6 explosion and questioned the safety of nuclear waste shipments. Accidents happen, after all. I have two questions for Brian O'Connell of the Nuclear Waste Program Office. If nuclear waste is so safe, why are you so hot to get rid of it? You are spending one heck of a lot of money to make that happen. If it's not safe, what right do you have to dump your dangerous product on us? You can't have it both ways. Clark Larsen Holladay World & Nation + Utah + Sports + Business + Opinion + Front Page © 2005 Deseret News Publishing Company ***************************************************************** 42 Las Vegas RJ: Nevada's senators challenge latest nuclear waste transportation policy Friday, August 19, 2005 By KEITH ROGERS REVIEW-JOURNAL Nevada's senators sent a letter Wednesday to Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman criticizing his latest policy that calls for using dedicated trains to haul highly radioactive waste to the planned Yucca Mountain repository. The policy "is another example of piecemeal decision-making on DOE's part," states the letter from Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., and Sen. John Ensign, R-Nev. The senators noted that it's been more than 20 years since passage of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act and "DOE still has not prepared a comprehensive transportation plan." Bodman on July 18 announced the policy to use "dedicated train service," meaning train service for one commodity. Until then, transportation planners for the Energy Department had anticipated using general freight service for rail shipments that would bring much of the 77,000 tons of spent nuclear fuel and highly radioactive defense wastes to Yucca Mountain, 100 miles northwest of Las Vegas. Reid and Ensign questioned the new policy's reference to security benefits, which says, "DOE shipments have been and will continue to be made securely using both DTS (dedicated train service) and general freight service." The senators asked Bodman to explain the circumstances under which the Department of Energy would use general freight service instead of dedicated train service. They also want to know how radiological risks to train crews, the general public and workers at marshalling yards were evaluated. Their letter says one-third of the reactor sites where spent fuel is stored have no rail access. That means heavy haul trucks and even barges will have to be used. "Will dedicated train service be used at these 24 sites? If so, please provide DOE's plans and timeline for providing the necessary infrastructure." Bodman's press secretary, Craig Stevens, said Thursday that Bodman's office had not received the letter but once it arrives "we will review it and answer the senators. "We remain committed to opening Yucca Mountain using the best science and technology available to ensure the safety and health of all citizens," Stevens said. Copyright Las Vegas Review-Journal ***************************************************************** 43 [NYTr] Landau: Lessons from Nagasaki Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2005 11:55:57 -0500 (CDT) autolearn=ham version=3.0.4 X-Spam-filter-host: pascal.ctyme.com - http://www.junkemailfilter.com Via NY Transfer News Collective * All the News that Doesn't Fit Progreso Weekly - Aug 18, 2005 http://www.progresoweekly.com/index.php?progreso=Landau&otherweek=1124427600 Lessons from Nagasaki By Saul Landau As the United States tries to force Iranians and North Koreans to forego the construction of nuclear weapons, U.S. citizens should return to events sixty years ago. At 11 a.m. on August 9, 1945, the nervous captain of a B-29 looked for his target. Since clouds covered Kokura that morning and scientists had not yet developed "smart bombs," he and his crew, feeling uneasy about carrying the deadly product, made a rapid decision. Turn the aircraft toward their alternate target. Three-plus years earlier, in 1942, President Franklin Roosevelt had secretly assembled the smartest scientists and engineers in the non-Axis world to design and build an atomic bomb, a weapon so powerful that it could prevent Adolph Hitler and his Nazis from conquering the world. Headed by J. Robert Oppenheimer, a passionate anti-fascist, the bomb builders saw themselves preserving western civilization against a barbaric threat. When the Nazis surrendered in May 1945, a few scientists left the project, claiming that the need for such a destructive weapon no longer existed. Most of them, even Oppenheimer and other liberals, remained to see if their experiment would explode. In July 1945, at Alamogordo, New Mexico, the army tested the results of the scientific collaboration just as President Harry Truman went to Potsdam to meet with his two wartime allies, British Prime Minister Winston Churchill and Soviet Communist Party Chief Josef Stalin. The war time Allies finished post-war planning begun with President Roosevelt that January at the Yalta summit. But Roosevelt died soon after the Yalta meeting at which he agreed to divide Europe between East and West. At that time, U.S. policy saw the Soviets playing the role of containing German power in post-war Europe, so that it could not again threaten world stability as it had done twice within 25 years. In the midst of the Potsdam discussion, however, an aide whispered in Truman's ear that the U.S. atomic test had succeeded. With such a weapon at his disposal, Truman no longer needed the Soviets to contain Germany, as historian Gar Alperovitz made clear in his two well-researched books (Atomic Diplomacy: Hiroshima and Potsdam: The Use of the Atomic Bomb and The American Confrontation With Soviet Power and The Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb). Truman's top advisors convinced him to use not just one but two atomic bombs. Post-war political, not military, reasons demanded such a decision. Indeed, notes I found in an old trunk belonging to Col. Bryte, an aide to the Joint Chiefs of Staff, contained a memo from the Joints Chiefs of Staff with elaborate "talking points" to that effect. But on August 9, 1945 neither politics nor science occupied the minds of the bomber crew as they dropped Fat Man, a reference to the corpulent Winston Churchill. The bomb, 11 feet 4 inches in length, contained the equivalent of 22 kilotons of TNT and weighed 9,000 pounds. Little Boy, the pet name for the first bomb, fell three days earlier on Hiroshima. Some 30 percent of Nagasaki and most of its industrial district burned or collapsed from the heat generated by the explosion. More than 150,000 died; tens of thousands more suffered serious injuries. Subsequently, thousands more died from the effects of radiation. The bomber crew followed orders of U.S. policymakers who saw the bomb as a way to issue in the new "American" order. Secretary of State James Byrnes dreaded the thought that the Soviets would have a major say in reconstructing Europe. Think of what this would mean for U.S. investment and trade! Stalin, who had stood firm at Potsdam on demands for reparations from Germany and on Soviet influence in Eastern Europe, focused on preventing a third horrendous war. Any Soviet leader would have to prevent Germany from doing what he had done twice in 25 years: killing as many as 50 million Russian or Soviet citizens and destroying their country. Washington's use of atomic bombs as instruments of "strategic thinking" about Europe cost the Japanese more than 250,000 civilian casualties. The official U.S. position still holds that Truman's decision saved U.S. lives that would otherwise have been lost in a land invasion of the Japanese mainland. Those stubborn "Nips" - the World War II pejorative expression - forced us into using the bombs. As retired Spanish General Alberto Piris concluded about Nagasaki: "There was no way to justify the use of such a weapon after having already seen what it did," referring to what Washington had already learned three days earlier from bombing Hiroshima. General Dwight Eisenhower said that "I was one of those who felt that there were a number of cogent reasons to question the wisdom of such an act... I voiced ... my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment, was I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives" (The White House Years: Mandate to Change). Later, Ike added that "...the Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn't necessary to hit them with that awful thing" (Newsweek, 11/11/63). General Douglas MacArthur also thought that dropping the bombs were "completely unnecessary from a military point of view" (James, D. Clayton. The Years of MacArthur, 1941-1945). Japan surrendered five days after the Nagasaki bomb hit. But months before that massacre the key events deciding the war's outcome had already taken place. The Soviet armed forces had defeated the Nazis at a cost of more than 20 million dead and another 20 million wounded. The Nazis had destroyed 200 major Soviet cities, burned and destroyed everything that crossed their paths as they retreated. The Soviet army lacked food and boots. Yet, within two years, high officials in Washington and London had designed what became the Cold War. They used media and rhetoric very cleverly to change Uncle Joe (an inappropriate war-time metaphor) into Stalin the Butcher and convert the true image of a crippled USSR into one that planned immediate aggression, an evil empire that intended to invade Western Europe and conquer the world. In this new post-war "threat" atmosphere, there was little discussion about the morality and legality of nuclear bombing or of the previous fire bombing of major urban areas in Japan and Germany. At the Nuremberg and Tokyo war crimes tribunals, the winners chose the names of those who would stand in the dock for war crimes. Now, after 60 years of reflection, it is time for the world to make a judgment. The devastation of Nagasaki served no military or political purpose. But it did show the power and ruthlessness of U.S. leaders, men who placed themselves beside their Axis enemies in terms of willingness to ignore the rules of war. But the power circles in Washington remain unfazed by world opinion or reflection. Their enthusiasm about nuclear weapons' potential appears in the Defense Department's 2001 "Nuclear Posture Review." In this bizarre document, DOD envisions using nuclear options for a wider range of circumstances than ever before - terrorists and "rogue states." It wanted to develop new kinds of nuclear weapons and new tests as well. The U.S. "addiction" to nuclear weapons, while possessing the world's most powerful conventional forces, offers strong incentive and rationale for nations to acquire nuclear weapons. President Bush asserts that the United States has the right - in peacetime and on its own authority - to use all means at its disposal to prevent states from acquiring nuclear weapons (Ironically, the fact that Saddam Hussein did not have them made him vulnerable to a U.S. invasion!). Instead of halting nuclear proliferation, Bush's actions and rhetoric have done the opposite. North Korea and Iran, India and Pakistan, Israel and South Africa may all have joined or will soon become members of the nuclear weapons club. In December 2003, Syria called for the UN Security Council to declare the Middle East a nuclear-weapons free zone. The United States did not favor this resolution. Instead, Bush continues to threaten to use nukes. In so doing, he has both frightened and antagonized leaders and citizens throughout the world. The continuity line between the decision to drop atomic weapons on Hiroshima and Nagasaki and the threat to use them on contemporary "axis of evil" states runs callously through U.S. policy. In August, the anniversary of the only use of nuclear weapons, citizens should reflect on nuclear weapons. The only way to ensure that states or "madmen" don't use them is to get rid of them - all of them. [Landau is a fellow of the Institute for Policy Studies. He made (with Jack Willis) Paul Jacobs and the Nuclear Gang for public television.] * ================================================================ .NY Transfer News Collective * A Service of Blythe Systems . Since 1985 - Information for the Rest of Us . .339 Lafayette St., New York, NY 10012 http://www.blythe.org .List Archives: https://olm.blythe-systems.com/pipermail/nytr/ .Subscribe: https://olm.blythe-systems.com/mailman/listinfo/nytr ================================================================ ***************************************************************** 44 New Mexican: Ex-LANL worker files defamation suit Fri Aug 19, 2005 5:00 pm www.freenewmexican.com/ By ANDY LENDERMAN A retired Los Alamos National Laboratory employee accused and later cleared of trying to purchase a car with lab money has sued the lab, two television-broadcast companies and others claiming defamation, breach of contract, fraud and other charges, state District Court records show. Lillian Anaya and her husband, Mel, of Santa Fe County sued LANL, some lab workers, CBS Broadcasting Inc., the owner of Albuquerque's KRQE News 13 and Tri-City Auto Sales of Phoenix, among others, according to a civil complaint filed Wednesday. The Anayas allege defamation, false-light invasion of privacy, breach of contract, fraud and other injuries related to an investigation and later broadcasts concerning the disputed purchase of a Ford Mustang with a lab credit card, according to the complaint and other sources. The suit seeks unspecified damages. Lillian Anaya was first accused in a lab audit of charging a $30,000 Ford Mustang to her government credit card, according to the complaint. In June 2003, lab investigators cleared her of that allegation, according to a lab news release. But a lawyer for the car dealer involved, Tri-City Auto Sales, maintained Thursday that Anaya did order a custom-built car over the phone and supplied a credit-card number. A lab spokesman declined to comment Thursday because of the pending lawsuit. The incident began in May 2002, when Lillian Anaya processed a lab purchase order for 21 transducers, according to the complaint. That's equipment used in scientific experiments, according to the lab. But when Lillian Anaya called the number for the company that sold the equipment, Fluid Conditioning, the phone number was not up to date and she reached Thomas Thompson of Tri-City Auto Sales instead, according to the complaint. Thompson and his company "willfully, maliciously and deceitfully represented to Lillian Anaya that they were Fluid Conditioning, and that they would be able to process the order intended for Fluid Conditioning," the complaint reads. Lillian Anaya believed she was communicating with Fluid Conditioning, which sold the transducers, according to the complaint. Thompson's lawyer, Fred Gamble, said by telephone Thursday that never happened. "There was no representation by anybody at Tri-City Auto Sales that these guys made transducers," Gamble said. "That's just nonsense." The complaint also says Thompson's company billed Lillian Anaya's purchase card for $22,875. "It's not accurate," Gamble responded. Lillian Anaya was later placed on leave. She was exonerated in a June 26, 2003, news release issued by the lab. "Ms. Anaya cooperated fully with our investigation, and we look forward to welcoming her back to the Los Alamos team," then-lab Director Pete Nanos said at the time. "The facts of the case are now better known, with every indication that no one at Los Alamos ever tried to buy a Mustang with taxpayer money." The Anayas' complaint alleged "the actions and statements of the defendants have caused irreparable damage to Ms. Anaya's reputation and have caused severe emotional and physical damage to Ms. Anaya." Lillian Anaya retired after being offered a different job at the lab, according to the complaint. "The nature of the accusations against Ms. Anaya, and the impact on her emotional and physical well-being made it reasonably impossible for her to return to LANL in any capacity," the complaint reads. The complaint also accuses CBS and Emmis Communications Corp., which owns KRQE, of defamation and intentional infliction of emotional distress, among other allegations. CBS and Emmis did not conduct its own investigation "which met even minimal journalistic standards," according to the complaint, and broadcast the "false and slanderous accusation that Ms. Anaya had misused her LANL purchase card to make an improper purchase of an automobile." A CBS spokeswoman said Thursday evening that she did not know if her company had yet seen a copy of the lawsuit and declined to comment. Gamble, who represents Tri-City Auto, said Thursday afternoon he had not been served with a copy of the lawsuit. Privacy Policy | ©2005, Santa Fe New Mexican, all rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 45 lamonitor.com: Retired Los Alamos employee sues lab, others for defamation The Online News Source for Los Alamos The Associated Press A retired Los Alamos National Laboratory employee accused and later cleared of trying to buy a car with lab money has sued the lab, district court records said. Lillian Anaya and her husband, Mel, also are suing CBS Broadcasting Inc., Emmis Communications Corp., which owns Albuquerque's KRQE News 13, and Tri-City Auto Sales of Phoenix. The Anayas are claiming defamation, breach of contract, fraud and other charges, according to a civil complaint filed Wednesday. The suit seeks unspecified damages. Lillian Anaya was accused in a lab audit of charging a $30,000 Ford Mustang to her government credit card, the complaint said. She was ordering equipment for the lab when she called an out-of-date number for the supplier. Instead, she reached Thomas Thompson of Tri-City Auto Sales. Thompson and his company "willfully, maliciously and deceitfully" represented themselves as the supplier, saying they would be able to process the order, the complaint said. Thompson's lawyer, Fred Gamble, disagreed with Anaya's version of events, saying no one at Tri-City Auto Sales misrepresented themselves on the phone. "That's just nonsense," he said. Anaya was exonerated in a June 2003 lab news release that said she cooperated fully with the lab's investigation. "The facts of the case are now better known, with every indication that no one at Los Alamos ever tried to buy a Mustang with taxpayer money," then-Director Pete Nanos said at the time. A lab spokesman declined to comment Thursday on the pending lawsuit. Anaya retired after being offered a different job at the lab, the complaint said. "The nature of the accusations against Ms. Anaya, and the impact on her emotional and physical well-being made it reasonably impossible for her to return to LANL in any capacity," the complaint said. The complaint also accuses CBS and Emmis Communications of defamation and intentional infliction of emotional distress, among other allegations. CBS and Emmis did not conduct its own investigation "which met even minimal journalistic standards," according to the complaint. A CBS spokeswoman said Thursday that she did not know if her company had yet seen a copy of the lawsuit and declined to comment. © 2003 Los Alamos Monitor All Rights Reserved. ***************************************************************** 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: *****************************************************************