-------- Original Message --------
NOTICE FROM ALLIANCE FOR NUCLEAR RESPONSIBILITY
California's Energy Commission Seeks Public Input on State's Nuclear
Generation
Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) policy prohibits California from
protecting its citizens from the dangers of nuclear power. However,
California is not forbidden from protecting itself from economic
risks of nuclear generation.
For the first time, the <http://www.energy.ca.gov/>California Energy
Commission is seeking public input relating to economic risks and
benefits of continuing to operate the state's nuclear plants. Some
questions that should be asked before the state continues it reliance
on nuclear plants include:
How vulnerable are these nuclear plants to events that could
devastate our state's economy?
What are the economic risks of storing thousands of tons of
high-level radioactive waste on the state's earthquake active coast?
What other billion dollar projects will the
California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) <http://www.cpuc.ca.gov/>
force upon ratepayers to continue the operation of
California's nuclear plants?
Four nuclear power reactors have been shut down in California, and
four are left. Now is the time to begin planning for replacement of
nuclear generation in our state. Can California replace 4,000 MW of
energy over the next 17 to 20 years? Of course it can. Twenty years
ago these nuclear plants were not operating. California can phase out
production of nuclear waste on our coast in 20 years or less.
Please let the California Energy Commission know the economic risks
of continuing to stockpile high-level radioactive waste must be
resolved before license renewals for nuclear power plants are granted
in our state.
PUBLIC MEETING
MONDAY, AUGUST 15, 2005 and TUESDAY, AUGUST 16, 2005
9:00 a.m.
CALIFORNIA ENERGY COMMISSION
1516 Ninth Street
First Floor, Hearing Room A
Sacramento, California
Audio from this meeting will be broadcast over the Internet.
To arrange for a call in and participate in the meeting, please call
(888) 323-9686 by 9:00 a.m.
Passcode: WORKSHOP Call Leader: Peggy Falgoust
The opportunity for California to become the forefront of sustainable
generation, creating thousands of jobs and building the state's
economy is great. California can choose to produce the state's
electricity without creating and storing more radioactive waste on
its coast. The economic risk of a radioactive release would devastate
the economy of California please speak out.
To find out how support the creation of legislation to prohibit
license renewals for California's nuclear plants, go to ANR's Web
site. For questions, contact Rochelle Becker at rochelle@a4nr.org or
call 858 337-2703.
*****************************************************************
43 London Times: If we don’t want to depend on oil, we must go nuclear -
The Sunday Times - Comment
September 18, 2005
MICHAEL PORTILLO
Britain did not come to a standstill last week — despite the
predictions of the doom-sayers and the ministerial faint hearts.
This time the fuel tax protesters did not halt the supplies to
petrol stations. Nor is there any sign that they can force the
government to its knees as they did in 2000.
Sir Jonathan Porritt, who chairs the government’s Sustainable
Development Commission, urged ministers not to give in to the
protesters’ demands. He is right.
With oil flows disrupted by events in Iraq and the Gulf of
Mexico, and with consumption in India and China rising sharply,
it would be crazy to cut fuel tax. That would encourage people
to use more of a product that is in short supply.
However, Gordon Brown, the chancellor, does not sound much saner
than the protesters. In a speech to the TUC he pleaded with Opec
(the mainly Arab cartel of oil-producing countries) to increase
production.
Understandably Brown is worried about oil prices. Two major
airlines in the United States are filing for bankruptcy as a
result of higher fuel costs. Back home the rises will reduce
Britain’s rate of economic growth and so tax revenues will fall
below the forecasts on which his economic policy depends. The
Bank of England predicts growth this year of 2%, where Brown had
forecast 3% to 3.5%.
Opec will argue that the world is doing too little to reduce its
dependence on Middle Eastern oil. Anyway, high prices give
energy companies the incentive to develop those oil and gas
deposits that are costly to produce. Many of these are in areas
that are more politically stable than the Middle East, so
exploiting them can improve our security of supply.
This period of energy angst should be grabbed by politicians in
the United States as an opportunity to argue the patriotic case
for higher taxes on fuel. Paying more for petrol would help to
reduce American dependence on imports. European politicians
should now be making the case for developing other sources of
energy, such as nuclear power.
We should not be too concerned that Arab countries are getting
rich at our expense. Were the money to trickle down through the
population, it might help to reduce poverty and ignorance and
that should make life harder for the political extremists.
High oil prices can be lived with and past experience shows that
fundamentally sound economies are well able to adapt even to
sharp price rises.
However, Brown is urging other countries to put things right
because the government is too timid to implement a long-term
energy policy of its own.
When environmental issues first became a global concern, Britain
was well placed to limit its emissions of noxious gases into the
atmosphere. The demise of the British coal industry during
Arthur Scargill’s leadership of the National Union of
Mineworkers did the trick since it led to much greater usage of
natural gas in power stations.
Now it is more difficult for Britain to meet its targets. In
response to the 2000 protests the chancellor gave up the
so-called “escalator” which sharply increased the tax on road
fuels in every budget. That surrender dealt a mighty blow to the
government’s energy strategy, which had been designed to force
people onto public transport and to stimulate the development of
new energy sources. Britain’s greenhouse gas emissions are now
rising — up by more than 2% since 2002.
The nuclear power plants that are operating today produce about
a fifth of Britain’s electricity and do so without contributing
to global warming. This country’s emissions of greenhouse gases
are between 7m and 14m tons less than they might be because of
these power stations. Yet all but one of our nuclear plants will
have closed by 2023. If the government does not replace them
with new nuclear stations, it will face a huge problem and its
green ambitions will look incredible.
During the general election campaign it was hinted that Tony
Blair would soon bite the bullet and order another generation of
nuclear plants to be built. If the government is serious about
global warming the decision takes itself. Blair now appears to
be in no hurry. The official line is that he will make a yes or
no decision during this parliament.
One policy which is clear is that renewable sources are
subsidised. Companies that produce electricity from wind get a
so-called “renewable obligation certificate” for each
megawatt-hour that they generate. The power distribution
companies are obliged to pay a market price for those
certificates (as well as for the power itself) or be fined for
failing to use renewable energy.
According to the Commons public accounts committee, the total
cost of subsidies paid to renewable energy suppliers could reach
œ5 billion by 2010, with additional costs for the power lines
needed to bring the juice from the mountains and seas. We pay for
it through our electricity bills.
What is more, the committee believes that a third of the subsidy
goes to companies that do not need it.
I confess that I loathe wind turbines. It dismays me that we can
despoil vast areas of great natural beauty in the name of saving
the planet. Looking at a magnificent hillside or cliff edge
covered in these huge towers is, to paraphrase the Prince of
Wales's famous remark on modern architecture, like seeing a
finely shaped chin defaced by a growth.
Some people claim to like the wind machines. Roy Hattersley,
former deputy leader of the Labour party, says that passing the
wind farm near Tintagel, in Cornwall, makes him think of Camelot.
The noise reminds him of "the gentle hum of swarming bees". I
would compare it with the whine of an aircraft engine,
obliterating the sounds of nature.
Positioned to catch the breeze on high ridges, the turbines
scythe down migrating birds. On a recent visit to Spain, where
turbines have spread like a vicious pox, I learnt that this month
47 vultures headed for the Strait of Gibraltar had been felled by
turbine blades.
Wind turbines are not efficient. In Germany during 2003 they were
used to only a sixth of their capacity, largely because the wind
is unpredictable. Fossil stations are kept turning over and
emitting greenhouse gases in case they are needed to make up the
shortfall, yet if the turbines produce too much electricity the
excess cannot be stored.
The turbines are to the countryside in our times what the tower
blocks were to the cities in the 1960s. I look forward to the
parties when, 40 years from now, we dynamite them.
I would hesitate to make an economic case for nuclear power.
Today it seems that nuclear could generate electricity more
cheaply than wind turbines, but we know little about the capital
costs because it is a while since we built nuclear stations.
Still, past experience is far from encouraging.
I realise, too, that nuclear power raises fears that wind
turbines do not; unless you are Don Quixote. However, as with
other technologies, as nuclear power evolves we get better at
building in safety features. The problem of waste is a challenge
but it looks as though it can be handled.
The point about nuclear power is that it does the job. Using
remotely located stations that would have much less visual impact
than turbines, we could replace all fossil-fuelled stations (if
global warming matters that much).
One day we could use electricity from nuclear stations to charge
our battery-powered cars or to produce hydrogen on which our
vehicles could run, all without producing greenhouse gases. Even
if we cover every last hillock of our green and pleasant land
with wind turbines we will not get close to that.
Meanwhile, apart from desecrating the countryside, wind turbines
are diverting resources that could be put to better use. They
provide a frivolous distraction for a government that should be
implementing a serious energy policy.
It is good news that the fuel tax protesters failed to halt the
country last week. They should be heeded only inasmuch as they
highlight a real problem: that Britain is over-dependent on oil.
The traffic is still moving but the government's energy policy is
at a standstill.
*****************************************************************
44 Deseret News: N-benefits outweigh the risks
[deseretnews.com]
Sunday, September 18, 2005
I am in favor of nuclear power. I hope this country follows the
example of others and moves in that direction. Nuclear power
plants generate a relatively small amount of containable waste.
That waste has to go somewhere. A desert is as good a place as
any. The Goshutes have agreed to take it. The NRC has agreed to
put it there. I wish we could get a grip and go along.
Opponents have very legitimate concerns. But in my
opinion, the benefits outweigh the risks. Though I am a
registered Republican and a member in good standing in the LDS
Church, I disagree with the stance my governor and my church have
taken. In this particular matter, they do not speak for me.
Roger Andersen
Alpine
© 2005 Deseret News Publishing Company
[ /]
*****************************************************************
45 St. Louis Post-Dispatch: Ameren revamps its nuclear plant
By Jeffrey Tomich
ST. LOUIS POST-DISPATCH09/18/2005
The vapor plume streaming from the cooling tower at AmerenUE's
Callaway nuclear plant near Fulton, Mo., should be conspicuously
absent for the next 10 weeks, as the utility shuts the facility
to replace some of its largest components.
The project - replacing four steam generators - is easily the
most expensive and extensive in Callaway's history. It will cost
$200 million and may signal Ameren's intent to relicense the
plant to operate beyond its Oct. 18, 2024, decommissioning date.
The company won't say whether it plans to ask the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission for a new 20-year operating license at
Callaway, which produces more than 10 percent of Missouri's
electricity. But there's no immediate pressure to do so, either.
Callaway's steam generators, which were supposed to last the
life of the plant, are being replaced after 21 years because
some of the U-shaped alloy tubes inside are cracked. Those tubes
have been plugged, meaning they're no longer useful. That has
sapped the plant's 1,200-megawatt generating capacity and made
inspections and repairs increasingly expensive, said Tim
Herrmann, Ameren's manager of engineering services.
Steam generator tubes are among the main barriers between the
radioactive and non-radioactive sides of the plant. Water
superheated by uranium fuel passes through the tubes and
transfers heat to a second water system, which boils and creates
steam to drive the plant's turbines and generate electricity.
Tubes are inspected every 18 months when the plant is shut for
refueling to check for precursors of a crack, caused by high
pressure and temperatures that exceed 600 degrees Fahrenheit.
Flawed tubes must be plugged or reinforced.
Corrosion and cracking in the tubes isn't a new problem; it has
bedeviled the nuclear industry for more than two decades. Steam
generators at more than two dozen other plants already have been
replaced, and three such projects, including Callaway, are
scheduled for this fall.
Ameren, then Union Electric Co., was notified by Westinghouse
Electric Co., the plant's manufacturer, before Callaway's
construction was complete that the steam generator tubes might
not last as long as expected.
More than a dozen utilities sued over defects in the tubes, and
many reached out-of-court settlements. Ameren never sued, but
did settle for an undisclosed amount with Westinghouse Electric,
now part of BNFL PLC, Herrmann said.
Since Callaway's startup in 1984, the utility has taken steps to
extend the life of the steam generators, including tweaking the
water chemistry, running the plant at a lower temperature and
closely monitoring and cleaning the tubes to extend their life
and prevent stress and cracking, he said.
Ameren has plugged about 3 percent of the 22,000 tubes at
Callaway, a low percentage by industry standards and far less
than what's allowed by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
Herrmann said. The utility nonetheless chose to replace the
steam generators to boost efficiency and avoid future problems.
"We were losing megawatts every time we had to plug one of those
tubes," Herrmann said.
Prelude to relicensing?
While not considered an immediate safety concern at Callaway,
cracked tubes can have serious consequences.
In 2000, the Indian Point plant in Westchester County, N.Y., was
shut for almost a year after a tube ruptured, letting thousands
of gallons of radioactive water mix with clean water used to
create steam. A small amount of radiation was released into the
atmosphere, and hundreds of gallons of contaminated water went
into the Hudson River.
Ameren says the new steam generators at Callaway contain tubes
made of an improved alloy that's more resistant to cracking and
should last the rest of the plant's licensed 20-year life. They
could be used even longer if the utility asks regulators for
relicensing approval.
Nuclear operators can apply for relicensing 20 years before a
plant's decommissioning, said Ken Clark, an NRC spokesman in
Atlanta.
NRC data show that 35 reactors have been relicensed,
applications are under review for 14 and owners of 26 units have
notified the agency that they expect to apply for relicensing
over the next seven years. The names of several of the plants
that intend to seek a new license haven't been made public, so
it's unknown if Callaway is one of them.
"We're seeing a majority of the plants in the U.S. go for
relicensing, and there's no reason to believe that Callaway
won't," said William Miller, a professor of nuclear science and
engineering at the University of Missouri at Columbia, who also
serves on the plant's safety review board.
It's only speculation that Ameren will seek to extend the
plant's life for another 20 years, he said, but "it seems quite
likely that this would position them to do that."
Rising costs of fossil fuels - specifically natural gas - are
making it even more attractive for owners of existing plants to
keep them open longer, said David Lochbaum, nuclear safety
engineer for the Union of Concerned Scientists in Washington.
In addition, "The business case for existing nuclear plants has
markedly improved," he said. "What has changed in the last five
years is the economics of nuclear power, because gas prices went
up so dramatically."
While the plant is off-line to replace the steam generators,
Ameren also will replace four turbine rotors at a cost of $65
million because of cracks in the components, and refuel the
plant. Later, Ameren is planning to retrofit the plant's control
room with digital equipment.
Together, the steam generators and rotors will add about 60
megawatts of generating capacity, which should help recoup some
of the project's cost, because Callaway will be able to generate
more electricity with the same fuel.
The impact on customers is yet to be determined, because the
cost hasn't been factored into Ameren's electric rates, which
have stayed constant or declined since 1987.
Ameren will file a cost of service study with the Missouri
Public Service Commission by the end of the year. The detailed
analysis isn't necessarily a request to increase rates, but
could be the basis for such a request. Ameren's rates in
Missouri are frozen until June 30, 2006.
Dealing with challenges
Replacing the steam generators - each of which is 70 feet long,
19 feet in diameter and weighs 470 tons - is no easy task.
Nor was getting them there from the Areva manufacturing site in
Chalon Saint Marcel, France. After being shipped across the
Atlantic Ocean, they were offloaded onto barges at the Port of
New Orleans and sent up the Mississippi and Missouri rivers.
Ameren worked closely with the Army Corps of Engineers
throughout the process and moved the units onto plant grounds in
June because of concerns that water levels would be too low
later in the summer.
The company has more than 1,000 extra people at the plant to
remove the existing steam generators from their concrete casing
and hoist the new units into place through a 20-foot equipment
hatch. Workers built a special mausoleum on site to house the
old parts for the life of the plant, much the way Ameren stores
spent fuel.
Like most refueling outages, the project is being undertaken
when demand for electricity is lower than it is during summer.
Ameren did move the project date forward to accommodate two
other steam generator replacement projects also scheduled for
this fall in Arkansas and Arizona.
Because Ameren owns just one nuclear plant, teams of employees
were dispatched to monitor steam generator replacement projects
elsewhere in the United States. From that, the company was able
to determine the scope of the task and estimate how long it
would take.
From it all, Herrmann surmised: "Seventy days will be a
challenging goal."
jtomich@post-dispatch.com 314-340-8320
St. Louis Post-Dispatch.
*****************************************************************
46 Japan Times: Tepco to suspend Naraha reactor
Saturday, September 17, 2005
FUKUSHIMA (Kyodo) A nuclear reactor operated by Tokyo Electric
Power Co. in Fukushima Prefecture will be suspended as
irregularities in a circulation pump for coolant water have been
found, the utility said Friday.
The No.1 reactor at Tepco's nuclear plant in the town of Naraha
will be shut down manually at around midnight Friday so
components can be changed, the utility said, adding there would
be no risk of outside radiation leaks. It will take about a week
to replace the parts and test them, Tepco said.
The Japan Times: Sept. 17, 2005
(C) All rights reserved
*****************************************************************
47 Japan Times: Mihama reactor suffers vapor leak
Sunday, September 18, 2005
FUKUI (Kyodo) Vapor leaked Saturday from a moisture
separator-heater in the turbine house adjacent to the No. 1
reactor at the nuclear power plant in Mihama, Fukui Prefecture,
the prefectural government said.
The vapor contained no radioactive substances, it said.
According to the prefecture's nuclear safety department, an
employee of Kansai Electric Power Co. found a small volume of
vapor hovering around a pipe connected to one of the turbine
house's two moisture separator-heaters at around 10 a.m.
The vapor leaked out from the welded part of the thermometer
installed on the pipe, it said.
Kepco said it has been operating a test run of the pressurized
water reactor since late August after completing a periodical
check that started in late April.
The utility will investigate the leak to identify and fix its
cause, leaving the reactor to continue to operate at 50 percent
of capacity, the department said.
When the periodical checkup was conducted on the No. 1 reactor,
engineers inspected the device from which the vapor leaked, it
said.
On Aug. 9, 2004, super-heated nonradioactive steam leaked from
the No. 3 reactor at the Mihama plant, leaving five workers dead
and six seriously injured. The accident was blamed on pipes that
had not been inspected for 28 years.
The Japan Times: Sept. 18, 2005
(C) All rights reserved
*****************************************************************
48 Telegraph: Wicks's long march to nuclear power
The hottest issue in the Government's in-tray - one might even
call it radio-active - is whether to build new nuclear power
stations to help Britain meet its climate change targets.
So an obvious question to ask the new energy minister is whether
he has ever pronounced himself for or against nuclear power.
Malcolm Wicks heaves a sigh of relief: no, he has never given
that hostage to fortune, except . . .
In an interview in his glass-walled office at the Department of
Trade and Industry in Victoria Street, he divulges a little
secret about his adolescence: he marched to Aldermaston to
demonstrate against Britain's nuclear deterrent.
"At 14 I did go once to Aldermaston with 20,000 other people and
they didn't welcome me in: they should have seen I was going to
be a future energy minister," he chuckles.
He quickly adds that he has so far always managed -
"intellectually" - to separate nuclear weapons and nuclear
energy. "I have said that I am open-minded but not empty-headed
on the issue," he says.
Wicks will have to make up his mind sooner rather than later as
the nuclear question will dominate the energy debate in the
coming months.
In a report published last week, the influential Commons Public
Accounts Committee warned that the UK will fail to meet its
climate change targets unless ministers give much more thought
to how to replace the dwindling output from the current
generation of nuclear power stations - whose principal advantage
is that they do not generate CO2.
Renewable energy sources such as wind power are expected to
provide up to 20 per cent of the country's electricity needs by
2020, compared with 23 per cent provided by the current
generation of nuclear plant. So a move to renewables will not
lead to any cut in noxious emissions from Britain's power
generation.
In a clear sign that the nuclear question is right at the top of
the Government's priorities, Tony Blair is taking the chair of
the cabinet committee on energy and the environment. However, as
a sign of the difficulty of that question, the first meeting of
the committee was postponed from the summer to an unspecified
date in the autumn.
The prime minister has said that the Government will have
determined whether to build a new generation of nuclear plant
before the end of this parliament and, according to Wicks, "that
is soon enough".
Issues that need to be taken into account are cost and how to
deal with the poisonous waste. "My view on this is that it's
been an absolute disgrace the way in which successive
governments and parliaments have not tackled the issue of
nuclear waste," he says.
The newly established Nuclear Decommissioning Authority is a
step in the right direction, and dealing with the legacy issues
before contemplating new nuclear plants is vital.
"Unless we can convince ourselves and the public and Parliament
that we have a solution to these things, I don't think it's
going to be that easy to talk to the public about new [nuclear]
generation," he says.
And there is a hint that he may want to glow in the dark. "At
the moment, you would lose the argument. Some of the opinion
polls show that it is not clear which way public opinion would
go. So there is an argument to be won, if one wanted to go in
that direction."
The nuclear question is just one of a number of interrelated
energy problems vying for his attention. Before starting in May
he was minister for pensions, so he knows all about matters that
induce strong opinions.
Recalling a recent visit from John Cridland, the deputy
director-general of the CBI, the employers' organisation, Wicks
says: "I don't think [Cridland] was trying to make a comment
about my move from pensions to energy, but he said, 'Look, last
year company directors' big worry was pension costs. Now it's
energy costs.' "
As it happens, soaring energy costs, driven up by record crude
prices that have topped $65 a barrel, have hit British
manufacturers hard.
"Security of supply and the price you pay would be the number
one issue [for our members] by a mile," says Sir Digby Jones,
the director-general of the CBI. Some of his members, he adds,
have paid over 150 per cent more for their gas and electricity
over the past two years.
Consumers too are hurting. Household gas and electricity bills
have soared, as has the price of petrol. Last week hauliers
staged a series of protests at refineries and petrol -stations.
Wicks insists that the Government can't simply step in and force
prices down. But it could do something about fuel duty. The
chancellor has already postponed - twice - a planned increase in
the duty and will review it again later in the autumn in the
pre-Budget report. Wicks, conspicuously wary of intruding on the
Treasury's turf, won't say what he thinks about all this.
However, he is concerned about dwindling domestic supplies of
oil and gas and the UK's increasing dependence on imports.
The outlook for this winter is bleak; if there is a very cold
snap, industrial users fear that their supply will be
interrupted.
"As is known, we are going through two or three fairly difficult
winters where gas isn't coming in in the volume that we need,"
Wicks says.
Jones of the CBI is more blunt. "If we have anything more than a
moderate winter, our members are worried that the country won't
be able to keep the lights on," warns Jones. "Why? Because two
to three years ago the planning system was so full of delays
that not enough storage capacity was built."
Another anxiety for Wicks is the chronic failure of the European
Union to complete the creation of a single market in energy. At
a time when the UK has to import energy from opaque European
markets, this is bad for confidence in the system.
When demand for gas is high during cold weather, it has to be
sucked in via the so-called interconnector, a two-way pipe that
carries gas from Europe. Last winter many in the UK energy
sector suspected that European companies contributed to price
rises by deliberately withholding supplies during times of
shortage. But three separate inquiries - by the Government,
Parliament and Ofgem, the energy regulator - failed to unearth
any evidence of market manipulation.
Nevertheless, the European Commission has responded to the
concerns by launching its own inquiry into possible
anti-competitive practices in European energy markets.
And although both Wicks and Claire Durkin, his energy adviser,
insist that the UK's investigations found nothing untoward,
Durkin is blunt about the state of Europe's energy markets.
"All the evidence we've got is that gas followed the market,
which is what is supposed to happen. . . But the longer Europe
remains opaque, the longer we are not going to be confident,"
she says.
A draft report from the European Commission inquiry is due soon
and Wicks says he will push the issue at the European Council in
December. And he has another beef with his continental peers:
"At the moment. . . EdF [the French energy group] are here, the
Germans are here, and that's the logic of the market and that's
fine. But are there similar opportunities for British companies
in Germany and France and elsewhere? The answer is no, and that
is not a level playing field. That is not cricket."
So he will be pressing hard to make it easier for British
utilities to buy their continental rivals.
He certainly doesn't shy away from contentious areas.
"Geopolitically, does it matter if we are very very very heavily
dependent on foreigners for our gas and our coal?" he asks.
But, relatively new to the job, he insists he can't yet answer
his own question.
He's more forthright about the collective responsibility of
companies, households and the Government to take steps to reduce
CO2 emissions. "Why is the motor car industry so slovenly about
producing more energy-efficient cars?" he says, noting that he
is the proud new owner of a Toyota Prius, the energy-saving
hybrid car.
The entire DTI, adds an official proudly, operates without any
air conditioning - which, although environmentally friendly,
means that Wicks's office is unpleasantly stuffy.
If it feels like a kitchen, Wicks is quite happy to stand the
heat, in a Trumanesque sense. And he's alarmingly frank about
why he has been given his second über-tricky job in a row.
"Maybe," he says, "they want somebody to blame."
© Copyright of Telegraph Group Limited 2005. Terms &Conditions
*****************************************************************
49 Globe and Mail: It'd be a pity if Ontarians don't get a nuclear debate
theglobeandmail.com
available to INSIDER Edition subscribers
By Murray Campbell
Saturday, September 17, 2005, Page A9
Who knows how much say voters will have before Ontario once
again gives nuclear fission a big hug? Not that long ago, Energy
Minister Dwight Duncan was saying that people would be given the
opportunity to debate whether the province should build new
nuclear plants to meet future electricity demands.
The full text of this article has 800 words.
Want to access this page? Begin below.
© Copyright 2005 Bell Globemedia Publishing Inc. All Rights
*****************************************************************
50 Sunday Business Post: Nuclear energy: Friend or foe?
18 September 2005
Last week's column by David McWilliams, calling for nuclear power
to be considered as a source of energy, drew a huge response.
Below, we print some of your views.
From Veronica McDermott
Faced with climate change and a looming oil crisis, the list of
economists, scientists and environmentalists who suggest that
nuclear power may be our only salvation is growing.
It's a reasonable argument.
Any modern, progressive country with economic interests at stake
is at least going to consider including nuclear power in its
energy mix - especially Ireland, relying on 95 per cent energy
imports in oil and gas to keep going.
['']
It's only reasonable so long as you keep politics out of it.
National political opposition to the nuclear option is on a par
with our policy of traditional neutrality. It's arguable whether
we can have any sort of rational debate on the nuclear energy
option. Question is: why not?
Our energy policy has always been a bit of a shambles.
The first government white paper on energy was published almost
30 years ago by then minister, Dessie O'Malley. It was also the
last.
Since Irish mid-seventies dreams of massive oil and natural gas
finds off our own coasts were dashed, energy policy has hobbled
along on an ad hoc basis. It often amounting to little more than
ritual denunciations of the British nuclear industry, coupled
with overblown hot air about the endless potential of
renewables. The 1970s stop-start project to build a nuclear
power station in Carnsore ultimately came to grief because we
couldn't afford it.
This brief love affair with the nuclear option gave way to
disillusionment, and ultimately, detestation. For the best part
of 25 years, closing down Sellafield has been a cause célébre of
Irish politics.
It advanced many a political career and never hindered any.
Speculation on the damage being caused to Irish people's health
by Sellafield radiation, Down's Syndrome cases in Louth due to
fallout from the 1957 Windscale fire (the second-worst nuclear
accident ever); and alleged leukaemia clusters along our east
coast provided a frightening underlying theme to our
anti-nuclear policy.
Now we know for a fact that no fallout from the Windscale 1957
fire ever reached Ireland.
An exhaustive study by a UCD team of scientists, published last
March, reveals no physical trace of contamination from the
Windscale accident in Ireland.
An earlier epidemiological study, published in 2000, exploded
the myth that a Down's Syndrome cluster in Dundalk could be in
any way related to the Windscale fire.
Our own RPII has patiently advised for years that the minute
traces of radioactive contamination from Sellafield to which we
are routinely exposed pose no risk to people's health.
There's a fair measure of political hypocrisy in our nuclear
stance. Since 1999, the Electricity Regulation Act has made it
illegal to use nuclear power to generate electricity in Ireland.
Yet the interconnector with the North means we are importing
nuclear generated electricity from Scotland.
The proposed interconnector with Britain will also result in
imported nuclear power for our homes and industries, if, as
anticipated, the British government invests in a new generation
of nuclear plants because of climate change.
But our politicians have talked themselves - and us - into an
implacable opposition. As former energy minister Joe Jacob once
put it: “There is no country on this planet that is more
anti-nuclear than this one, no government more anti-nuclear than
this one, and no people more anti-nuclear than the Irish people.”
Granted, the British nuclear industry and government's
traditionally secretive/dismissive attitude to Irish concerns
about Sellafield didn't help much in establishing trust or
mutual understanding. But political self-indulgence in
over-hyping risk hardly serves the public interest either.
We're heading for the 20th anniversary of the Chernobyl
catastrophe next year. Earlier this month, a UN-sponsored report
on Chernobyl, involving eight UN specialised agencies, the work
of 160 scientists and the co-operation of the three governments
of Russia, Belarus and Ukraine, threw some much-needed light
into dark corners.
Nineteen years on, the total number of deaths directly
attributable to the accident is 59 - 50 among the workers and
emergency workers caught up in the immediate aftermath of the
accident and nine children, victims of thyroid cancer mainly
caused by drinking contaminated milk.
Some 2,000 children in Ukraine and Belarus succumbed to thyroid
cancer from radioactive iodine poisoning. Of these, 99 per cent
have been cured.
The UN predicts an additional 4,000 deaths arising from the
accident over the long-term among the 600,000 people most
exposed to Chernobyl radiation. Medical studies find no evidence
of decreased fertility or any increase in congenital birth
defects among these people.
The UN found a “tendency to attribute all health problems to
radiation exposure'‘, but the real fallout from Chernobyl has
been psychological, particularly mental health problems among
the 350,000 people forcibly evacuated in the aftermath of the
reactor explosion. These evacuations “did little to reduce
radiation exposure'‘, the report says, but were a “deeply
traumatic experience'‘.
Recommending a radical switch away from “programmes that foster
dependency and a victim mentality'‘, the UN decries the
“persistent myths'‘ about the threat of radiation that have
destroyed evacuees' lives.
The message is clear: scaremongering by politicians or others is
bad for you. If we're going to have a grown-up debate about
energy policy, then we're going to have to take a more grown-up
approach to the nuclear issue, ditch the polemics and stick to
the facts.
Veronica McDermott is a public affairs consultant.
From David Sowby
David McWilliams is quite right: we must take nuclear power out
of the taboo cupboard. This country is overly reliant on natural
gas and oil for our electricity-generating requirements.
In addition, we depend too much on our neighbours for the supply
of natural gas, and especially on the single pipeline that
currently brings the gas. Even with proposed electricity
interconnectors, we shall still be highly dependent on our
neighbours.
As has been emphasised, nuclear power would free this country
from reliance on gas supplies from outside, delivered through
pipelines that are subject to a number of hazards. Oil and gas
should be reserved predominantly for home heating and transport,
and should not be frittered away on electricity production.
Knocksinna Crescent, Dublin 18.
From Eamon Ryan TD
Roll on the debate David McWilliams has called for on nuclear
power. The prospect of runaway and catastrophic climate change
and the imminent peak in global oil production demands nothing
less than a reappraisal of everything we now take for granted.
But let us at least set some simple ground rules for such a
debate. First, we must give equal consideration to the three
goals of having the cleanest, cheapest and most secure energy
supply possible.
Secondly, the concepts of sound economics, scientific rigour and
social and international justice do indeed apply.
On each of these counts, nuclear power is not the answer.
To start with, there is the question of whether we want to lump
the next 1,000 generations with a radioactive waste hangover -
never mind what we would leave behind if a serious accident were
to occur.
Even if we disregard the safety issues, any simple economic
analysis would rule out the nuclear option. No investment banker
will go anywhere near financing a nuclear power plant, unless
the state has tied it up in a risk-free rib bon of financial
subsidy and special exemptions.
On any straight accounting basis, when insurance and
decommissioning costs are included, nuclear power is the most
expensive form of electricity generation. Tried and tested
renewable sources, such as wind power and biomass, are much
cheaper on the open market and are on a rapid downward cost
curve as innovations come on stream.
Nor does nuclear measure up when it comes to security of supply.
By going nuclear, we would be investing in a technology which
has its own fuel depletion date.
It would take 10,000 of the very largest fission reactors to
provide the same energy we are currently getting from fossil
fuels. On that scale of production, we would only have enough
uranium fuel for one or two decades at most. To get one tonne of
uranium, you need to mill at least 5,000 tonnes of rock. That
process alone absorbs huge amounts of energy and will generate
massive carbon dioxide emissions.
World economic growth and population have grown in line with the
easy accessibility of oil. It is a remarkably energy-dense and
versatile fuel which, because it is so easy to transport and
store, will never be easy to replace. The wealth from our
remaining oil reserves will have to be reinvested in new energy
technologies if the global economy is not to decline in tandem
with the imminent depletion in oil supplies.
In fairness, David McWilliams, unlike our present government, is
at least addressing the related issues of peak oil and climate
change. However, surely he can see that every penny spent on
short-term nuclear solutions diverts investment away from energy
conservation and renewable technologies which would better
provide for our long-term economic future.
The choice is clear, between a centralised, subsidised and dirty
solution leaving us with a risky dependence on one or two large
plants or a switch to biomass, wind, solar, geothermal, wave and
tidal power which would turn Irish farmers and businessmen into
energy entrepreneurs.
Eamon Ryan is Green Party spokesman on Energy.
From John Stafford
Thank goodness that someone has at last had the courage to go
into print to support the cause of nuclear power in Ireland. It
is becoming increasingly obvious that the looming shortage of
oil, together with the increasingly grave global warming issue,
is making it imperative to decide on non-fossil fuel
alternatives.
It is clear that wind energy and bio-fuels, though laudable in
themselves, cannot by themselves meet all of our future energy
requirements. Nuclear power is the only large-scale, practical,
economic, realistic option in sight. However, it will take a
long time for this to be generally accepted, so the sooner the
public debate gets going, the better.
Castleknock, Dublin.
From Grattan Healy
It is disappointing when a commentator produces a diatribe that
is at its heart uninformed, and in its effect disempowering.
Nothing remotely approaching the unsustainability of nuclear
technology has ever emerged. While the authorities around the
world think, or at least say, they can solve the waste problem,
it is, at root, insoluble.
Put simply, we either bury it raw, as the Russians have done at
Mayak, contaminating a whole region, or we store it properly,
which implies access and retrievability. The trouble is that the
waste is active for at least one million years, due to the long
half-lives of many of the isotopes in the waste products.
In other words, for the comfort of just one generation, about
30,000 generations must look after the waste. That is the length
of time that our direct human ancestors have existed.
What a legacy!
There is an economic cost, coupled with a very serious health
risk, imposed on those generations into and well beyond the
foreseeable future of humanity, maybe even the planet. It is
also hugely expensive, insecure from every standpoint and,
what's more, we must import the fuel and pay global prices for
it in competition with others like China and India.
Finally, it will take at least 20, and more likely 30, years to
build nuclear power stations, so nuclear offers no practical
solution to the fossil fuel problem. Alternatively, we would
need a huge level of electrical inter-connection with Britain
and France to import the requisite nuclear power, leaving
ourselves exposed to cost risks and technical failures.
A further crucial point to consider when discussing nuclear
matters is this - it is at heart a military project, as
illustrated by recent events in Iran. The science is often
bogus, because it is controlled by the same people, so that the
debate is twisted and constrained.
The nuclear proposition today is the product of panic. It is
also a distraction from the real debate that is needed.
What we must do, now, as a matter of urgency, is to set about
drawing all of our energy needs from sustainable sources in due
course.
If we were in the position of Belgium with minimal resources, a
nuclear discussion might make sense, though Belgium, like almost
all European countries, has decided to phase out nuclear.
However, we have vast renewable resources. Why are we avoiding
the obvious - is there some interest hostile to a decentralised
electrical system?
The renewable debate has been going on for years. The French
reaction to the oil crises in the 70s was nuclear; the Irish was
coal, at Moneypoint, when Carnsore was rejected. The Danish
reaction was the most considered, and effective - renewable
energy.
As a result, Denmark is now the world leader in wind energy, and
is up there with the best in most other renewable technologies.
If we must learn from others, let us please learn from those who
have produced sustainable solutions, not those whose military
industrial complexes set their energy agendas.
As far as energy is concerned, Ireland could literally power and
fuel much of Europe. We have our own vast wind resource, on and
offshore, which is now the cheapest source of wholesale energy.
Similarly, we will have almost unrivalled sea energy of various
types.
We have tremendous growing rates in agriculture, which is an
industry that could do with diversification away from food,
given the imminent demise of CAP, coupled with the need to
sustain rural communities.
With clever use of the new renewable, storage, transport and
control technologies, we could provide all of our own
electricity, power and heat within a generation, and become net
exporters.
If we grasp this opportunity now, and take full advantage of our
island status (instead of listening to those vested interests
that portray it as an obstacle), we can develop a whole new
industrial sector to replace those jobs leaving our shores.
We need repeatedly to raise the issue of fuel and electricity
prices on the doorsteps in the run-up to the next election, to
ensure action, not more of the warm words we have had for the
last decade.
Grattan Healy is an energy adviser and renewable energy project
developer. He spent six years as an energy policy adviser at the
European Parliament.
© The Sunday Business Post, 2004, Thomas Crosbie Media TCH
*****************************************************************
51 asahi.com: Surprise checks set for N-plants
09/17/2005 The Asahi Shimbun
The Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency (NISA) next year will
begin surprise safety inspections of the management of nuclear
power plants to prevent the accidents and cover-ups that have
plagued the industry in recent years.
Employees of electric power companies will not be allowed to
join the unannounced checks, said officials of the agency, which
is part of the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry.
The power industry, for its part, plans to introduce a system
next year in which a third-party will monitor the operations of
nuclear plants.
The organization will be set up by the power companies.
Those measures come in response to increasing calls from local
governments, residents and others for more effective safety
systems.
Accidents at nuclear plants have been caused by cost-cutting
measures, a lack of communication and incompetence. Cover-ups
have exacerbated the situation.
As an incentive for nuclear power companies to run safer plants,
the agency and the industry are considering preferential
treatment for plants that are supervised under an effective
management system.
One option could be to reduce the frequency of mandatory
inspections from the current one every 13 months to about two
years. Such inspections require the plants to shut down,
resulting in lost revenue.
Under NISA's current system, inspectors conduct two kinds of
safety checks: inspections of the facilities and devices; and
inspections of operational management.
The NISA surprise checks will be conducted on operational
management. Officials said it is difficult to implement a
surprise inspection of the facilities because plant operations
must be stopped.
Currently, inspectors provide the date and location of a planned
inspection to the plant's operator, and employees of the company
accompany the inspectors.
This system has been criticized because companies can simply fix
items on the inspection list, and ignore other, potentially
costly and dangerous problems.
A study group of the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry's
Advisory Committee for Core Natural Resources and Energy
suggested surprise checks in June 2002.
NISA agreed, saying the unannounced checks would deter document
falsification and other wrongdoings as well as detect at an
early stage abnormalities at power plants.
Tokyo Electric Power Co. was found to have falsified data in
safety inspections in 2003.
A year later, a corroded pipe burst at Kansai Electric Power
Co.'s Mihama plant in Fukui Prefecture, releasing scalding steam
that killed five workers.
Studies showed the pipe had been left unchecked for years.
In contrast to the government's unannounced inspections, which
focus primarily on documents, the electricity power industry's
plan will monitor and provide advice on equipment operation
methods.
The industry's inspections will be led by the Japan Nuclear
Technology Institute, an independent organization formed by
power companies in April.
The plan is based on a system used successfully in the United
States. By sharing and using each company's know-how, the JNTC
aims to apply the kaizen (improvement) method of manufacturing
companies to the entire nuclear industry.
Similar arrangements existed in the past, but they failed
because of a lack of communication among the electric
companies.(IHT/Asahi: September 17,2005)
+ The Asahi Shimbun Company
*****************************************************************
52 UK: News & Star: Help us to rebuild after nuclear decomissioning
Published on 17/09/2005
By Kelly Eve
WEST Cumbria’s bid to transform itself in the wake of nuclear
decommissioning and thousands of job losses at Sellafield
returns to Whitehall on Monday.
New Trade and Industry Secretary Alan Johnson has pledged to
continue the Government’s commitment to rebuild the area, a
drive vehemently supported by his predecessor Patricia Hewitt.
The news has been welcomed by the West Cumbria Strategic Forum,
a body of local leaders which is drawing up a masterplan of
improvements to encourage the growth of other industries,
retrain the workforce and attract investment.
The forum travels to London to meet with Mr Johnson and also
top-level officers from all Government departments.
It is the second such meeting after the inaugural event with
Patricia Hewitt last year.
Those in the Cumbrian delegation include chairman and Copeland
leader Elaine Woodburn, Allerdale leader Jim Musgrave,
Copeland’s director of nuclear issues Fergus McMorrow and
county council chief executive Peter Stybelski.
Miss Woodburn will be joined by Cumbria County Council leader
Tim Stoddard for a presentation to the panel at 2pm.
She said: “It’ll be the second meeting of the forum and
we’ve already had a letter from Alan Johnson and he replied
saying he wanted to continue the commitment from Patricia
Hewitt.
“We welcome that letter from him.â€
A drive to make West Cumbria a higher education centre of
excellence on nuclear decommissioning has already resulted in
funds to create new courses in a deal between Lakes College West
Cumbria and the GEN II training provider.
More Government cash to improve local housing has also been
announced for the area. Miss Woodburn said: “A lot of this we
would not have got unless the forum had increased the profile of
West Cumbria at Whitehall.â€
*****************************************************************
53 NYT: Aging Nuclear Power Plants May Affect Emissions Pact
September 14, 2005
Aging Nuclear Power Plants May Affect Emissions Pact
By MATTHEW L. WALD
WASHINGTON, Sept. 13 - A proposed agreement among nine Northeast
states to cap greenhouse gas emissions from power plants casts a
new light on arguments in New Jersey and Vermont about whether
the licenses of two aging nuclear plants should be extended.
Community groups in both states are opposing the extensions of
the licenses beyond their 40-year terms, but environmentalists
are generally supportive of the proposed agreement among the
governors to reduce these greenhouse gases, which contribute to
global climate change. Shutting down the two reactors would mean
immediate, substantial increases in the emissions, because it
would increase reliance on fossil fuel plants, probably tripling
emissions in Vermont and doubling them in New Jersey.
"I think the environmental community is confused right now in
terms of where they want to go," said Richard A. Valentinetti,
director of Vermont's air quality program, who has been deeply
involved in drafting the nine-state agreement. "Obviously there's
some real polarization."
Some environmentalists say the goals can be met even without the
two nuclear plants, Vermont Yankee and Oyster Creek, and without
other nuclear plants whose licenses will expire in the next few
years.
"We just have to bust the myth that we need to be using more
energy," said Rob Sargent, senior energy policy analyst for the
State Public Interest Research Groups, a nonprofit consumer
organization. The New Jersey affiliate of his group is a leading
voice against Oyster Creek, the nation's oldest commercial
nuclear plant. Mr. Sargent said that rising electricity prices
would make many new energy-saving technologies practical, but he
acknowledged that simply saving money would not be enough to
reduce power c onsumption by the required amount.
Engineers and environmental experts have long predicted that
planners would eventually have to choose between greater
greenhouse gas emissions and heavier reliance on nuclear power.
The debate has been mostly hypothetical, since nobody in the
United States has ordered a new nuclear plant since the 1970's,
long before global climate change was widely perceived as an
issue. It was also hypothetical because there were no limits on
carbon dioxide emissions in the United States.
Suddenly, both parts of the question are changing. The governors
are proposing a cap on emissions, and renewal of power plant
licenses has become imminent.
Oyster Creek opened near Egg Harbor, N.J., in 1969 and its
license expires in 2009. A little over half the electricity
produced in New Jersey comes from nuclear power, and Oyster Creek
alone produces about 9 percent; in 2004 it generated 27.1 million
megawatt hours.
In December 2004, the New Jersey Public Interest Research Group
came out against a license extension. It said that the plant was
designed to last 40 years, and that the decision by Exelon,
Oyster Creek's owner, to seek a license extension was "ignoring
public safety."
The plant is in a rapidly growing part of the state, the group
noted, and it argued that in an emergency evacuation would be
impractical.
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission announced on Monday that it had
evaluated the application by Exelon for a license extension, and
had decided that it merited review.
Vermont Yankee, in Vernon, near the border with Massachusetts and
New Hampshire, began commercial operation in November 1972, and
its license expires in March 2012. Its capacity is 535 megawatts.
In 2004 the reactor produced 3.9 million megawatt hours, which
was about 71 percent of the electricity produced in the state.
(That production was only about one-third of the electricity
consumed in the state, because Vermont is a chronic importer of
power.)
Just how much carbon dioxide the two reactors are saving depends
on what the replacement power source would be. A megawatt-hour
from a coal plant produces about one ton of carbon dioxide. In
the long run, power companies could build natural gas plants,
which produce only about half a ton per megawatt hour.
The governors' draft agreement gives Vermont a limit of 1.35
million tons of carbon dioxide, approximately equal to its
current emissions. But if the Vermont Yankee nuclear plant's
output were replaced with coal, Vermont's emissions would
increase by nearly four million tons. If natural gas were used,
the increase would still be nearly two million tons.
The agreement gives New Jersey a cap of 23 million tons, but if
Oyster Creek's output was replaced with coal, the state's output
of carbon dioxide would more than double.
Some environmentalists say that greenhouse emissions should be
cut by switching to "renewable" fuels, including wind, solar and
hydroelectric. Wind-produced power, in fact, is growing rapidly,
but over all, electricity from renewable sources in 2004 was
about 1 percent lower than in 2003, mostly because of less
hydroelectric production. Environmentalists propose reducing
carbon dioxide output by building wind turbines. But utility
experts say that the amount of wind that a utility grid can
tolerate is limit ed, because wind is intermittent and often
unpredictable. In fact, the "capacity factor" of a wind turbine,
defined as the amount of power actually produced in a year,
compared with the amount that would result from around-the-clock
generation, is about 33 percent.
In addition to Vermont and New Jersey, the seven other states in
the accord are New York, Connecticut, Delaware, Maine,
Massachusetts, New Hampshire and Rhode Island.
*****************************************************************
54 Japan Times: 10% of irradiated soil removed from Tottori town
Sunday, September 18, 2005
TOTTORI (Kyodo) A governmental nuclear research and development
institute finished removing on Saturday about 10 percent of the
3,000 cu. meters of uranium-contaminated soil found in Yurihama,
Tottori Prefecture.
About 290 cu. meters of soil was removed from the town's Katamo
district, and the Japan Nuclear Cycle Development Institute
plans to ship it in early October from Kobe to Seattle for
disposal in the U.S., officials said.
The institute has no plan yet to remove the remaining 90
percent. The existence of the contaminated soil came to light in
1988 and had since been left untreated.
"We were able to remove some of the soil which has been a
concern for a long time," Tsuyoshi Ishimura, the institute's
executive director, told reporters at the removal site.
"We apologize to the residents for taking such a long time to
complete it," he said. "We will continue discussing how to deal
with the remaining soil."
Last October, the Supreme Court finalized an order that the
institute should remove the uranium-contaminated soil, and it
has been paying 750,000 yen per day to the local community since
March 11 for not removing the soil.
The total penalty had climbed to 143.25 million yen as of
Saturday.
If the institute fails to remove all of the contaminated soil
by next May, it will face an additional 50,000 yen penalty per
day.
The Japan Times: Sept. 18, 2005
(C) All rights reserved
*****************************************************************
55 IEER | Comments on the Draft EIS re: production of radioisotope
power systems/Pu-238
Comments of the Institute for Energy and Environmental Research
on the Draft EIS for the Proposed Consolidation of Nuclear
Operations Related to Production of Radioisotope Power Systems,
DOE/EIS-0373D, June 2005
by Arjun Makhijani
29 August 2005
The Draft EIS is seriously deficient in the following points:
1. The need for the level of production cited is not
established -specifically alternative approaches to getting the
specified level of Pu-238 are not considered
2. Alternatives to Pu-238 systems are not considered
3. Reactor accident consequences are not considered
4. Materials-accounting-related security issues are not
addressed
5. The DEIS has not demonstrated that the project will comply
with the 1990 Clean Air Act, Subpart H in regard to inhalation
of single particles of Pu-238.
1. The need to create 5 kilograms of new Pu-238 by irradiating
Np-237 targets per year over 30 years, for a total of 30 years,
has not been established. Indeed, several existing sources of
Pu-238 should be considered as potential alternatives:
+ LANL proposes to recover up to 11 kilograms of Pu-238 from
scrap and other existing sources until 2007. This has apparently
not been factored into the inventory in Table 2-1 of the DEIS.
+ The Pantex inventory is not included in Table 2-1.
These two sources would significantly reduce the requirement for
operating the ATR at Idaho to irradiate Np-237 targets, making
it far more costly per unit of Pu-238.
Further, there are about 90 kilograms of Pu-238 in the
high-level waste tanks at Savannah River Site. The DEIS has not
explored the costs and benefits of recovering the more easily
accessible portions of the Pu-238 from the waste (since large
amounts appear to have been discharged in a single period from
the late 1970s to the mid-1980s.
The DEIS is fundamentally deficient the absence of an analysis
of existing sources.
2. There are many alternatives to Pu-238 power sources. For
land-based sources, weight is not a restriction. For instance,
solar energy systems with batteries have not been evaluated. The
security and environmental consequences of abandoned RPSs have
not been evaluated in the DEIS. The DEIS should estimate the
environmental impact of the RPS that was abandoned near the
headwaters of the Ganges River in the Himalaya Mountains around
1964, when a joint U.S.-Indian mission rain into severe weather.
The DEIS is therefore fundamentally incomplete as regards
assessment of the impact of the proposed systems. Nor has the
actual mishap been analyzed in any other EIS. Risk evaluation
needs to be done based on actual data, which is being ignored.
Similarly, data from the former Soviet Union regarding RPS
risks, as well as from the U.S. about orphan neutron sources and
RPSs have not been considered. For space-based systems, solar
concentrators that can be unfurled in space are among the
alternatives that DOE should consider. NASA is developing such
devices. Other radioisotopes can also be used. These should be
evaluated.
3. The DOE, in DOE/EIS-0310, estimated that the total release
of radioactivity in a worst case accident from the ATR could be
as much as 175 million curies, with 320,000 curies of that being
iodine-131, which contaminates milk. Substantial releases of
longer lived radioactive materials were also estimated in that
document (see Table I-4 of DOE/EIS-0310). The DEIS does not
assess the accident consequences and compare them to the impacts
of other alternatives. The estimated release would be well over
an order of magnitude larger than the 1957 Windscale reactor
fire, when on the order of 20,000 curies of I-131 were released.
At that time, half a million gallons of milk from a 200 square
mile area were collected and dumped. The much larger source term
estimated for an ATR accident could result in serous fallout
over a far larger area, potentially including Grand Teton and
Yellowstone National Parks. The DEIS is fundamentally deficient
in not evaluating severe accident consequences and available
alternatives, including a new reactor with secondary
containment, which the ATR does not have.
4. The DEIS contains no assessment of the security issues in
the past regarding orphan sources, or of the materials
accounting issues in regard to nuclear materials that are still
unresolved in the DOE. See for instance, my 2004 letter to Peter
Nanos regarding plutonium-239 accounting, along with the
associated DOE memorandum, which are incorporated into these
comments by reference. The web address is
www.ieer.org/comments/pu/nanosltr.htmlfor the letter and
www.ieer.org/offdocs/Guimond1996Memo.pdffor the DOE memorandum.
Note that the Pu-239 discrepancy between two sets of Pu-238
accounts in waste at LANL is as much as 765 kilograms, or about
150 bombs worth. A clear accounting of Pu-238, including in
waste streams and orphan sources is needed to assess the
environmental impact of the proposed project. This has not been
done in the present DEIS or any other EIS.
5. The Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board letter from
Burns and Keilers to Kent Fortenberry of 27 May 2005 states that
"LANL analyses indicate that inhaling one or two 2-micron
diameter particles of Pu-238 oxide (i.e., about the ICRP default
size) results in 0.5 Rem CEDE dose" (LANL Weekly Report, May 27,
2005). This is 50 times the Clean Air Act limit of 0.01 rem (or
10 millirem) under 40 CFR 61, Subpart H. While the DEIS has
calculated low expected individual dose through dispersion
calculations, it has not demonstrated that there will be no
emission of particles that would singly result in a dose greater
than 10 millirem CEDE. If there are emissions of any particles
of that type, then the DEIS must demonstrate that the
probability of any individual in the downwind inhaling such a
particle would be essentially zero. Subpart H of 40 CFR 61 sets
forth a bright-line radiation limit for public exposure. It is
not written in probabilistic terms. It requires that the
maximally exposed individual be exposed to less than 10 millirem
per year. Normally, dispersion calculations and measurements
together should be sufficient to demonstrate compliance, but
this is not the case when a single particle can produce a dose
above the allowable limit. The proposed project may well result
in doses greater than the allowable limit if a single person
inhales even a single micron and in some cases even a single
sub-micron size particle. Therefore, in this case, any
individual who inhales a single particle of Pu-238 that would
result in a dose greater than 10 millirem would be the maximally
exposed individual, even if they do not reside near the fence
line. The DEIS is fundamentally flawed in failing to address the
potential non-compliance of the proposed project with the Clean
Air Act, 40 CFR 61 Subpart H due to inhalation of single Pu-238
particles.
Recommendations
1. The DEIS is fundamentally deficient in so many respects that
it should be redone.
2. Since several programmatic aspects are missing, the effort to
redo the DEIS should be preceded by a Draft Programmatic EIS,
since no existing PEIS covers the alternatives adequately on a
programmatic basis.
Whether or not a new DEIS is done or a new Draft PEIS is done,
the Final EIS should have the following analyses:
3. The EIS should evaluate the full range of alternatives for
land-based and space power sources.
4. The EIS should have a full accounting of existing sources of
Pu-238 for security reasons and for assessing the sources that
are available for use, including those in scrap and waste.
Specifically, the full inventory of Pu-238 scrap at LANL should
be evaluated. Some waste tanks at SRS should also be evaluated.
5. Radioisotopes other than Pu-238 should be evaluated for some
applications.
6. The benefits of a new reactor, and not just the costs, should
be evaluated an compared with the use of the ATR.
7. The EIS should assess the consequences of a worst-case ATR
accident as defined in DOE/EIS-310, Table I-4, and its impact on
the surrounding population and on Grand Teton and Yellowstone
National Parks.
8. The EIS should evaluate the environmental and security
consequences of abandoned RPS's including the one abandoned in
the Himalayas in 1964 as a real-world example of the potential
consequences of RPS abandonment.
9. The EIS should demonstrate compliance with 40 CFR 61, Subpart
H by showing that the doses to every offsite individual present
near their homes or offices will be below 10 millirem per year -
that is that emission controls will be so stringent that no
individual can inhale a single particle of Pu-238 that would
produce a dose of 10 millirem or more in any year of operation.
IEER does not necessarily endorse any of the alternatives. The
above recommendations are made in order that IEER can assess and
compare the impacts of the alternatives, which is not possible
from the present set of EIS's related to this project, including
DOE/EIS-0373D for which these comments were prepared.
(Note: Typos and minor corrections were made to this version
after sending to the DOE.)
Relevant links:
+ DOE page on the Draft EIS for the Proposed Consolidation of
Nuclear Operations Related to Production of Radioisotope Power
Systems
+ Snake River Alliance, Idaho's nuclear watchdog
+ Global Network Against Weapons & Nuclear Power in
SpaceInstitute
for Energy and Environmental ResearchComments
to ieer at ieer.org
Takoma Park, Maryland, USA
August 29, 2005
Posted September 16, 2005
*****************************************************************
56 Bradenton Herald: Scientist warns of Tallevast dangers
09/18/2005 |
DONNA WRIGHT
Herald Staff Writer
TALLEVAST - The toxic plume under Tallevast could be far more
dangerous than Lockheed Martin Corp. and government agencies
admit, warns a nationally known environmental scientist.
The health risks and property damage could extend far beyond
Tallevast, predicts chemist Wilma Subra, a technical adviser for
the Louisiana Environmental Action Network.
Subra reviewed environmental reports on Tallevast at The
Herald's request.
Lockheed declined to comment on her findings in an e-mail to The
Herald.
"Subra's comments are subject to interpretation," said Meredith
Rouse Davis, Lockheed spokeswoman. "Instead of addressing third
party comments submitted through the press, Subra is welcome to
submit her detailed comments to the Florida Department of
Environmental Protection for review and consideration. We will
continue to do everything in our power to properly address the
environmental conditions relating to the former American
Beryllium Co. facility. We will continue to follow state
protocol; if more sampling is needed, the state will request
it."
Davis declined further comment.
Lockheed officials have contended all along that the plume
stemming from the former Loral American Beryllium Co. plant
poses no threat to Tallevast.
Residents believe the toxins and discharges from the facility
are responsible for widespread illnesses and deaths within the
community.
The plume, residents say, has devalued their property, making it
difficult to sell or remodel their homes or obtain financing to
do so.
Lockheed, which bought the plant in 1996 and was owner when the
contamination was first discovered in 2000, has repeatedly
defined the plume as too small and too deep to affect property
value or the health and safety of the residents.
The Herald asked Subra to review Lockheed's data to shed light
on those disputes.
Expert knowledge
Over her career, Subra has provided pro bono technical
assistance to more than 500 fenceline communities, primarily
low-income and minority neighborhoods threatened by discharges
and pollution from nearby industry. She was one of the
investigators in the Love Canal incident in New York.
In 2003, Subra won the Volvo for Life Award for her work on
behalf of residents of Diamond, La., located next to a chemical
factory.
Her volunteer technical assistance helped to establish that
dangerous emissions from the chemical plant caused respiratory
illnesses and high rates of cancer among Diamond's 300
residents. Her efforts helped to relocate residents after
receiving above-market-value compensation for their homes.
Subra is president of Subra Co., an environmental testing firm
in New Iberia, La. She has served on advisory committees for the
Environmental Protection Agency and the White House and has
given presentations to U.S. Senate and House committees.
Her resume includes work for the National Cancer Institute, the
Gulf South Research Institute and other academic institutions.
She has taught at the secondary and university level.
Subra has no connection to Tallevast or vested interests in any
of the parties involved.
Relocation justified
After poring over Lockheed's 15-pound Site Assessment Report
Addendum 2, Subra said she disagreed with the defense giant's
conclusion that the plume is too small and too deep to pose a
public health threat.
"No, this is not a small plume. It is a dangerous plume," Subra
said. "It is very deep in some places and very shallow in other
areas, and it is under a residential neighborhood.
"If they don't consider the contamination residents were exposed
to from drinking the well water, they will miss everything,"
Subra said.
Moreover, Subra said, Lockheed's data fall short of defining the
plume and instead raise more questions on how and where the
toxic spill is migrating underground.
Subra suspects - as does Lockheed - that there are multiple
sources of the plume. If so, she warned, those additional
sources must be considered in any remediation plan.
Even though Lockheed's data are incomplete, existing well
samples and tests contained in the Lockheed report, Subra said,
absolutely justify Tallevast residents' demands for relocation.
And that relocation area, Subra warns, could extend well beyond
Tallevast once the full extent of the plume is known.
Any relocation discussion and resolution, Subra said, must occur
before state regulators approve Lockheed's plans to remediate
the plume to make sure all of the property owners and residents
affected are included.
Conclusions not supported
Lockheed is proposing to remediate only the contaminated area
under the former beryllium plant, operated by Loral American
Corp. from 1961 through 1966.
Levels of toxic waste throughout the residential area, Lockheed
said, are not high enough to warrant remediation and will
eventually be taken care of by natural attenuation.
Subra said Lockheed's own data does not support that conclusion.
If the state accepts Lockheed's cleanup plan, Subra warned, the
company will have no obligation to run more tests to further
define the plume.
"If they are going to contend that they are going to do only
natural attenuation, there is an argument to be made that they
don't have to do anything more to delineate the plume. All they
have to do is monitor it, and they will contend they have enough
wells to do that," Subra said.
Subra pointed out that Lockheed doesn't have enough wells now to
provide sampling over a long enough period of time to know the
true nature of the plume.
"Monitoring wells are missing in the northwest corner of the
residential area," Subra said. "If Lockheed does not look at
that area, it is missing a host of other issues."
Some homeowners in that northwest quadrant have wells that have
tested positive for trichloroethylene, or TCE, yet those homes
are drawn outside of the plume area as defined by Lockheed's
tests. TCE is an industrial solvent that has been linked to
cancer, nuerological problems and lower birth weights in humans.
Those homes are just blocks away from a sewer line on 17th
Street Court East that Lockheed has identified as a preferential
exposure pathway, meaning contaminates could use the route to
come to the surface.
The Lockheed report says data collected contradict that finding
because tests found only low levels of contamination.
Subra said the sewer line problem cannot be dismissed so easily.
She said Lockheed must determine exactly what is going on with
that sewer line before it can be dismissed as a potential
exposure pathway.
More tests needed
When Tallevast drinking and irrigation wells were found to be
contaminated one year ago, Manatee County ran temporary water
lines to those households affected so they could stop using
their wells.
The county wants to move quickly to replace those temporary
lines with permanent water connections.
Subra warned that no county lines should be put into that area
until more testing is done around that suspect sewer line to
determine whether it presents an exposure risk.
And that testing, she said, must be done on a quarterly basis to
determine how seasonal changes affect migration of the plume.
Subra also said Lockheed cannot dismiss vapor intrusion from
soil contaminants such as TCE just on the basis of one 24-hour
period of testing done by the state at four sites near the
plant.
Because areas of TCE contamination have been found at 10 feet
below the surface in some areas of Tallevast, the possibility of
vapor intrusion cannot be dismissed she said.
Not enough monitoring wells have been drilled to determine where
the plume might be branching off at different levels, Subra
said.
'A dynamic situation'
Subra is concerned how the pumping action of private wells may
have affected the migration of the plume.
Those wells may test differently when they are in use or not in
use because it is the pumping action that can draw the
contaminants to the surface, Subra warned.
Lockheed's data were collected after residents were told to stop
using their wells.
"They may test differently," Subra warned, "because you wouldn't
have the draw. It may be that migration pattern has changed.
Somebody needs to be looking at what the plume would look like
when all of the pumps were running."
Subra suspects the deep well at a golf driving range on the
grounds of Sarasota-Bradenton International Airport may be
drawing the plume toward that area.
"The issue is that the wells may be serving as a conduit for the
contamination to go deeper and the vapors to rise," Subra said.
"This is a dynamic situation here and that is why I said they do
not have enough information to say they don't have a problem."
She suggested restarting the wells and running tests after they
have been in use for a while - after moving residents out of the
area.
Vapor tests are absolutely necessary throughout the area of the
plume, Subra said, and even in a buffer area beyond the
boundaries of the plume, once the configuration is known.
After reviewing the vapor intrusion study report state health
officials submitted of the 24-hour test run in August 2003,
Subra questioned whether the samples were analyzed in a timely
manner after they were collected.
She believes enough time passed for the volatile gases collected
to dissipate.
Subra also questions the timing of the tests that were taken
after residents stopped using their wells.
"If you are going to do exposure tests, you need some sort of
method to determine what vapors were coming up when the well was
being used," Subra said.
The ideal situation for vapor testing, Subra said, would be to
move residents who had drinking water and irrigation wells out
of the their homes, turn the wells on along with the showers,
dishwashers and sprinklers and then do the tests.
Outdoor vapor tests are necessary as well, Subra said.
Lockheed has not done any of its own vapor tests, but is relying
on the state health officials' tests.
Subra questioned why Lockheed had not done vapor tests over the
sewer line on 17th Street Court East, which its own tests
indicate as a potential exposure pathway.
Soil data incomplete
Lockheed's soil data is also lacking, Subra found.
"There are a lot of unanswered questions about the soil," Subra
said. "Hopefully when the community finishes its independent
testing, it will be clearer."
Lockheed's tests have found arsenic, lead and benzo(a)pyrene, a
known carcinogen, in soil samples, but those chemicals, Lockheed
has concluded, do not come from the beryllium plant site.
While arsenic is found in Florida soil, Subra said, those
naturally occurring levels are lower than what Lockheed found in
Tallevast.
"These levels exceed criteria, and Lockheed needs to take the
responsibility to remove this stuff," said Subra. "It is very
important that they consider this when they do a health
investigation."
That health investigation, Subra said, must include an
assessment of historical risk exposures as well as current and
future exposure risk. A door-to-door historical health survey of
Tallevast households should be part of that assessment process,
she said.
Current and future exposure risks must be weighed in determining
future land-use of the site, said Subra, who warned against
construction or development that may create new pathways for the
contaminants to escape to the surface.
Subra said she suspects that once the true nature of the plume
is known, a large area of land may be off-limits for deep
construction or large buildings.
Government inaction
After analyzing the report, Subra said she was astounded that
local and state regulators allowed this situation to happen. She
questioned why Lockheed would have purchased the facility
without doing its homework.
Lockheed purchased the beryllium plant in 1996 in a corporate
buyout of Loral. When Lockheed was preparing to sell the
property in 2000, an environmental audit revealed a broken sump
that had leaked cancer-causing chemicals and industrial solvents
into surrounding soil and groundwater. Although Lockheed
informed county and state environmental officials about the
plume, residents did not learn of the toxins in their backyard
until late 2003.
Lockheed is responsible for cleaning up the mess because the
contamination was discovered when it owned the facility.
"Why no due diligence on Lockheed's part?" Subra asked. "Why
didn't the county and state act when they learned of the problem
in 2000? They should have evaluated the problem and required the
company to take action. This happened in 1996 and 2000, not 20
years ago when we didn't have procedures in place. This should
not have happened in 2000."
Wanda Washington, vice president of the community advocacy group
Family Oriented Community United Strong (FOCUS), said Subra
confirmed what Tallevast leaders have been saying all along: The
plume threatens residents' health and safety, and residents
should be relocated.
Both the county and the state have liability in this situation,
Subra contends.
More than 200 Tallevast residents filed a negligence and
trespassing complaint on Sept. 1 against Lockheed, Loral Corp.,
Wire Pro Inc., WPI Sarasota Division Inc., the company now
operating out of the old beryllium plant, and BECSD, the Florida
holding company that currently owns the site.
No legal actions have been taken against Manatee County or state
agencies, but Tallevast attorneys last week asked county
commissioners to agree to extend the statute of limitations to
give residents more time to consider whether to pursue action
against the county.
Commissioners denied that request.
Donna Wright, health and social services reporter, can be
reached at 745-7049 or at dwright@HeraldToday.com.
*****************************************************************
57 Las Vegas RJ: YUCCA MOUNTAIN: New chief vows quality
Saturday, September 17, 2005
DOE officials leave schedule unsettled By STEVE TETREAULT
STEPHENS WASHINGTON BUREAU
WASHINGTON -- Energy Department officials Thursday declined to
set new schedule goals for Yucca Mountain, with a new project
leader saying the focus will be on quality and safety on the
nuclear waste project.
"The schedule is very important, but doing it right is even
more important," said Paul Golan, acting director of the Office
of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management.
Golan was assigned to the repository program in April by Energy
Secretary Samuel Bodman. Golan, a former Navy officer, said he
planned to instill an "accountability culture" that has been the
hallmark of the Navy's nuclear propulsion program.
"The 'trust and verify' process is something we are going to put
into the culture here," Golan said at a meeting between Yucca
Mountain managers and staff members from the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission.
"A quality organization does things right the first time and
holds people accountable for doing things right the first time,"
he said.
Yucca Mountain missed its original 1998 scheduled opening, and
a revised target of 2010 was abandoned earlier this year.
The project won the endorsement of President Bush and Congress
in 2002 but has been buffeted by missteps, legal and technical
obstacles, and budget shortfalls. This year, five managers have
quit, retired, been reassigned or had their appointments expire.
Deputy Director John Arthur declined to say when DOE might be
ready to take the next big step at Yucca Mountain, which would
be to submit a license application to the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission.
"We're not really setting a revised date for submittal" he said.
Bodman told the Senate in January that the department would
have a license application ready to file by the end of the year.
But since then, the disclosure in March of e-mails written by
federal hydrologists has raised questions about the validity of
water infiltration studies and is forcing the department into a
major research reconstruction.
Also this spring, teams of engineers warned that the department
needed to redesign fuel-handling warehouses at the Yucca site to
account for radioactive spent fuel that might arrive in damaged
assemblies.
The developments will occupy the department in the months
ahead, Arthur said, with revising calculations to determine
whether Yucca Mountain could meet new radiation safety standards
proposed by the Environmental Protection Agency.
"An amount of critical work is still under way," Arthur said.
Copyright Las Vegas Review-Journal
*****************************************************************
58 Las Vegas RJ: Study shows safety of casksfor nuclear waste, NRC says
Saturday, September 17, 2005
Agency aims to ease concerns about shipments to Yucca Mountain
By STEVE TETREAULT
STEPHENS WASHINGTON BUREAU
WASHINGTON -- The Nuclear Regulatory Commission released a draft
study Thursday it claims demonstrates the durability of casks
likely to be used to carry nuclear waste to Yucca Mountain.
In 2002, NRC analysts concluded a dual purpose welded cask
designed for railroad transport of radioactive spent fuel would
survive an intense fire similar to one in the Howard Street
tunnel in downtown Baltimore in 2001.
Expanding on that study, the NRC subjected two additional cask
types to Baltimore-fire conditions calculated through computer
modeling. One was a truck cask, while the other was a rail
container. Each type is sealed with bolts instead of welds.
"In all three types of casks, there would not be any release of
spent fuel," Earl Easton, senior NRC transportation adviser,
said in a briefing on the expanded report.
The study concluded that, for two of the models, it might be
possible for a small amount of contaminated metallic residue to
flake from spent fuel assemblies, but not enough to be of
concern.
Critics of the Yucca Mountain program have focused on the
Baltimore fire, charging that it demonstrates the risk facing
the government as it plans large-scale shipping of highly
radioactive materials to a Nevada repository.
A freight train carrying hazardous liquids, paper products and
pulp board derailed in the tunnel. A tank car containing 28,600
gallons of liquid tripropylene ignited, causing a severe fire
and forcing a downtown evacuation.
The state of Nevada has commissioned studies that conclude that
radioactive particles would have been released into the
surrounding neighborhoods if the trapped cars had been carrying
canisters of nuclear waste.
Easton said Thursday the NRC believes those studies used
outdated assumptions.
Bob Halstead, a transportation consultant for Nevada, said
state-hired experts will review and critique the latest NRC
study.
Copyright Las Vegas Review-Journal
*****************************************************************
59 Montrose Daily Press: Recent mining boom sparks environmental impact concerns
Saturday, September 17, 2005
Matt Hildner
Daily Press Writer
MONTROSE -- The rise in uranium prices on the world market has
triggered the return of mining for the metal in the West End of
Montrose County.
In some places mining now takes place within sight of cleanup
efforts that resulted from the previous mining boom.
The resumption of mining in the West End has prompted concerns
about its effect on the surrounding environment and the
transport of uranium ore to Cañon City for refining, although
many local in the West End support the return of the area's
former economic mainstay.
Unlike the earlier booms in uranium mining, there are no mills
in the area to refine the ore that miners dig out.
Those mills played central roles in the pollution that triggered
the demolition of Uravan and its designation as a superfund
cleanup site. The effects of milling uranium during the Cold War
have also left their mark in other parts of the region as
Naturita, Grand Junction, and Gunnison all had smaller federally
funded cleanups on the site of their former mills.
While uranium milling is gone from the West End, so too are the
days when mining operations dug with little or no oversight,
according to Russ Means, an environmental protection specialist
with the Colorado Division of Minerals and Geology (DMG).
"The days of just going out and starting to dig a hole are long
gone," he said. "We ask for a lot more information now, and the
operators have to take a hard look at considerations they didn't
have to make in the late '60s and early '70s."
The Colorado Division of Minerals and Geology regulates all
uranium-mining sites in the state, although the U.S. Department
of Energy also has similar regulatory process for mines
operating on DOE-leased land.
The companies that open mines must go through a permitting
process and have a reclamation plan detailing how a company will
deal with the clean-up process of its operation. They also must
secure a reclamation bond that ensures the clean up will take
place if the company walks away.
Bruce Humphries, supervisor of the of minerals program for the
DMG, said the reclamation plan looks at how an operation would
affect ground water quality, wildlife, and surface water
quantity.
"It's really site specific," Humphries said.
And although the five mines being operated by the Cotter
Corporation right now resumed activity on the basis of old
permits that had not expired, all uranium mines in the area
could be subject to more scrutiny if the state decides to
classify them as designated mining operations.
"Those receive a higher level of review because they could
potentially have a higher degree of impact," Humphries said.
"It's a little bit more of an intense review."
But the state has yet to impose that designation on any of the
mines in production, according to Means.
"Currently there are none that are classified as designated
mining operations," Means said. "We are reviewing all of the
applications to see if they fit into that category."
The federal government is also set to take another look at the
effects of mining on its lease tracts.
The Department of Energy will issue a Draft Environmental
Assessment for public comment sometime in mid-November,
according to Tracy Plessinger, the site lead for the DOE's
Uranium Leasing Program. The department has yet to decide,
however, if the assessment will focus only on the 13 active
leases in the area or if it will also include 25 inactive leases.
Although the milling operations from decades past often had
direct impact on the San Miguel River, Means said the location
of the current operations reduce the chance of any direct
impacts.
"Most of them are in Paradox Valley and on Monogram Mesa, up
where it's high and dry, several miles away from any active
water source," he said.
Wildlife impacts are also taken into consideration by the state
when evaluating mining operations and their reclamation plans.
Jim Garner, a wildlife conservation biologist, with the state
Division of Wildlife, said likely concerns associated with the
renewed mining would look at mule deer and Gunnison Sage Grouse
habitat and the bats that made homes in old mines.
The bird, which is a candidate for listing under the federal
Endangered Species Act, has habitat in the Dry Creek Basin,
which lies about 10 miles southeast of Monogram Mesa.
"There may be some truck traffic. It depends on which mines open
up and how much traffic there is," Garner said.
As of now, Means said, all of the mines on the mesa ship their
ore on Colo. 91, thereby avoiding the basin. He added, though,
that if a new milling operation opens in Blanding, Utah, some of
the smaller mining companies that have yet to begin mining might
truck their ore through Dry Creek Basin.
Once the uranium ore has been pulled from the ground, it's
shipped to Cañon City on a route that brings the ore through
Montrose.
Capt. Allan Turner, the officer in charge of hazardous material
transport safety and response with the Colorado State Patrol,
said the uranium ore is a non-regulated material while it's on
the road.
"Uranium ore is specifically exempted," he said. "It's when it's
refined that it becomes an issue as far as being a hazardous
material."
"Uranium ore in and of itself doesn't fall under the hazards
classes and therefore doesn't fall under the hazards
regulations," he added.
As a result, the truckloads of uranium ore shipments do not
carry the placard warnings as would, for example, shipments of
contaminated material leaving Rocky Flats on the Front Range.
Nevertheless some people along the route are concerned about the
truckloads of uranium coming from the West End to Cañon City.
Patty Painter owns a business along Highway 62 as it runs
through Ridgway.
"Should there be an accident, these roads are pretty
well-traveled," she said.
Her objections to the resumption of uranium mining also expand
to the big picture of how our world uses it.
"The whole issue concerns me, from the mining to the transport,
from the way it's used to the weapons to the power," she said.
Those big picture concerns are also shared by San Miguel County
Commissioner Art Goodtimes.
"Until we as a people solve the radioactive waste problem, not
just defer it into the future, the resumption of uranium mining
anywhere in the world seems irresponsible at best," he wrote in
an e-mail message, "and New Orleans-style catastrophic in some
not-so-distant, seven-generations future."
Nucla Mayor Mary Helen deKoevend, who lived in Uravan during the
1950s, said she doesn't hear much from people in her town about
environmental concerns with mining.
"I'm sure the government is making them do all kinds of safety
regulations that they didn't back then," she said.
She did say, however, that mining might be starting to make an
impact on the area's economy.
"The only way I can tell is the sales tax and it's up. It had
been down for quite a while."
Contact Matt Hildner via e-mail at matth@montrosepress.com
Copyright © 2005 Montrose Daily Press
*****************************************************************
60 Las Vegas SUN: Editorial: Questions on oversight
September 16, 2005
LAS VEGAS SUN
The U.S. Energy Department wants to cut by 89 percent what it
pays to another government agency to conduct independent
scientific research on the department's Yucca Mountain project.
The cuts, affecting the U.S. Geological Survey, would
effectively end that agency's oversight of the project. If
granted a license to operate, Yucca Mountain, 90 miles northwest
of Las Vegas, would store 77,000 tons of high-level nuclear
waste. The department's action is raising questions from
Nevada's congressional delegation, especially since both
agencies are at the center of a controversy as to whether some
USGS scientists may have falsified data regarding how water
moves through the mountain. The allegations that scientific work
had been altered have been the focus of a congressional probe by
Rep. Jon Porter, R-Nev., since April.
USGS officials have told aides to Senate Minority Leader Harry
Reid, D-Nev., that no clear reason for the cuts was offered by
the Energy Department. Rep. Shelley Berkley, D-Nev., said the
cuts give the Energy Department a means to get rid of employees
"who may know exactly what corners were cut and what findings
were doctored." She also added that cutting the USGS funding is
the latest sign that the Bush administration isn't interested
"in answering lingering questions about the shoddy science and
lack of quality assurance that has been well documented." And
Rep. Jim Gibbons, R-Nev., in a letter to Energy Secretary Samuel
Bodman, asks whether the research conducted by the USGS will now
be done by the Energy Department or an outside agency.
The only thing clear about the Yucca Mountain project is that
it should have been shut down years ago. In this latest mess,
the Energy Department -- and Bodman specifically -- needs to
give straight answers about why the USGS oversight of the Yucca
Mountain Project may be ending.
All contents copyright 2005 Las Vegas SUN, Inc.
*****************************************************************
61 Las Vegas SUN: Columnist Jeff German: Quality time for DOE? Not likely
September 17, 2005
Jeff German's column appears Tuesdays, Wednesdays, Fridays and
Sundays in the Sun. Reach him at german@lasvegassun.com or (702)
259-4067.
QUALITY HAS never been associated with the Energy Department's
oversight of Yucca Mountain.
Safety standards for storing deadly nuclear waste there were
tossed out by a federal court, research allegedly was rigged by
government scientists and the project was recommended to
Congress before all of the geological studies were completed.
So when a top Energy Department official told the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission last week that, after more than two
decades of mismanaging the project, it had decided to focus on
the quality of its work at this 11th hour, the news was met with
skepticism in Nevada.
Paul Golan, the acting chief of the multibillion-dollar Yucca
Mountain project, 90 miles from Las Vegas, said the Energy
Department no longer had a timetable to submit its long-overdue
license application to the commission.
"It's going to be ready when its done," Golan said. "A quality
organization does things right the first time."
Peggy Maze Johnson, the executive director of Citizen Alert, an
anti-Yucca Mountain group, was almost speechless when told of
Golan's remarks.
"It just takes your breath away," she said. "Do they think
we're that stupid?
"You can't take something that is so flawed and turn it into a
quality product. It's absolutely an impossible task."
Bob Loux, the state's top Yucca Mountain watchdog, likened
Golan's words to putting a fresh coat of paint on a house that's
crumbling and falling apart.
"They've got a scientifically bad site, and none of this
polishing up changes any of that," he said. "It's a bad site and
it will always be a bad site."
The fact is the Energy Department has been more concerned over
the years about the politics of Yucca Mountain than the quality
of the project.
No one believes the federal agency has even the slightest
chance of suddenly turning into a "quality organization."
For the last 22 years, the Energy Department has been
manipulating the project's scientific data to appease the
influential nuclear power industry, which is running out of room
to store radioactive waste at its plants across the country.
During this time, according to Loux, Yucca Mountain has had 13
different directors.
Loux sees Golan's words as yet another attempt to cater to the
nuclear power industry, which has been left with the sinking
feeling that the project is on the verge of collapsing.
"They're desperately trying to demonstrate that there's some
credibility here when everyone knows there isn't and never has
been," Loux said.
With setback after setback in recent years, the Energy
Department has been forced to delay its scheduled opening of
Yucca Mountain.
The project was supposed to begin accepting waste in 2010. Then
the date was pushed back to 2012, and now some Energy Department
officials have been saying the project won't be ready to open
until 2017.
The department's massive application, which is expected to
include more than three million documents, also was supposed to
have been filed with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in 2002.
But now we're told there is no timetable. The application may be
submitted sometime next year.
A "quality organization" would stop the lies and give us the
straight story about the incompetence taking place at Yucca
Mountain.
It would shut down a project that is not meant to be and find
another solution to storing nuclear waste -- far away from
Nevada.
All contents copyright 2005 Las Vegas SUN, Inc.
*****************************************************************
62 AU GreenLeft: AWU pushes for uranium mining in Qld
www.greenleft.org.au
Bill Mason, Brisbane
A battle over uranium mining has divided the union movement in
Queensland, following the announcement by the right-wing-led
Australian Workers Union (AWU) that it will press Labor Premier
Peter Beattie's government to open uranium mines. Up until now
there have been no uranium mines in this state, despite it
having rich uranium deposits.
Labor federal resources spokesperson Laurie Ferguson has also
urged Beattie to scrap restrictions on uranium mining. This
follows pressure from the federal Coalition government and the
Queensland Resources Council, representing the state's mining
companies, to lift the state's ban on uranium mining.
AWU state secretary Bill Ludwig was quoted in the September 9
Brisbane Courier-Mail as saying that if someone wanted to open a
uranium mine in Queensland, his union would be there to “dig it
up”.
“We are supportive of uranium mining, no question. People have
to get their energy from somewhere”, Ludwig said.
However other unions have opposed the AWU plan, vowing to take
their fight against uranium mining to the floor of both the
Queensland and national ALP conferences, according to the
Courier-Mail.
Australian Manufacturing Workers Union state secretary Andrew
Dettmar said his union would strongly oppose the expansion of
uranium mining in Australia and the opening of uranium mines in
Queensland. “The legitimate argument that fossil fuels are
harming the atmosphere is not an excuse to accelerate the switch
to an even more dangerous product”, Dettmar said.
The Queensland branches of the Transport Workers Union and the
Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union have supported
the continued ban on uranium mining in Queensland.
So far, Beattie has refused to budge in response to Ferguson's
and the AWU's call. “I support the coal industry. I don't
support the uranium industry and I am not going to change my
mind”, held told the Courier-Mail.
From Green Left Weekly, September 21, 2005.
Authorised by K. Miller, 23 Abercrombie St, Chippendale, NSW
*****************************************************************
63 Spectrum: Utah is no place for nuke waste
Editorials St. George - www.thespectrum.com
Sunday, September 18, 2005
That, in essence, is what the Nuclear Regulatory Commission
decided last week when it voted to approve a license to Private
Fuel Storage to store nuclear waste on the Skull Valley Goshute
Indian Reservation. The plan is to store the waste in Utah until
Yucca Mountain is ready to accept the radioactive material.
Just when that will be is still up in the air. Of course, for
those of us living downwind from Yucca Mountain, the underground
storage facility within the nation's Nuclear Test Site is not a
better option.
Gov. Jon Huntsman Jr. is understandably upset by the decision
and vowed this week to "stand in the middle of the railroad
track" if that is what it takes to keep the nuclear waste out of
Utah. It's a bold statement, but one that should be supported by
all Utahns.
We also have on our side, interestingly enough, a wilderness
issue via a bill supported five years ago by then-Rep. Jim
Hansen that could block the building of the rail spur needed to
make the plan viable. But that hurdle isn't certain to block the
proposal.
Opponents are being led by Utah's congressional delegation, who
argue that the storage facility would be dangerously close to
areas in which fighter jets from Hill Air Force base fly on
training missions. Those jets sometimes use live ordnance as
part of their training. That scares many people who fear that a
jet crash or errant missile could hit the casks and allow
radioactive material to escape containment.
Proponents of the plan - including PFS, the private company
seeking to create the facility - counter that the plan has been
scrutinized over and over again for about eight years. They
point out that tests on the casks show that they can withstand
an incredible amount of punishment and should be safe for use,
even above ground on the Goshutes Reservation.
If that is the case, then why not keep the nuclear waste where
it is until either Yucca Mountain or another permanent facility
is ready? Why move it from those locations at all?
The answer is a federal law that requires the federal
government to provide a long-term storage facility. Congress
approved it back in the 1980s. But because the federal
government dragged its feet, there is nowhere to store the waste.
That makes Utah a target.
Contact Rep. Jim Matheson. Contact Sens. Orrin Hatch and Robert
Bennett. Contact Gov. Huntsman. Let them know that you stand
behind them in their fight to keep nuclear waste out of Utah.
Our beautiful state shouldn't be the dumping ground for others.
Originally published September 18, 2005
Copyright ©2004 The Spectrum. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
64 Salt Lake Tribune: No glow of friendship between Hatch, Reid
Last Updated: 09/18/2005 08:37:25 AM
Nuclear: The Utahn says opposing Yucca plan will harm the state's
fight against waste
By Robert Gehrke The Salt Lake Tribune
WASHINGTON - They're nuclear neighbors with a radioactive
rift.
Sen. Orrin Hatch of Utah and Senate Minority Leader Harry
Reid of Nevada are both committed to keeping nuclear waste from
being dumped in their state. But Hatch remains unwilling to join
forces with his colleague, fearing it might actually hurt Utah's
cause.
Reid argues the nuclear waste should be stored at the
reactors that produce it until technology is available to
recycle the material. That course would make proposed waste
sites in Yucca Mountain, Nev., or on the Skull Valley Goshute
Indian reservation in Utah unnecessary.
But Hatch says it could be counterproductive to join that
cause.
"Some have said I should join with Senator Reid in a
West-wide movement against Yucca Mountain," Hatch said in a
recent interview. But, aside from the Nevada delegation, he said
Western members support burying the waste at Yucca Mountain.
"We've made a lot of headway with the White House, the
Department of Energy, the Department of Interior, in Congress,"
he said. "If we join Senator Reid at this time in an anti-Yucca
Mountain stance, that would alienate some of those who are best
positioned to help us."
Ideally, Hatch has said it would be best to leave the nuclear
waste where it is, rather than shipping 44,000 tons of it to
Utah, as Private Fuel Storage, a group of electric utilities,
proposes. He offered an amendment to the Senate Energy Bill,
which he later withdrew, that would have required storage at the
reactor sites, and he also supports finding ways to recycle and
reuse the waste.
But his refusal to buck the Bush administration and oppose
Yucca Mountain is drawing criticism from some.
"I think it is extremely foolish and shortsighted for Senator
Hatch to pursue the path he's been going down," said Rep.
Shelley Berkley, D-Nev. "The only way we're going to stop
nuclear waste from coming to Utah or Nevada is for both states
to work together toward one common goal and that is keeping the
waste where it is and finding alternate disposal technology."
Gov. Jon Huntsman Jr. and Democratic U.S. Rep. Jim Matheson
have embraced Reid's proposal, and last week Utah Republican
Congressman Rob Bishop voiced his support for Reid's plan for
the first time after the Nuclear Regulatory Commission voted to
approve a license for the Private Fuel Storage site.
"I've been critical of Senator Reid in the past for not
necessarily helping us with this particular issue. But at the
same time, you have to give him credit. When he talked about
storage on site and recycling, that really is the long-term
solution for everyone," Bishop said. "It probably is time to see
if I can be helpful in moving his ideas forward. He may have
been ahead of the time when he said it."
Utah Republican Rep. Chris Cannon also is warming to the
idea, said his chief of staff, Joe Hunter. He does not support
ditching Yucca Mountain, Hunter said, "but he's certainly there
when it comes to finding better things to do with this stuff
than shipping it out West. He is much closer to Senator Reid's
position than most of the delegation was a year ago."
Sen. Bob Bennett, R-Utah, says the approach he and Hatch are
taking remains the best strategy for keeping the waste out of
Utah, since the alternatives are politically unrealistic.
"As we seek resolution to the challenge of storage of the
nation's nuclear waste, I remain in favor of storing it on site
at the facilities where it is produced," Bennett said in a
statement. "But because that option does not appear to be legally
or politically viable, I believe the administration's policy to
store the waste in a facility 2,000 feet below ground in the
Nevada desert remains the best alternative. Should a politically
viable alternative emerge, I will be willing to consider it."
Reid laid out his on-site storage plan earlier this year, but
has not introduced legislation to implement the idea. Berkley
introduced legislation in the House in February to require
on-site storage and shift the money allocated to preparing the
Yucca Mountain site into reprocessing technology, but its
prospects for passage are slim.
Republican state Rep. Steve Urquhart of St. George decided to
challenge Hatch for the party's nomination based mainly on the
incumbent's nuclear-waste stance.
Urquhart says it is flawed logic for Hatch to continue to
support Yucca Mountain, because it also means supporting the
notion that the nuclear waste should be moved. If the waste is
shipped, Urquhart says, it won't go to Yucca Mountain, which is
years behind schedule and mired in a legal and regulatory
morass. It will come to Skull Valley.
"The argument should be it shouldn't move. It should stay
where it is until we come up with a permanent solution," said
Urquhart. "[Hatch should] admit that [he's] wrong. Admit that
[he] should've got behind keeping it on site and not change. I
think he's willing to gamble with the state's fortune just for
his own election."
There has been tension between Reid and the Utah Republicans
since Hatch and Bennett voted in 2002 to back the Bush
administration's plan to permanently store the nuclear waste in
Yucca Mountain. Since then, Reid has been accused by the Utahns
of spitefully scuttling legislative attempts to try to block the
Skull Valley project.
"Senator Reid is a good friend of mine," Hatch said, "but he
has shown that he doesn't have Utah's best interests in mind."
The recent morning the NRC approved the Private Fuel Storage
license, however, Reid was among the first to issue a statement,
saying it would be just as dangerous to ship the waste to Utah
as it would be to send it to Nevada. He again called for the
waste to stay where it is.
Given his choices, Berkley says, Hatch is kidding himself if
he thinks he can count on the White House to stop the Private
Fuel Storage plan.
"He's inhaling the nuke waste fumes, I'm afraid," she said.
"The only way he's going to protect the health and safety of his
own constituents is stand with the Nevada delegation and the
people of the state of Nevada. And Utah and Nevada will be much
stronger working together."
© Copyright 2005, The Salt Lake Tribune.
*****************************************************************
65 Deseret News: Utahns irked by N.Y. Times editorial
[deseretnews.com]
Saturday, September 17, 2005
Backing of Goshute dump spurs state leaders' anger By
Jerry Spangler Deseret Morning News
Read the New York Times editorial "The Nuclear Waste Site in
Utah."
Deseret Morning News graphic
WASHINGTON — A New York Times editorial endorsing the storage of
spent nuclear fuel on Skull Valley's Goshute Indian Reservation
in Utah has prompted the expected outrage and contempt among Utah
political leaders.
But what is more worrisome, some say, is the Friday
opinion piece suggests Utah would be the appropriate place to
store nuclear waste even if a permanent site at Yucca Mountain,
Nev., does not proceed as planned.
"This seems like just another example of Easterners
thinking they know what's best for us in the West and trying to
tell us what to do with our lands," said Rep. Rob Bishop, R-Utah.
"It was clearly written by someone who has probably never
been to our west desert and obviously doesn't understand the
military implications of this proposal," he added. "To put a
nuclear waste facility in the direct flight path of jets
entering the most valuable test and training range our military
has just doesn't make sense. The Times should have been able to
recognize that."
In its editorial, the Times concluded, "We remain hopeful
that Yucca can qualify as a permanent disposal site. But if
Yucca fails to pass muster with the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, the nation will need a centralized surface site to
fill the gap until a safe burial location can be found. The
Indian reservation in Utah can fill that purpose."
Their rationale? Because it "becomes awkward and costly
to guard and maintain the storage casks after the reactors
themselves have been retired from service," the editorial says.
And, the piece added, "it seems desirable to have a backup site"
should Yucca Mountain not be approved.
The editorial makes a passing reference the "small, poor
Indian tribe" but makes no mention that Native Americans
elsewhere are almost unanimously opposed to the proposal, with
some groups even going so far as to call it environmental racism.
"The editorial speaks for itself, and we are not going to
discuss it," said Toby Usnik, spokesperson for the New York
Times.
Does the editorial endorse environmental racism and
Eastern elitism? "I can't comment on that," Usnik said.
Rep. Chris Cannon, R-Utah, with tongue planted firmly in
cheek, said he appreciated "the folks occupying the ivory tower
of the New York Times for their input on what's best for us. I
love it when intellectuals in New York decide that the best
nuclear waste policy is to get it out of their back yards and
ship it to Utah, which they probably still consider to be the
frontier."
Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, said it was apparent to him the
Times never really took the time to look into the matter,
dismissing in the editorial local concerns over the safety of
the site as "overblown."
"I wonder if the New York Times would be interested to
know that the NRC's Atomic Licensing Board initially rejected
the site as unsafe," he said. Private Fuel Storage, the
consortium of nuclear utilities promoting the Skull Valley site,
"was only able to turn that decision around after two of the
three judges on the board had been replaced. I would hope that
before the Times writes another piece on Skull Valley that they
at least read (the) judge's withering dissent."
Cannon chastised the Times over its erroneous contention
that PFS's proposal to store 44,000 tones of spent nuclear fuel
in above-ground canisters on Skull Valley tribal lands in Tooele
County, is a "private corporate" decision.
"This is about public policy and doing what is right and
safe for Utahns and everyone in the United States," he said. "It
makes absolutely no sense to transport this material across the
country at great risk only to ship it to another site if Yucca
Mountain was to fail for whatever reason."
Those feelings have been echoed by activists across the
nation since the NRC ruled last week that PFS should be granted
a license to store the waste. Closer to Utah, Jason Groenewold
with Healthy Environmental Alliance of Utah (HEAL) said he was
surprised the Times was willing to take a position without fully
understanding the issues at stake.
"Clearly they do not understand that there is a very real
risk that a jet could crash into the site, that the
possibilities of terrorist attacks were not even really
considered during the deliberations by the NRC, and that the
financial assurances were never disclosed to the public," he
said.
The problem he sees is that a lot of people read the
editorial position of the Times, and for many it could be their
first introduction to the issue without knowing the full details.
"They may think, 'Oh, yeah, what's the big deal?' because
the Times failed to mention what the fundamental problems are,
which relate to the risk of transportation, the possibility of
sabotage or terrorist attack, and that a major accident could
take place where no emergency response plan would be created to
deal with it."
For some, the editorial was as predictable as a Jason
Blair feature story.
Gov. Jon Huntsman Jr. called the editorial "stultifyingly
stupid," but added that it is "not uncharacteristic for the New
York Times' view of the world to end at the Hudson River."
Added Mary Jane Collipriest, spokeswoman for Sen. Bob
Bennett, R-Utah, "Sen. Bennett doesn't put much stock in the
opinions of the New York Times. Today's editorial demonstrates
why that's a good practice."
© 2005 Deseret News Publishing Company
*****************************************************************
66 Salt Lake Tribune: Don't blame me
Opinion
Article Last Updated: 09/16/2005 10:59:55 PM
With the prospect of highly radioactive waste coming to Utah
looking very likely, I am reminded of a recent chance to vote
for the Citizen's State Initiative No. 1.
This was a radioactive waste restriction act that would have
expanded the circumstances under which the governor and the
Legislature's approval would be required for a commercial
radioactive waste facility. Granted, if passed it may not have
overcome the issue of Goshute sovereignty, but it certainly would
have added a strong message from the taxpayers of Utah. I voted
for the initiative. How did you vote?
Rob Gilliland
Salt Lake City
© Copyright 2005, The Salt Lake Tribune.
*****************************************************************
67 foodconsumer: NAS Reports on Perchlorate Safety
Agri. & Environ.
NAS Reports on Perchlorate Safety
By Richard Dahl
Sep 16, 2005, 20:44
A National Academy of Sciences (NAS) panel has issued a final
report on the health implications of perchlorate ingestion,
recommending a reference dose of 0.0007 milligrams per kilogram
(mg/kg) body weight. But the debate over the health risks posed
by the chemical, used by the Department of Defense as a rocket
fuel additive, is far from over.
Perchlorate compounds have been used since the early 1900s, and
environmental perchlorate contamination was first seen in 1985
in wells at California Superfund sites. Since then, perchlorate
has been found in 35 states. In May 2004 the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) estimated that more than 11 million
Americans were drinking water from public supplies containing at
least 4 parts per billion (ppb) perchlorate.
Scientists agree that perchlorate can interfere with the
production of thyroid hormone since it competes for the uptake
of iodide by the thyroid gland. But beliefs about what level of
exposure constitutes a health risk vary widely. The Council on
Water Quality (CWQ), a chemical and aerospace industry group,
often cites a drinking water cutoff of 245 ppb. In contrast,
California recommends that drinking water contain no more than 6
ppb perchlorate, and Massachusetts recommends that pregnant
women and children not consume water with more than 1 ppb
perchlorate.
The broad disagreement, coupled with the prospect of massive
cleanup costs--estimated by some to be in the billions--prompted
the government to ask the NAS for guidance. According to panel
chair Richard B. Johnston, Jr., associate dean for research
development at the University of Colorado School of Medicine in
Denver, the 15-member group used as its starting point a
September 2002 EHP study headed by Monte A. Greer of Oregon
Health & Science University. This study was partially funded by
the Perchlorate Study Group, an organization created by the
Department of Defense and some of its contractors.
The Greer study concluded there was no inhibition of iodide
uptake by the thyroid at 0.007 mg/kg body weight. The panel
applied a 10-fold uncertainty factor to that figure to derive
its own reference dose. "We took what we feel is the most
conservative end point," says Johnston. "It's way short of any
kind of harm." Five weeks after the NAS made its report public,
the EPA responded by adopting the NAS dose level and translating
it into a drinking water equivalent level of 24 ppb.
But environmental groups have voiced heated disagreement with
the NAS findings. Gina Solomon, a senior scientist at the
Natural Resources Defense Council, says the report relied too
heavily on a study she calls statistically flawed because of the
small number of subjects (just 37). "As the effect [of
perchlorate ingestion] gets more subtle, the size of the study
group needs to be bigger to see if there's an effect there or
not," she says.
Further, she says, the report suffers from tunnel vision: "[The
NAS] should have been looking at the big picture on perchlorate,
and they didn't do that. The result was that their final report
hinged entirely on one controversial industry study."
Johnston responds that the panel also relied on four other
clinical studies as well as several epidemiologic and
perchlorate worker studies, all of which supported the Greer
findings. And James Strock, a former secretary of the California
Environmental Protection Agency who now works with the CWQ, says
the NAS findings will provide state and federal regulators "a
rare opportunity to promulgate regulations in a transparent
manner, working simultaneously from information collected and
considered by a world-class panel of experts."
Johnston agrees, however, that more research will be helpful,
especially on perchlorate's effects on sensitive populations,
such as pregnant women, nursing mothers, and infants. A study at
Texas Tech University, published 1 April 2005 in Environmental
Science & Technology, found that perchlorate levels in 36
samples of breast milk from nursing mothers in 18 states
averaged 10.5 ppb, meaning the mothers were ingesting far more
than 24 ppb. The study raises the possibility that some infants
may be ingesting perchlorate at levels exceeding NAS and EPA
safe doses.
Meanwhile, the controversy continues to play out, as described
in an upcoming EHP commentary (doi: 10.1289/ehp.8254, scheduled
for publication in September 2005 and available in draft form at
http://dx.doi.org/). Although the EPA has adopted the 24 ppb
figure as an "official reference dose," it's not yet an
enforceable standard, and Solomon says states are left to their
own devices. "Some are following the EPA lead, and others are
following the California lead," she says. "This means that
consumers in some states will be drinking water with higher
levels of perchlorate than consumers in other states. And that's
unfortunate."
Originally published by Envirnmental Health Perspectives in
July, 2005. Republished with permission.
© 2004-2005 by foodconsumer unless otherwise specified.
*****************************************************************
68 foodconsumer: Perchlorate Exposure: Tip of the Iceberg?
Agri. & Environ.
Perchlorate Exposure: Tip of the Iceberg?
By Rebecca Renner
Sep 16, 2005, 20:28
For several years, federal and state agencies have debated over
what is an acceptable level of human perchlorate exposure
through food and drinking water. Now Food and Drug
Administration (FDA) investigators have found the chemical in
milk and lettuce from 15 states, including some apparently
uncontaminated areas, showing that human exposure may come from
more sources than expected.
Perchlorate is used mainly in rocket fuel as well as in some
fertilizers and explosives. Perchlorate with no anthropogenic
source has been found at 20-60 parts per billion (ppb) in West
Texas groundwater and in trace amounts in precipitation, says
Texas Tech University chemist Purnendu Dasgupta. This suggests
atmospheric reactions may create a low background level of
perchlorate. Perchlorate disrupts thyroid function by
competitively inhibiting iodine uptake in a dose-dependent
fashion, with unquantified effects in humans.
In a November 2004 agency report, FDA scientists wrote of
finding an average 7.76-11.9 ppb perchlorate in about 90% of
lettuce samples from Arizona, California, Florida, New Jersey,
and Texas. They also found an average of 5.76 ppb in 97% of
cow's milk samples collected at stores in 14 states. Until more
is known about the health effects of perchlorate and its
occurrence in foods, the FDA continues to recommend that people
of all ages eat a balanced, healthy diet.
Parts of southern Arizona and California are irrigated with
river water containing roughly 4-6 ppb perchlorate, but
contamination is not known at the other sites. "The results are
surprising--we would have expected lettuce grown in known
perchlorate-contaminated areas to have higher concentrations
than lettuce from apparently uncontaminated areas," says Terry
Troxell, director of the FDA Office of Plant and Dairy Foods.
Troxell says samples with very high and very low values came
from the same place. For example, the highest lettuce
concentration was 71.6 ppb in iceberg lettuce from Belle Glade,
Florida. But another Belle Glade iceberg sample contained 1.3
ppb.
"I don't think it's possible to conclude anything about the
national food supply from this survey," says Kevin Mayer, the
Environmental Protection Agency Region 9 perchlorate
coordinator. Still, says Bill Walker, West Coast director for
the nonprofit Environmental Working Group, "The surprising data
suggest that this is a national problem and that risk
assessments have to account for dietary exposure."
In January 2005 the National Academy of Sciences reported that
more information is needed on food as a source of perchlorate
exposure. Meanwhile, the evidence rolls in. In the 26 January
2005 Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry, Texas Tech
researchers reported finding perchlorate in a variety of forage
and edible crops, including alfalfa and cantaloupe. The FDA is
also sampling tomatoes, carrots, cantaloupe, and spinach, with
results to come.
Republished from Environmental Health Perspectives with
permission. Originally published by EHP in April, 2005
© 2004-2005 by foodconsumer unless otherwise specified.
*****************************************************************
69 DenverPost.com: The pristine Rockies a toxic wasteland
OPINION
Article Launched: 09/18/2005 01:00:00 AM
By Bryan Hurlbutt and Caitlin O'Brady
Editor's note: This is the fourth in a periodic series about
regional trends and issues that were examined in the 2005
Colorado College State of the Rockies Report Card.
Every day, thousands of industrial and government facilities -
from pit mines to coal-burning power plants to food- processing
facilities to military installations - release tens of millions
of pounds of toxic pollution to the nation's air, water and
land.
It may seem like the Rocky Mountain region, with its relatively
sparse population and vast natural landscape, experiences
releases at a comparably low concentration, but "The Toxic
Rockies" section in the 2005 Colorado College State of the
Rockies Report Card finds that toxic chemical releases are more
concentrated in the Rockies than in the United States as a
whole, and Colorado's Front Range is one of the biggest regional
polluters.
This analysis used the most recent data from the
U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency's Toxics Release Inventory to measure the
release of six different groups of hazardous chemicals by
industrial and federal facilities to air, water and land in
2002.
Across Colorado, toxic air emissions and land releases per
square mile are below the average for the Rockies, but at the
same time Colorado's Front Range is home to a significant number
of the region's worst polluting counties. Out of 61 metropolitan
counties across the Rockies, Denver, Adams, Jefferson and
Boulder counties all rank in the top 10 for toxic air emissions.
For metropolitan toxic land releases, Adams and El Paso counties
earn top 10 rankings.
Toxic water discharges are 10 times higher in Colorado than the
Rockies' average. Six of the 10 biggest metropolitan toxic water
polluters are in the Front Range: Clear Creek, Adams, Jefferson,
El Paso, Weld and Pueblo counties.
In 2002, most toxic air emissions in Colorado came from electric
utilities (37 percent) and metal-fabricating industries (21
percent). The bulk of toxic land releases came from the metal
mining (46 percent), electric utilities (32 percent) and coal
mining (19 percent) industries. Almost 90 percent of Colorado's
toxic water discharges came from the food industry in 2002.
Counties are also ranked on overall toxic pollution, a composite
of their releases to air, water and land. For metro counties,
seven of the top 15 overall polluters in the Rockies are on
Colorado's Front Range. These counties are Adams, Jefferson,
Denver, Pueblo, El Paso, Weld and Clear Creek. Colorado's non-
metropolitan counties earned less alarming overall marks: Only
two out of 219 in the entire Rockies region made the top 15:
Morgan and Rio Grande counties.
What, then, is going on in the Rockies, especially along the
Front Range? Are facilities polluting carelessly? Is the
government being too lax in creating and enforcing pollution
standards? Are community residents simply willing to accept
pollution for jobs? Due to the broad nature of the report (280
counties), we could not examine these in-depth, site-specific
issues for individual counties, but the study still is valuable
because it highlights problem areas.
A historic and contemporary reality is that the United States
often treats the Rockies like an inland colony. The nation takes
what it wants, from minerals to timber to vacation homes, and
leaves behind the residuals, from hazardous abandoned mines to
devastated forests to cold-bed communities. We too often count
just the jobs and income, failing to account for the pollution
and disruption that accompany economic growth.
Dirty coal power plants in the Rockies generate power exported
to users outside the region. Military operations, such as
nuclear weapons testing and chemical weapons incineration,
are
carried out on the Rockies' abundant federal lands. Others'
hazardous wastes are stored, treated and disposed of here.
Keeping toxic pollution to a minimum is especially important
here in the Rockies, a region prized for its spectacular beauty
and abundant natural resources. We are an "amenity" region of
world-class proportions, providing recreation and tourism for
visitors and residents alike. Vigilance is necessary to protect
the very attributes that define our region's lifestyles and
values.
Industrial and federal facilities are and will continue to be
vital contributors to the Front Range economy, but their
operations must be held to the utmost scrutiny to ensure that we
do not risk too much of the Rockies' long-term future for
today's jobs. The EPA created the Toxics Release Inventory to
inform and empower citizens about toxic pollution in their
communities. The program continues to promote dialogue
with industry
and the government to ensure that all reasonable pollution
prevention measures are being taken and to pressure those
entities when they are not.
An informed regional citizenry is essential to protecting our
communities, economies and natural resources as they face the
dynamics of continued growth.
Bryan Hurlbutt is co-editor of the 2005 Colorado College State
of the Rockies Report Card. Caitlin O'Brady is a student
researcher.
All contents Copyright 2005 The Denver Post or other copyright
*****************************************************************
70 Oakland Tribune: Controversial bomb tests proposed at lab
Article Last Updated: 09/18/2005 03:15:54 PM
$4 billion Livermore laser proposal worries some fusion observers
By Ian Hoffman, STAFF WRITER
U.S. weapons scientists want to fire the world's largest laser at
targets resembling miniature atom bombs in experiments aimed at a
deeper understanding of the physics in thermonuclear weapons.
Critics say the experiments could lead to new, low-yield nuclear
explosives.
Details of the proposed experiments and their purposes are
classified, though weapons scientists say they are not pursuing
new kinds of nuclear bombs.
If approved by federal weapons authorities at the U.S. Department
of Energy, the laser shots would mark an unprecedented use of
weapons-grade plutonium and uranium in a U.S. fusion facility.
Shots on the new targets could begin in 2010 at the National
Ignition Facility, a massive laser complex at Lawrence Livermore
nuclear weapons lab.
In the 1990s and again in a recent environmental study, weapons
scientists and federal defense officials said the experiments
could fill gaps in understanding of critical aspects of weapons
physics.
But Clinton administration weapons officials called the
experiments "highly speculative" and told a 1995 panel of
scientists studying NIF's implications for development of new
weapons that "there is no intention on the part of the Department
to pursue these experiments.
When complete in 2008, NIF would be scientists' best shot in a
half-century of ion guns, magnetic chambers and other big lasers
at creating a tiny star inside a laboratory through pure fusion —
that is, without using a fission bomb as a lighting match, as in
H-bombs.
But with the new, classified targets, weapons scientists would be
departing from pure fusion and exploring thermonuclear explosions
on targets very similar to an atom bomb, with concentric shells
of beryllium and weapons-grade plutonium — just a gram or two of
each — containing a mix of two heavy hydrogen gases, tritium and
deuterium.
That's almost identical to the first stage of a thermonuclear
weapon, a grapefruit-sized hollow ball of beryllium and plutonium
surrounded by high explosives that serve as a fission match to
touch off fusion.
The experiment and the bomb differ in size and shape — modern
primaries tend to be oblong, shaped like eggs or watermelons —
and they differ in the means of detonation: imploding high
explosives for nuclear bombs versus a crushing fist of X-rays
created by 192 beams of intense laser light inside the Rose
Bowl-sized National Ignition Facility.
"What they're doing is trying to make a miniature H-bomb, not a
pure fusion explosion. They're on a totally different page than
the rest of the fusion community," said Ray Kidder, a former
senior manager over laser research at Lawrence Livermore and a
nonproliferation advocate.
The reason, he said, is obvious to anyone in the weapons world.
"The answer is to design new weapons, weapons that have different
characteristics and are based on a different way of making the
weapon detonate," Kidder said. "This is an absolutely whole new
ball game."
Some other fusion scientists are also concerned that the
classified experiments could taint the international pursuit of
fusion energy.
Stefan Atzeni, a physicist at the University of Rome and
co-author of a definitive textbook on laser fusion, said he
understands the need of U.S. scientists to learn more about
weapons physics. But he opposes the use of weapons-grade
plutonium in fusion experiments.
"Personally, I see these experiments as politically risky," he
wrote in an e-mail last week. "They certainly would not have a
positive impact on public perception of fusion: They may be
viewed as supporting weapons proliferation."
The Clinton and Bush administrations concluded that NIF posed no
proliferation risks in part because of the laser's enormous size
and cost — it could not be replicated into a feasible weapon —
and because experiments on NIF could yield rare insights into
physics at the extreme temperatures, energies and pressures found
only in stars and nuclear weapons.
Some physicists, including the late Theodore Taylor, a weapons
designer turned arms-control advocate, warned that the giant
laser might open the door to novel fusion weaponry, driven by
high explosives or magnetic fields.
Such experiments could make it harder for the United States to
persuade the United Nations to limit other nations' nuclear
research, said Christopher Paine, a senior weapons analyst for
the Natural Resources Defense Council.
"How does the United States look objecting to the nuclear energy
programs of other countries while it injects weapons research
functions into its search for fusion energy?" Paine said. "It
puts us in a frightfully hypocritical position."
This new class of weapons would turn the operation of existing
H-bombs inside out. Since the 1950s, virtually all nuclear
weapons in the arsenals of advanced nuclear powers have been
"boosted" designs. They inject fusion fuel into detonating atom
bomb of plutonium and use the fusion reactions to split even
more plutonium atoms. That dramatically raises the efficiency
of
the atom bomb, allowing weapons designers to shrink their size
and weight as fission triggers for thermonuclear weapons.
A possible new class of weapons is closer to fusion bombs, using
nuclear fission as a booster.
In some of the classified experiments proposed for the National
Ignition Facility, scientists would fire at a pellet that looks
rather like an atom bomb but is 100 times smaller. If the target
works — if it implodes perfectly and doesn't squirt out to the
sides — the pellet would be crushed smaller still, and the
hydrogen fusion fuel inside would fuse, releasing trillions of
neutrons.
Some neutrons will shatter the atomic nuclei of the plutonium
and produce hot fragments that deliver scads of energy back into
the fusion fuel, making it burn more efficiently. The plutonium
becomes an explosive to boost a tiny fusion bomb.
"It's 100 percent about new nuclear weapons that are just what
people are looking for because they're low-yield weapons with
reduced residual radiation," said Kidder, the retired Livermore
laser physicist.
Weapons scientists would not discuss the experiments in detail,
saying they are classified. But in response to written
questions, scientists at Livermore who declined to be identified
stressed that the experiments strictly were intended to improve
the understanding of ordinary H-bombs. The classified shots are
not "relevant to any new design," they wrote.
It is narrowing uncertainties in weapons physics, not exploring
new weapons, that is the rationale for the classified
experiments, according to Livermore's scientists.
If so, Kidder asks, why the secrecy?
"You put fission into it, and the world has to be kept out,"
Kidder said. "I would prefer they did not do any fusion
experiments with fission that were classified. But the whole
idea of doing things in a dark corner and doing things that
could lead toward proliferation, I don't favor that."
© 2005 ANG Newspapers
*****************************************************************
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: