*****************************************************************
11/10/05 **** RADIATION BULLETIN(RADBULL) **** VOL 13.262
*****************************************************************
RADBULL IS PRODUCED BY THE ABALONE ALLIANCE CLEARINGHOUSE
*****************************************************************
Send News Stories to news@energy-net.org with title on subject
line and first line of body
NUCLEAR POLICY
1 US: IPS-English MEDIA-US: Controversial WMD Reporter and NY Times
2 BBC: UN warns on Iraq environment fate
3 Guardian Unlimited: U.S., Europe Ready to Compromise With Iran
4 Guardian Unlimited: Iran close to nuclear deal
5 Guardian Unlimited: U.S., Europe Agree to Compromise With Iran
6 AFP: US and Europe to offer new nuclear proposal to Iran- report -
7 IRNA: Bushehr power station to be implemented - Moscow -
8 [NYTr] Smooth Start to Korean Nuke Talks
9 Guardian Unlimited: N.Korea Claims U.S. Undermining Nuke Talks
10 Guardian Unlimited: Six-Party Talks on North Korea Turn Sour
11 Guardian Unlimited: World Latest | N. Korean Criticism Casts Pall Ov
12 US: White House to 'hit back' at Democrats on WMD
13 Webindia123.com: India gets WNA backing on NPT discrimination
NUCLEAR REACTORS
14 US: NRC: NRC Begins Special Inspection of Electrical Problems in Shu
15 Guardian Unlimited: Britain buys into next generation of nuclear pow
16 US: NRC: NRC Considers Clarifications to Requirements for New Reacto
17 Daily Yomiuri: Serial number changed on Mihama N-plant pipe
18 BBC Energy gap: the cultural roots
19 US: NRC: Notice of Issuance of Amendment to Materials License SNM-25
20 US: APP.COM: Nuclear power use helps cushion natural gas price hike
21 US: ABC: Southern Nuclear finds discrepancy at Georgia plant -
22 US: LA Weekly: Features: Green to the Core? — Part 2
23 US: LA Weekly: Features: Green to the Core? — Part 1
24 US: courant.com: Energy Crunch May Be On Way
25 US: Boston Globe: More cracks found in Vermont Yankee steam dryer -
26 AGI: NUCLEAR: BERLUSCONI, EUROPE NEEDS NEW NUCLEAR PLANTS
27 US: Vermont Guardian: More cracks found in Vermont Yankee dryer
NUCLEAR SECURITY
28 VietNamNet Bridge: Australia to help VN ensure radioactive security
NUCLEAR SAFETY
29 [DU-WATCH] Has the nuclear catastrophe already arrived?
NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE
30 Guardian Unlimited: U.N. Urges Cleanup of Iraq Waste Sites
31 US: RGJ: Data pours in on mine site, immediate concerns examined
32 RGJ: Reid says funds have been secured for Walker River Basin projec
33 Nevada Appeal: Could nuke waste policy be turning around?
34 US: Bradenton Herald: Residents want case moved
35 US: AP Wire: Pieces of nuclear fuel rods missing at Ga. plant
36 reviewjournal.com: Yucca loses vote on funding
37 US: Las Vegas SUN: Environmentalists up in arms over new mining
38 Las Vegas SUN: Yucca's new boss facing a moving target
39 Forbes: Iraq faces 40 mln usd bill to clean up toxic, radioactive wa
40 US: NRC: Disposal of Radioactive Material by Release Into Sanitary S
41 US: Newsday.com: Diver in Indian Point spent fuel pool finds no leak
42 Berkley: Yucca Budget Cut Shows Growing Lack of Support in Congress
43 Reid: Senator Reid Will Not Oppose utah Wilderness Provision
44 US: AU ABC: Uranium groups urge Qld Govt to change policy -
45 US: AU ABC: Pressure mounts for uranium mining licence.
46 PRN: Southern Nuclear Makes Initial Spent Fuel Notification to U.S.
47 KLASTV.com: Shoshone Tribe Will Try Again to Stop Yucca Waste Dump
48 US: Tribune-Review: Group disputes radioactive ash burial safety
49 US: La Crosse Tribune: Meeting set on nuclear storage transportation
50 US: Guardian Unlimited: Utah Asks Court to Reject Nuclear Dump
PEACE
US DEPT. OF ENERGY
51 KTVB.COM: U.S. House passes Idaho nuclear lab funding bill
52 DOE: International Energy Agency Meeting
*****************************************************************
*****************************************************************
FULL NEWS STORIES
*****************************************************************
*****************************************************************
1 IPS-English MEDIA-US: Controversial WMD Reporter and NY Times
Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2005 16:57:36 -0800
ROMAIPS NA HD IC IP BW IK NC=20
MEDIA-US: Controversial WMD Reporter and NY Times Divorce
Jim Lobe
WASHINGTON, Nov 10 (IPS) - Was she an innocent dupe who was played mercil=
essly by exile chieftain Ahmed Chalabi and his neo-conservative and Penta=
gon backers who led the march to war with Iraq in March 2003?
Or was she a co-conspirator in what former Secretary of State Colin Powel=
l's chief of staff Lawrence Wilkerson called a =94cabal=94 that hijacked =
U.S. foreign policy in order to transform the Middle East, beginning with=
invasion of Iraq?
Now that the New York Times and its one-time star weapons of mass destruc=
tion (WMD) investigative reporter, Judith Miller, have formally divorced =
over what appear to be irreconcilable differences and the threat of a sta=
ff insurrection if her byline should ever appear on the pages of the =94G=
rey Lady=94 again, that question still hovers over an affair whose lesson=
s will be studied in media, journalism and political communications class=
es for decades.
Miller, who only six weeks ago was released from jail, where she had been=
held for 85 days for refusing to testify in a case involving the =94outi=
ng=94 of covert Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) officer Valerie Plame, =
promised in a =94Farewell=94 printed on the Times' Letters page Thursday =
to continue speaking out in her own defence at her Web site -- =94JudithM=
iller.org=94.
She had chosen to resign, she wrote, =94because over the last few months,=
I have become the news, something a New York Times reporter never wants =
to be=94.
For its part, the Times published a news article reporting that both side=
s had reached a severance agreement, details of which were not disclosed.
And while the executive editor, Bill Keller, and publisher Arthur Sulzber=
ger, Jr. -- whose perceived protection of Miller is widely blamed for the=
reluctance of her editors to rein her in over much of the past decade --=
issued the appropriate eulogies over her past award-winning work, the ar=
ticle also cited a Times spokeswoman as saying, =94it had been made clear=
to Ms. Miller that she would not be able to continue as a reporter of an=
y kind, not just one covering national security=94.
Indeed, that result was presaged two and a half weeks ago when the Times'=
Public Editor, Byron Calame, concluded an article entitled =94The Miller=
Mess=94 with the observation that =94...the problems will make it diffic=
ult for her to return to the paper as a reporter.=94 A similar point was =
made in the same Sunday edition by columnist Maureen Dowd in a withering =
critique entitled =94Woman of Mass Destruction=94.
Miller, of course, was sole or co-author of five of the six big stories a=
bout Iraq's alleged WMD programmes published by the Times between late 20=
01 and early 2003. They were subsequently repudiated in a stunning =94Edi=
tor's Note=94 published in May 2004, which most observers interpreted as =
an oblique apology for having unwittingly contributed to the George W. Bu=
sh administration's efforts to rally the public behind war with Iraq.
Two front-page stories, both with Miller's byline, were particularly sens=
ational. One, published Dec. 20, 2001, was based on an exclusive intervie=
w in Thailand with a self-described Iraqi civil engineer, Adnan Ihsan Sae=
ed al-Haideri. He described renovations of secret facilities for biologic=
al, chemical and nuclear weapons in underground labs located across the c=
ountry in private villas and even under the Saddam Hussein Hospital in Ba=
ghdad.
The second, published on Sep. 7, 2002, coincided precisely (or was precis=
ely timed) with the launch of a White House-orchestrated drive to persuad=
e the public that it faced a serious nuclear threat from Iraq which had =94=
intensifie(d)=94 its efforts to obtain a bomb.=20
The article, which was co-authored by Michael Gordon, described U.S. inte=
lligence reports that Saddam Hussein had tried to buy thousands of =94spe=
cially designed aluminum tubes=94 whose only use, according to U.S. offic=
ials, was for building centrifuges to enrich uranium. The report also cit=
ed new defectors who spoke of an expanding chemical weapons programme, in=
cluding the deployment of mobile units.
Other reports would follow, all based either on assertions by alleged def=
ectors or unidentified U.S. officials, and all feeding the notion that Ir=
aq was indeed making rapid progress on acquiring and deploying WMD.
Immediately after the invasion, Miller was even embedded with a special s=
ecret Pentagon unit, called Mobile Exploitation Team (MET) Alpha, whose a=
ssignment was to scour Iraq in search of the WMD facilities that she had =
written about. Despite its failure to find anything, Miller's breathless =
reportage repeatedly suggested imminent success.
Miller's reporting had common elements. Her =94defectors=94 were invariab=
ly supplied via the Iraqi National Congress (INC) of Ahmad Chalabi, who i=
s currently visiting Washington as Iraq's deputy premier.
And her unnamed government sources, to the extent the reader could ascert=
ain their affiliation, almost never came from the CIA or the State Depart=
ment, the two bureaucracies, long considered =94enemies=94 by neo-conserv=
atives, whose experts were most sceptical of claims about Iraq's nuclear =
programme.
=94If your sources are wrong,=94 she later explained, =94you are wrong.=94=
But that begged the question of why she did not consult dissenting sourc=
es of which there were many. As Dowd noted wryly, =94...(I)nvestigative r=
eporting is not stenography.=94
Indeed, based on what is now known, in part due to the Plame case and the=
resulting perjury and obstruction of justice indictments of Vice Preside=
nt Dick Cheney's chief of staff, I. Lewis Libby, it appears that Miller h=
ad fallen in with or confined her sourcing to Chalabi's INC.
She also relied on its staunch supporters at the American Enterprise Inst=
itute and the Defence Policy Board, and the tight group of neo-conservati=
ves and aggressive hawks in the Pentagon and Cheney's office who promoted=
it.
This network clearly developed its own =94intelligence=94 and sent it fro=
m the INC to two special intelligence units set up under then-undersecret=
ary of defense Douglas Feith to Cheney's office to the White House. It us=
ed the Times, and its reputation for authoritativeness, via Miller, to pl=
ace =94facts=94 in the public and media spotlight that would never have s=
tood the light of day had they been fully vetted by professional analysts=
=2E
Indeed, Miller bragged about her close and decade-long relationship with =
Chalabi in an email message to her editors obtained by The Washington Pos=
t. During her controversial =94embed=94 with MET-Alpha, she also repeated=
ly =94intimidated=94 soldiers by threatening to complain directly to Feit=
h or Pentagon chief Donald Rumsfeld himself.
In one case, the Post reported that she arranged the surrender to the uni=
t of a scientist who had been held by the INC. And in an echo of her repu=
tation for =94sharp elbows=94 and defiance of editors in her 28-year Time=
s career, she happily adopted the name =94Miss Run Amok=94 in the newsroo=
m.
She turned the unit into the =94Judith Miller team=94, a =94rogue operati=
on=94 working in close cooperation with Chalabi, according to an officers=
quoted by the Post.
Similarly, her =94entanglement=94 with Libby, as Keller once put it, sugg=
ested that she was particularly close to the hawks and seen by them as a =
reliable conduit to the media. Libby told Miller about Plame's identity t=
wo weeks before he told any other reporter. Although she never wrote abou=
t the case, she promised that the information he provided would be attrib=
uted to a =94former Hill staffer=94 -- an attribution so misleading that =
most media watchdogs have called it unethical.
The question remains, however, whether she was duped or whether she was a=
knowing co-conspirator. Miller herself insists that she is not a =94neo-=
conservative=94 but holds generally =94centrist=94 views on the Middle Ea=
st where she served for a number of years.
In her defence, one highly regarded expert, University of Michigan Middle=
East historian Juan Cole, has noted that her reporting on the Israeli-Pa=
lestinian conflict -- a litmus test for the strongly pro-Likud neo-conser=
vatives -- has been relatively balanced by U.S. media standards.
In addition, her eventual testimony in the Plame case was particularly da=
maging to Libby and probably sealed his indictment, as well as still grow=
ing calls for a wider investigation of what critics see as the =94cabal=94=
that brought the country to war in Iraq.
On the other hand, Miller's previous associations with the staunchly neo-=
conservative and harshly anti-Arab Middle East Forum (MEF), as well as he=
r brief listing with Benador & Associates, a publicity firm whose clients=
consisted exclusively of prominent neo-conservatives at the time, sugges=
t a stronger ideological commitment.
And her failure to seek out sources beyond those being provided by the IN=
C, the Pentagon and Cheney's office also no doubt speaks a certain confid=
ence and likemindedness. In any event, this should have been -- but wasn'=
t -- countered if not by a healthy curiosity and scepticism, than by stro=
ng editorial intervention that the Times clearly failed to provide.
It is most likely, as noted in an insightful and not unsympathetic profil=
e in the Post's Style section Thursday, that Miller may have been some co=
mbination of credulous and willing, particularly given long-held fears of=
Saddam Hussein, in particular.
Her experiences reporting in Iraq dating back to the 1980's, including he=
r having allegedly been told that she was on a =94very short list of writ=
ers who are considered the regime's 'eternal enemies,'=94 =94made me fear=
ful of Saddam Hussein,=94 she told the Post.
Such a highly subjective state of mind would account for Miller's convict=
ion that what she was been told by Chalabi and government officials like =
Libby was the actual truth, as Walter Lippmann, the most influential news=
paperman of the 20th century, wrote about the =94disast(rous)=94 reportin=
g by the Times about the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia and its reliance =
on exile sources and government officials between 1917 and 1920.
=94In the large, the news about Russia is a case of seeing not what was, =
but what men wished to see ...(T)he chief censor and chief propagandist w=
ere hope and fear in the minds of reporters and editors.=94 Such subjecti=
ve reasons led to =94boundless credulity and an untiring readiness to be =
gulled.=94
That was nearly 100 years ago.
*****
+POLITICS-US: Cheney Circles the Wagons (http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idne=
ws=3D30848)
(END/IPS/NA/IP/HD/IC/IK/BW/NC/JL/KS/05)
=20
=3D 11110149 ORP004
NNNN
*****************************************************************
2 BBC: UN warns on Iraq environment fate
Last Updated: Thursday, 10 November 2005
[Hazardous waste at al-Qadissya (Pic: Unep)]
Inspectors found much of the waste rotting and abandoned
Derelict factories, military scrapyards and battle sites across
Iraq pose a threat to the environment and to public health, the
United Nations has said.
The UN Environment Program has trained Iraqi specialists in
detoxification, but says any clean-up could cost up to $40m
(Ł23m).
Chemical spills, unsecured hazardous material and widespread
pollution by depleted uranium are among the issues.
Without clean-up, heavy metals can poison ground water, causing
illness.
The Unep has examined five sites as part of its training efforts,
and is concerned by the results.
"There are hundreds, probably thousands of other sites with the
need of assessment," said Mural Thummarukudy, Unep's manager in
Iraq, who appealed for donations.
String of wars
Among the five sites already probed are a metal plating facility
at al-Qadyissa that was bombed, looted and then demolished in
2003.
[Alla Saleem in 2001]
Alla Saleem developed an eye tumour linked to depleted uranium
(Pic: 2001)
Several tons of cyanide remain on the site, which is now an
unsecured area used as a playground by local children.
The other sites include an old sulphur mine, a munitions factory
containing unexploded ordnance and an abandoned petrochemicals
plant.
Narmin Othman, Iraq's environment minister, said that some 311
sites were polluted by depleted uranium, the Associated Press
reported.
Many of Iraq's potential danger spots were either damaged or
destroyed during the Iran-Iraq war of the 1980s, the 1991 Gulf
war or the US-led invasion in 2003.
In addition, many of the sites have been looted in recent years
as insurgents and militias raid them for weapons and materiel,
with little thought for potential environmental effects.
*****************************************************************
3 Guardian Unlimited: U.S., Europe Ready to Compromise With Iran
From the Associated Press
[UP]
Thursday November 10, 2005 1:31 PM
By GEORGE JAHN Associated Press Writer
VIENNA, Austria (AP) - The United States and Europe are ready to
compromise with Iran over its nuclear program and have
tentatively approved a plan that would allow it to make the gas
used in producing enriched uranium, senior officials and
diplomats said Thursday.
The officials and diplomats, who demanded anonymity in exchange
for discussing the strategy, said the plan would allow Iran to
convert raw uranium into the gas that is spun by centrifuges
into enriched uranium. But the actual enrichment would take
place in Russia, they told The Associated Press.
Depending on its level, enrichment can be used to generate
energy or make nuclear weapons. Iran insists it is interested in
the technology only to produce power, but the United States and
many other countries fear Tehran wants to enrich uranium to
weapons-grade levels to use as the fissile core in warheads.
Iran has refused to bow to international demands that it
renounce its right to enrichment and related activities and in
August resumed the uranium conversion process.
That prompted Britain, France and Germany to break off talks
with Tehran meant to dispel fears about its nuclear agenda. It
also led a September meeting of the International Atomic Energy
Agency's 35-nation board to approve a resolution clearing the
path for Iran's referral to the U.N. Security Council at a Nov.
24 board meeting.
Iran is the focus of an IAEA probe of nearly 18 years of covert
nuclear activities, including experiments that could be used in
weapons development, that were revealed more than three years
ago. It recently agreed to accelerate cooperation with IAEA
inspectors to blunt the threat of Security Council action.
Publicly, both the Americans and the three European nations
representing the European Union in the talks have insisted that
Iran needed to stop all enrichment-related activity - including
uranium conversion - to defuse the threat of Security Council
referral.
But a senior European official told the AP Thursday that the
EU-Three and Washington were now prepared to allow Iran to
continue conversion as long as the gas produced was shipped to
Russia and enriched there. That would allow international
control over the level of enrichment, ensuring that it was below
the levels that can be used for weapons.
A diplomat close to the IAEA confirmed the change in strategy
but refused to elaborate. IAEA spokeswoman Melissa Fleming said
agency chief Mohamed ElBaradei ``supports the efforts of the
countries that are presently engaged in developing ... a
proposal'' acceptable to all, but declined to discuss specifics.
The New York Times first reported that the Europeans and
Americans had approved the new offer. But the European official
told the AP that neither the Americans nor the Europeans were
eager to claim the plan as their own.
Instead, he and a diplomat said they were looking to the
Russians to make such an offer and for ElBaradei to put the
initiative to the Iranians.
Such a plan would give Washington, Paris, London and Berlin a
chance to save diplomatic face after months of saying they would
not accept conversion. With both Russia and China -
veto-carrying Security Council members - likely to block any
punitive action by the Council, it would also allow them to back
away from such a threat.
The idea of international involvement in Tehran's enrichment
plans is not new.
Russia had floated the proposal of cooperating with the Iranians
months ago, and South Africa also had made similar offers. But
both the Europeans and Americans were opposed.
And while Iranian officials have suggested internationalizing
Tehran's enrichment program, the European official said the
Iranians had insisted on keeping all operations in Iran.
``The question is whether the Iranians are prepared to allow for
enrichment to happen outside their country - that's a big if,''
he said.
In Moscow on Thursday, Nikolai Shingaryov, the spokesman for the
Russian Federal Nuclear Energy Agency, said that he was unaware
of any new plan to allow Iran to make a precursor of enriched
uranium for further enrichment in Russia.
He said that Russia in the past had tried to dissuade Iran from
pursuing its own enrichment program by offering its services,
but that these preliminary contacts had not led anywhere.
Russia is already involved in a key part of Iran's nuclear
program. It is constructing an US$800 million (euro600 million)
nuclear reactor in the Iranian city of Bushehr that is scheduled
for launch by the end of 2006 and has committed, under American
pressure, to accommodating the spent nuclear fuel Busher
produces so that it cannot be turned into weapons-grade
material.
---
On the Net:
www.iaea.org
---
Associated Press writer Vladimir Isachenkov contributed to this
report from Moscow.
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2005
*****************************************************************
4 Guardian Unlimited: Iran close to nuclear deal
Staff and agencies
Thursday November 10, 2005
The European Union and the US have offered Iran a
compromise over its nuclear programme, senior diplomats said
today. The deal means Tehran can convert raw uranium into a
low-level gas that can be enriched to generate electricity in
nuclear power stations.
Unnamed EU officials told the Associated Press they have approved
a plan that would allow Iran to continue raw uranium conversion,
but the actual process of enrichment would take place in Russia.
If Tehran accepts the deal to send uranium to Russia to be
further enriched, it would still be able to use the enriched
uranium for fuel purposes, but the threat of building atomic
weapons would be reduced.
Iran concealed its uranium enrichment programme from the IAEA
for 18 years, fuelling fears in the west that it was developing
an atomic bomb. Tehran has always denied that it is enriching
uranium to be used as atomic weapons and says it needs nuclear
power to fuel its expanding demand for electricity.
Earlier this week, Iran said it had allowed inspectors from the
nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA),
to tour its facility in Parchin, 20 miles south of Tehran.
The US had claimed that Parchin was used to develop explosives
that could be used in nuclear weapons.
Iran suspended its uranium enrichment programme in November last
year and began talks with the EU - represented by Britain,
France and Germany - aimed at convincing Iran to use imported
low-enriched nuclear fuel for its reactors instead. This was
known as the Paris agreement.
However, Iran restarted its nuclear programme in August, leading
to the collapse of the talks and the threat of being referred to
the UN security council for sanctions.
Months of political brinkmanship followed. Then, last weekend,
Iran sent a letter to the three European nations, calling for
renewed talks.
Quoted by the semi-official Fars news agency, the letter
"assessed the past exchanges and welcomed rational and
constructive negotiations in the framework of international
regulations".
Raw uranium can be converted into hexafluoride gas, which can
then be spun by centrifuges into enriched uranium. Enriched
uranium is used in nuclear power plants, or can be further
enriched to weapons-grade material.
[UP]
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2005
*****************************************************************
5 Guardian Unlimited: U.S., Europe Agree to Compromise With Iran
From the Associated Press
[UP]
Thursday November 10, 2005 10:01 PM
AP Photo VAH102
By GEORGE JAHN Associated Press Writer
VIENNA, Austria (AP) - The United States and Europe have agreed
on a compromise plan to accept expanded nuclear activities by
Iran, but only if the enrichment process - a possible pathway to
nuclear arms - is moved to Russia, senior officials and
diplomats said Thursday.
If accepted by Iran, the proposal could end a tug-of-war over
whether to refer the Islamic republic to the U.N. Security
Council for possible sanctions.
The officials and diplomats, who demanded anonymity in exchange
for discussing the strategy, said the plan would allow Iran to
continue converting raw uranium into the gas that is spun by
centrifuges into enriched uranium.
But actual enrichment would take place in Russia, they told The
Associated Press.
Depending on its level, enrichment can be used to generate
energy - Iran's stated interest - or make nuclear weapons -
something the United States and its allies say Tehran wants to
do.
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice expressed hopes that a deal
with Iran could be reached over its nuclear program. But she
would not confirm that the United States would back the deal
with Europe as described by the officials and diplomats.
``There is no U.S.-European proposal to the Iranians,'' Rice
said. ``I want to say that categorically. There isn't and there
won't be.''
``We do hope that if there is a way for the Iranians to accept a
way forward that would give confidence that they are not in fact
trying to seek nuclear weapons under cover of civilian nuclear
power that they would take that,'' Rice said.
In August, Iran resumed uranium conversion. That prompted
Britain, France and Germany to break off talks with Tehran meant
to dispel fears about its nuclear agenda. It also led a
September meeting of the International Atomic Energy Agency's
35-nation board to approve a resolution clearing the way for
Iran's referral to the U.N. Security Council at a Nov. 24 board
session.
Rice predicted the United States has sufficient support at the
IAEA to send Iran before the Security Council for possible
sanctions, but a deal ahead of the session later this month
could avert a vote.
The IAEA is probing nearly 18 years of covert Iranian nuclear
activities, including experiments that could be used in weapons
development, which were revealed more than three years ago.
Tehran recently agreed to accelerate cooperation with IAEA
inspectors to blunt the threat of Security Council action.
Publicly, the Americans and France, Britain and Germany, which
are representing the 25-nation European Union in the talks, have
insisted Iran needs to stop all enrichment-related activity -
including uranium conversion - to banish the prospect of
Security Council referral.
But a senior European official told AP the EU and Washington
were now prepared to allow Iran to continue conversion as long
as the gas produced was shipped to Russia and enriched there.
That would allow international control over the level of
enrichment, ensuring it was below the levels that can be used
for weapons.
IAEA chief Mohamed ElBaradei ``supports the efforts of the
countries that are presently engaged in developing ... a
proposal'' acceptable to all, said Melissa Fleming, a
spokeswoman for the Vienna-based agency. She declined to discuss
specifics.
The New York Times first reported that the Europeans and the
Americans had approved the new offer. But the European official
emphasized that neither the Americans nor the Europeans were
eager to claim the plan as their own.
Instead, he and a diplomat told the AP they were looking to the
Russians to make such an offer and for ElBaradei to put the
initiative to the Iranians.
Such a plan would give Washington, Paris, London and Berlin a
chance to save diplomatic face after months of saying they would
not accept conversion. With both Russia and China -
veto-carrying Security Council members - likely to block any
punitive action by the council, it would also allow them to back
away from such a threat.
Russia had floated the proposal of cooperating with the Iranians
months ago, and South Africa had made similar offers. But the
Europeans and Americans were opposed.
And while Iranian officials have suggested internationalizing
Tehran's enrichment program, the European official said the
Iranians have up to now insisted on keeping all operations in
Iran.
In Moscow, Nikolai Shingaryov, the spokesman for the Russian
Federal Nuclear Energy Agency, said that he was unaware of any
new plan to allow Iran to make a precursor of enriched uranium
for further enrichment in Russia.
---
Associated Press writer Vladimir Isachenkov contributed to this
report from Moscow.
---
On the Net:
http://www.iaea.org
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2005
*****************************************************************
6 AFP: US and Europe to offer new nuclear proposal to Iran- report -
Thu Nov 10, 3:50 AM ET
WASHINGTON (AFP) - Washington, London, Paris, and Berlin will
make a new offer to Iran to avoid a confrontation over its
suspected nuclear weapons program, The New York Times said
quoting US and European officials.
The proposal would let Iran conduct very limited nuclear
activities on its territory, but would have it move all uranium
enrichment processes to Russia, the officials said.
The offer was discussed at a meeting here Tuesday between US
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice
" /> Condoleezza Riceand International Atomic Energy Agency
" /> International Atomic Energy AgencyDirector General Mohamed
ElBaradei, who has agreed to present it to the Iranians, they
added.
Rice, according to the officials, urged that Iran be given a
two-week deadline for its response, which should come before the
IAEA board meets on November 24.
Iran has resisted international pressure to give up its uranium
enrichment program, insisting it is intended for peaceful
purposes only and not for making nuclear weapons, which the
United States suspects the Islamic nation is seeking to develop.
On September 24, the IAEA passed a British-French-German
resolution stating, for the first time since the IAEA began
investigating Iran in February 2003, that Tehran was in
"non-compliance" with the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty
(NPT), mainly for hiding sensitive atomic activities for almost
two decades.
A finding of non-compliance is an automatic trigger for taking
the matter to the Security Council, which can impose sanctions,
but could be difficult to implement because it lacks support
from Russia and China, who have veto power on the Council.
The Times said the new proposal would allow Iran to continue
converting uranium into a gaseous form, known as UF6, but would
have it shipped to Russia to be enriched for use in nuclear
reactors.
Rice and ElBaradei talked about letting Iran take a financial
stake in an enrichment facility in Russia, who in turn would
ensure that the uranium sent back to Iran would not be usable in
a weapon, the officials told the newspaper.
The move would give Iran a face-saving way out of the standoff
because it could argue that it has not given up what it contends
is its right under the NTP to enrich uranium, but has simply
chosen to do it at a foreign facility, officials said.
The offer, however, has "deeply divided" the US administration,
the daily said.
"The problem with this offer is that if the Iranians have a
secret enrichment plant someplace that we don't know about,
we're leaving them with the raw material they need," said a
senior American official who contends that the new proposal is
flawed.
"But the thinking was that the West has to show we are willing
to break the logjam," added the official who was not identified.
Another senior official involved in developing the proposal --
the daily did not say whether he was American or European -- was
pessimistic about Iran's response.
"Our expectations are low that the Iranians will accept," the
official said.
Copyright © 2005 Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
7 IRNA: Bushehr power station to be implemented - Moscow -
Moscow, Nov 10, IRNA
Iran-Nuclear Power Station-Russia
Spokesman for the Russian Atomic Energy Agency Nikolai Shingarev
said here Thursday that the project on Bushehr Nuclear Power
Station is currently underway and is expected be completed on
schedule.
Speaking to IRNA in an exclusive interview, he added that
Bushehr Power Station is being constructed by the Russian
enterprise, Energo Export, a contractor of Russia's nuclear
power stations overseas.
Shingarev noted that the construction process of the project is
supervised by the Russian Atomic Energy Agency and that there is
no obstacle to its implementation.
Concerning Russia's proposal on uranium enrichment and the
nuclear fuel cycle, he said that for the time being he is not in
a position to elaborate on the issue.
Turning to the Wednesday remarks of the British Foreign
Secretary Jack Straw concerning Europe's reluctance to refer
Iran's nuclear dossier to the United Nations Security Council
(UNSC), he said, "It is up to the Foreign Ministry to make
decision in this respect. It has repeatedly declared that there
is no reason for referral of the case to the UNSC.
About the possible date of the visit to Tehran of the Head of
Russia's Atomic Energy Agency, Alexander Rumyantsev, he said
that he would certainly visit Iran either at the end of the
current year or early next year.
The political circles in Russia's capital of Moscow have
recently released reports on the country's proposed nuclear fuel
cycle to Iran.
*****************************************************************
8 [NYTr] Smooth Start to Korean Nuke Talks
Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2005 16:35:23 -0600 (CST)
Via NY Transfer News Collective * All the News that Doesn't Fit
Prensa Latina, Havana
http://www.plenglish.com
Smooth Start to Korean Nuke Talks
Beijing, Nov 10 (Prensa Latina) Without much expectation over a
final resolution of the Korea nuclear issue at this time, the six-party
talks had a smooth start here, thus conveying a positive sign for
further progress.
"This is the first time the six parties start a new round of
talks as scheduled," said Zhu Feng, an international relations professor
at elite Beijing University. "The fact itself demonstrates that the
negotiation process is actually speeding up," the academic was quoted as
saying Thursday by Xinhua.
The fifth round of six-party talks, which involve China, the
Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK), the Unites States, the
Republic of Korea (ROK), Russia and Japan, started Wednesday morning at
the Diaoyutai State Guesthouse in Beijing.
Chinese chief negotiator Wu Dawei said at the opening session
that the main task of the new round is "to outline details, ways and
procedures for the implementation of the joint statement adopted in
September."
The task should be fulfilled in line with the principle of
"commitment to commitment and action to action," said Wu Dawei, also
China's vice foreign minister.
At the previous talks, the six parties reached their first-ever
joint statement, in which the DPRK agreed to abandon all its nuclear
weapons and existing nuclear programs in exchange for energy aid and
security guarantees, especially from the US.
mh
*
================================================================
.NY Transfer News Collective * A Service of Blythe Systems
. Since 1985 - Information for the Rest of Us .
.339 Lafayette St., New York, NY 10012 http://www.blythe.org
.List Archives: https://olm.blythe-systems.com/pipermail/nytr/
.Subscribe: https://olm.blythe-systems.com/mailman/listinfo/nytr
================================================================
*****************************************************************
9 Guardian Unlimited: N.Korea Claims U.S. Undermining Nuke Talks
From the Associated Press
[UP]
Thursday November 10, 2005 11:46 AM
AP Photo TOK206
By KWANG-TAE KIM
Associated Press Writer
BEIJING (AP) - Talks on North Korea's nuclear programs turned
sour Thursday as Pyongyang demanded that Washington release
frozen assets of firms suspected of weapons proliferation and
stop accusing the North of counterfeiting U.S. money, South
Korean news reports said.
North Korean delegates accused the United States of undermining
an agreement in September, when Pyongyang pledged to disarm in
exchange for aid and security guarantees, the South's Yonhap
news agency reported, citing unnamed officials.
The North Koreans also voiced displeasure over President Bush's
reference to a tyrant in North Korea - widely seen as a slap at
the North's leader, Kim Jong Il, Yonhap said.
The disputes cast a pall over the talks between the two Koreas,
the United States, China, Japan and Russia. South Korean
officials told Yonhap that progress had become difficult.
Diplomats say talks this week - the fifth in a series - are
meant to focus on the contentious details of how the North would
disarm, how it would be verified and what Pyongyang would get in
return.
Washington and Seoul were pressing the North on Thursday to
suspend nuclear development after the U.S. envoy, Assistant
Secretary of State Christopher Hill, accused Pyongyang of
operating a reactor that produces plutonium - a fuel for bombs.
``The continued (operation) of nuclear facilities has to be
suspended,'' said South Korean Deputy Foreign Minister Song
Min-soon.
During the talks Thursday, South Korean diplomats proposed what
their government calls a roadmap to disarmament.
``We spelled out what kinds of steps are needed to advance the
implementation plan,'' Song said.
He declined to give any details of the steps or confirm reports
of North Korea's new demands.
Yonhap said one measure being considered was for the North to
suspend operation of the Yongbyon reactor and plutonium
reprocessing if Washington lifts some sanctions, including its
designation of Pyongyang as a terrorism sponsor.
The North's reported demands Thursday referred to sanctions
imposed by Washington on eight North Korean companies accused of
being fronts for sales of missiles and nuclear and biological
weapons.
The companies are barred from doing business with U.S. citizens
or companies, and any of their assets under U.S. jurisdiction
are frozen.
Washington also accuses the North of producing high-quality
counterfeits of $100 bills.
China says it expected this week's talks to run until Friday,
then recess to let diplomats attend a mid-November Asia-Pacific
economic conference in South Korea.
The two years of talks have proceeded slowly, fitfully and amid
deep distrust. North Korea refuses to disarm completely without
getting concessions along the way, while Washington wants to see
the weapons programs dismantled before granting rewards.
The United States has rejected North Korea's demand to be given
a civilian nuclear reactor until it returns to the international
Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and accepts safeguards from the
International Atomic Energy Agency.
``I don't think we are here now to make a roadmap,'' Hill said.
``We only have a three-day session, so essentially we are just
gathering ideas and having an opportunity to discuss the ideas
but we are not trying to come to any final decisions.''
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2005
*****************************************************************
10 Guardian Unlimited: Six-Party Talks on North Korea Turn Sour
From the Associated Press
[UP]
Thursday November 10, 2005 3:46 PM
AP Photo XLEE102
By KWANG-TAE KIM
Associated Press Writer
BEIJING (AP) - Talks on North Korea's nuclear programs turned
sour Thursday as Pyongyang demanded that Washington lift
sanctions against firms suspected of weapons proliferation and
stop accusing the North of counterfeiting U.S. money, news
reports said.
North Korean delegates accused the United States of undermining
a September agreement in which Pyongyang pledged to disarm in
exchange for aid and security guarantees, the South's Yonhap
news agency reported, citing unidentified officials.
The North also voiced displeasure over President Bush's
reference to a ``tyrant'' in North Korea - widely seen as a slap
at its leader, Kim Jong Il, Yonhap said.
The disputes cast a pall over the talks between the two Koreas,
the United States, China, Japan and Russia. South Korean
officials told Yonhap that progress had become difficult.
The U.S. negotiator, Assistant Secretary of State Christopher
Hill, said the demands fell beyond the scope of the six-party
talks.
``They made clear that they are not happy,'' Hill said late
Thursday. ``But I made very clear that I don't do financial
sector regulations.''
Washington imposed sanctions in October on eight North Korean
companies accused of acting as fronts for sales of banned
missile, nuclear or bioweapons technology. The order froze any
assets in areas under U.S. jurisdiction, but it wasn't clear
whether that had any impact because the United States bans trade
with North Korea.
The United States also accuses North Korea of producing
high-quality counterfeit $100 bills known as ``supernotes.''
Diplomats say the talks this week - the fifth in a series - are
meant to focus on contentious details of how the North would
verifiably disarm, and what it would get in return.
Washington and Seoul were pressing the North to suspend nuclear
development after Hill accused Pyongyang of operating a reactor
that produces plutonium - a fuel for bombs.
``The continued (operation) of nuclear facilities has to be
suspended,'' said South Korean Deputy Foreign Minister Song
Min-soon.
Hill accused the North of continuing to operate the Yongbyon
reactor despite a Sept. 19 pledge to give up nuclear
development.
``Every day that goes on, the amount of plutonium theoretically
can increase, so that's our concern,'' Hill said. ``That means
that we have a bigger problem than when we ended on Sept. 19.
And I think the time to stop reprocessing, the time to stop that
reactor, is now.''
South Korean diplomats proposed what their government calls a
roadmap to disarmament. ``We spelled out what kinds of steps are
needed to advance the implementation plan,'' Song said.
He declined to give details or confirm reports of the North's
new demands.
Yonhap said one measure being considered was for the North to
suspend operation of the Yongbyon reactor and plutonium
reprocessing if Washington lifts some sanctions, including its
designation of Pyongyang as a terrorism sponsor.
``I don't think we are here now to make a roadmap,'' Hill said.
``We only have a three-day session, so essentially we are just
gathering ideas and having an opportunity to discuss the ideas,
but we are not trying to come to any final decisions.''
China says it expected the talks to run until Friday, then
recess to let diplomats attend a mid-November Asia-Pacific
economic conference in South Korea.
The two years of talks have proceeded slowly, fitfully and amid
deep distrust. North Korea refuses to disarm completely without
getting concessions along the way, while Washington wants to see
the weapons programs dismantled before granting rewards.
The U.S. has rejected North Korea's demand to be given a
civilian nuclear reactor until it returns to the international
Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty and accepts safeguards from the
International Atomic Energy Agency.
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2005
*****************************************************************
11 Guardian Unlimited: World Latest | N. Korean Criticism Casts Pall Over Talks
From the Associated Press
[UP]
Thursday November 10, 2005 7:46 PM
AP Photo SEL102
By AUDRA ANG
Associated Press Writer
BEIJING (AP) - North Korea criticized the United States Thursday
for undermining the spirit of cooperation at six-nation talks on
the North's nuclear programs, casting a pall over discussions
aimed at persuading the regime to disarm, news reports and the
U.S. envoy said.
The North said Washington's sanctions against firms suspected of
weapons proliferation and its accusations that North Korea is
counterfeiting U.S. money would block progress in the latest
round of talks, the South's Yonhap news agency reported, citing
unnamed officials.
Delegates say this week's discussions - the fifth in a series
that has progressed fitfully and amid deep distrust - are meant
to focus on contentious details of a September agreement in
which Pyongyang pledged to disarm in exchange for aid and
security guarantees.
But North Korea and the United States appear deadlocked on the
basics: Pyongyang refuses to disarm completely without getting
concessions along the way, while Washington wants to see the
weapons programs dismantled before granting rewards.
``The positions of the U.S. and North Korea remain unchanged,''
Russia's Deputy Foreign Minister Alexander Alekseyev was quoted
as saying by Russian news agency Interfax.
The North reportedly also voiced its displeasure over President
Bush's reference last week to a tyrant in North Korea - widely
seen as a disparaging remark directed at its leader, Kim Jong
Il, Yonhap said.
The atmosphere at the second day of meetings, which also
involved South Korea, China, Russia and Japan, ``was so tense
that the other delegates could hardly continue dialogue,'' the
report said.
``They made clear that they are not happy'' about the sanctions
and counterfeit accusations, Assistant Secretary of State
Christopher Hill, the American envoy, told reporters late
Thursday.
``They expressed concern about this and I had to make clear to
them that these are law enforcement issues and not six-party
issues,'' he said.
Washington imposed sanctions in October on eight North Korean
companies accused of acting as fronts for sales of banned
missile, nuclear or bioweapons technology. The order froze any
assets in areas under U.S. jurisdiction, but it wasn't clear
whether it had any impact because the United States bans trade
with North Korea.
The United States also accuses North Korea of producing high
quality counterfeit $100 bills known as ``supernotes.''
Washington and Seoul pressed the North on Thursday to suspend
nuclear development after Hill accused Pyongyang of operating a
reactor that produces plutonium - a fuel for bombs.
``The time for them to stop producing nuclear material is now,''
Hill said. ``The faster they move, the faster we move, the
faster everybody moves, the faster (North Korea) can be
reintegrated into the world.''
South Korean Deputy Foreign Minister Song Min-soon said South
Korean diplomats proposed what their government calls a roadmap
to disarmament during talks Thursday.
``We spelled out what kinds of steps are needed to advance the
implementation plan,'' Song said, declining to give details.
He also emphasized the need to build trust.
``This process shouldn't focus on what the other side is
unwilling to give us,'' Song said. ``Rather, we should focus on
what we can obtain from the other side.''
Yonhap said one measure being considered was for the North to
suspend operation of the Yongbyon reactor and plutonium
reprocessing if Washington lifts some sanctions, including its
designation of Pyongyang as a terrorism sponsor.
But Hill downplayed the possibility of a structured decision
during this round.
``A three-day session is really too soon and too short a time to
be working out a complete implementation plan,'' he said.
China says it expected this week's talks to run until Friday,
then recess to let diplomats attend an Asia-Pacific economic
conference in South Korea.
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2005
*****************************************************************
12 White House to 'hit back' at Democrats on WMD
Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2005 08:11:40 -0600 (CST)
X-Fingerprint: owner-imap@chumbly.math.missouri.edu-69.50
White House to 'hit back' at Democrats
Aides plan aggressive response to claims intelligence misused
From Dana Bash
CNN Washington Bureau
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Top White House officials say they're developing
a "campaign-style" strategy in response to increasing Democratic
allegations that the Bush administration twisted intelligence to make
its case for war.
White House aides, who agreed to speak to CNN only on the condition
of anonymity, said they hoped to increase what they called their "hit
back" in coming days.
The officials say they plan to repeatedly make the point -- as they
did during the 2004 campaign -- that pre-war intelligence was faulty,
it was not manipulated and everyone was working off the same
intelligence.
They hope to arm GOP officials with more quotes by Democrats making
the same pre-war claims as Republicans did about Saddam Hussein's
weapons of mass destruction.
Democrats have pointed at declassified information they say shows the
White House was "deceptive" in pre-war statements.
Telegraphing the beginning of a communications effort is a tactic the
Bush team has used in the past, especially when it comes to Iraq.
The examination into the intelligence used to justify invading Iraq
has intensified on the heels of the October 28 indictment of I. Lewis
"Scooter" Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff, who
resigned the day he was indicted. (Full story)
Libby has been charged with obstruction of justice, perjury and
making false statements to federal agents investigating who revealed
the identity of undercover CIA agent Valerie Plame. The agent's name
was leaked to reporters after her husband publicly challenged a key
element of the administration's case for war. (Wolf Blitzer
interviews Plame's husband)
White House officials are determined to reverse President Bush's poor
poll showings on the topics of Iraq and "honesty and trustworthiness."
The White House has been on the defensive about whether Bush's top
political adviser, Karl Rove, was involved in publicly identifying
Plame. (Poll: Few doubt wrongdoing in CIA leak case)
The White House is trying to coordinate a response from
administration officials to congressional Republicans.
Republicans on Capitol Hill who have criticized the White House for
failing to coordinate responses to a host of issues say Bush aides
are working noticeably harder to set up meetings and conference calls
to arrange a widespread response.
Aside from regular White House briefings, it is unclear which
administration officials will participate in this "aggressive"
response, which senior officials indicate will be unveiled in
interviews and other public events.
It also is uncertain how much the president will be involved in the
information campaign aside from "responding appropriately when
asked," a third senior official said.
One senior official said Cheney would not participate in the White
House response, despite that Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid,
D-Nevada, has accused the vice president of being a key offender in
manipulating intelligence. (Read about Democrats closing the Senate
to push the war probe)
*****************************************************************
13 Webindia123.com: India gets WNA backing on NPT discrimination
Hyderabad | November 10, 2005 12:40:00 PM IST
India's stance that the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT)
was unfair and discriminatory has got the solid backing of the
World Nuclear Association (WNA), an umbrella organisation of
international manufacturers of nuclear equipment, which has
committed itself to work for removal of ''anomalies'' and end
the isolation of India.
Commenting on India's nuclear relationship with the
international community, WNA Director General Dr John Ritch
welcomed the recent initiatives to end the isolation imposed on
India for its unwillingness to join the NPT.
Terming the NPT ''one of the great diplomatic achievements in
history'', Dr Ritch, a former US representative at the
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), however said that he
had always deemed the NPT to have two conflicting
characteristics''.
The NPT was fundamentally unfair and discriminatory in the
choices it posed for India as a great world power, he told the
international conference on Characterisation and Quality Control
of Nuclear Fuels (CQCNF-2005) which began yesterday in
association with IAEA, Nuclear Fuel Complex (NFC) and Board of
Research in Nuclear Sciences (BRNS).
''I therefore welcome and will work to support the initiatives
of the American and Indian governments to overcome this anaomaly
and to normalise India's relations with the international
community in the peaceful and cooperative use of nuclear
energy,''. With these initiatives evolving, he urged both the
governments to take all possible steps to ensure that the
nuclear non-proliferation regime was strengthened rather than
weakened and, to cooperate, in the fullest possible measure, in
realising the potential of nuclear power to achieve the global
clean-energy revolution the world needed.
Claiming there was a ''nuclear renaissance'' with countries
representing the preponderance of world economic activity and
world population reviewing and reaffirming the value of nuclear
power, Dr Ritch said he would also move the World Bank and the
US government to extend financial support by funding nuclear
power units and the nuclear industry.
''While an unprecendented global crisis intensified amidst
climate change, governments must now direct the World Bank and
the UN development and environment programmes to act in pursuit
of a clean-energy vision in which nuclear power holds the
central role''.
UNI DB AA VD SND1140
*****************************************************************
14 NRC: NRC Begins Special Inspection of Electrical Problems in Shutdown at D. C. Cook
Nuclear Power Plant
News Release - Region III - 2005-04 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY
COMMISSION Office of Public Affairs, Region III 801 Warrenville
Road, Lisle IL 60532 No. III-05-043 November 10, 2005
CONTACT: Jan Strasma (630) 829-9663 Viktoria Mitlyng (630)
829-9662 E-mail: opa3@nrc.gov
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has begun a special
inspection of electrical problems at the D. C. Cook Nuclear
Power Station associated with the automatic shutdown of the
plants Unit 2 on Tuesday, Nov. 8. The two-reactor facility,
located at Bridgman, Mich., is operated by American Electric
Power Co.
The Unit 2 reactor shut down automatically when the main
generator failed. The main generator is conventional power plant
equipment which produces electricity for distribution to the
utilitys customers. The Unit 1 reactor was not affected and
continued to operate at full power.
Following the Unit 2 shutdown, two separate circuit breakers
failed to operate properly to provide power to certain safety
systems, and the utility is continuing to investigate those
failures. The plant has parallel safety systems, and all safety
functions were available to the plant.
The safety of the plant was not jeopardized, said James
Caldwell, NRC regional administrator. Weve sent the special
inspection team to better understand the circumstances
surrounding the electrical equipment failures and what
corrective actions are needed.
The three-person NRC team will monitor the utilitys
investigation of the failures and the resulting repairs. A
report of the teams inspection findings will be issued within 30
days of the close of the inspection and will be available online
in the NRCs document library at:
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams/web-based.html.
Last revised Thursday, November 10, 2005
*****************************************************************
15 Guardian Unlimited: Britain buys into next generation of nuclear power
David Adam, environment correspondent
Thursday November 10, 2005
Britain is investing millions of pounds in a US
government project to develop a new generation of nuclear power
stations, the Guardian has learned. The move restarts UK
government funding for research into new nuclear reactor
technology and gives its scientists access to international
efforts to develop a "generation IV" nuclear power station by
2030.
The investment is not directly connected to the coming decision
on whether to build new nuclear power stations in Britain, which
would use existing reactor designs, but is significant because
it shows the government has not ruled out nuclear energy as a
long term solution. Sir David King, the government's chief
scientific adviser, said earlier this year that any revival of
Britain's nuclear industry would be limited to "one generation
only."
Article continues
Richard Clegg, head of the Dalton Nuclear Institute at Manchester
University and director of science at BNFL, said: "It sends a
very important message that the UK government has a strategic
interest in keeping the nuclear option open."
Britain joined the US Department of Energy's generation IV forum
in 2000, alongside eight countries, including France, Brazil and
Japan. It supported the project through BNFL but did not commit
state funds directly.
Leading experts, including Professor King, David Sainsbury, the
science minister, and Keith O'Nions, former chief scientist at
the Ministry of Defence, have since lobbied for Britain to play
a bigger role, so as to guarantee access to new reactor
technology. Officials at the Department of Trade and Industry
have now set aside Ł10m over two years.
Dr Clegg said: "In order to have a seat at the table and a voice
in selection of reactor designs, the UK has got to contribute
something. By participating in the programme, our scientists and
engineers are able to keep abreast of these reactors, how they
work and what they are about."
The generation IV scheme has shortlisted six possible designs,
which it claims will be cheaper, cleaner and safer than current
reactors. The move comes as a report turns up the heat on the
nuclear debate by reiterating that new reactors are almost
certainly needed if Britain is to meet future energy demands
without busting greenhouse gas targets.
Based on a meeting of 150 scientists, engineers, economists and
sociologists at the Geological Society, the report says nuclear
power "will inevitably have a key role in a future clean energy
mix". Without new nuclear build, it says, Britain will struggle
to plug an anticipated 10,000 MW energy gap - some 20% of demand
- which is expected to open by 2015 as existing power stations
are retired.
Shaun Fitzgerald, an energy expert at Cambridge University, who
helped to compile the report, said the poor response to energy
efficiency initiatives showed public and government had failed
to grasp the scale of the problem. "The 'do nothing' option is
not an option."
[UP]
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2005
*****************************************************************
16 NRC: NRC Considers Clarifications to Requirements for New Reactor Licensing
News Release - 2005-15
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
Office of Public Affairs Telephone: 301/415-8200
Washington, DC 20555-0001 E-mail: opa@nrc.gov
No. 05-154 November 10, 2005
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is considering revisions to
clarify its regulations concerning the licensing and approval
processes for nuclear power plants.
The changes would address requirements that apply to licensing
processes such as Early Site Permits (ESP), Design
Certifications and Combined Licenses. Experience gained in the
NRCs review of ESP and Design Certification applications, as
well as substantial public comments, led to the proposed rule
changes.
This rule change would clarify the relationship between Part 50
of our regulations and the processes available today in Part 52,
said David Matthews, Director of the Division of New Reactor
Licensing in the NRCs Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
These changes will make the NRCs licensing process more
effective and efficient for future applicants.
The proposed rule is described in a staff paper to the
Commissioners, available on the NRC Web site at this address:
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/commission/secys/20
05/. The proposed rule supersedes a 2003 proposal that the
agency is now withdrawing. For more information contact NRC
staff members Jerry Wilson or Nanette Gilles by phone at
301-415-3145 and 301-415-1180 respectively, or via e-mail at
jnw@nrc.govand nvg@nrc.govrespectively.
Last revised Thursday, November 10, 2005
*****************************************************************
17 Daily Yomiuri: Serial number changed on Mihama N-plant pipe
The Yomiuri Shimbun
FUKUI--An employee of Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd.
scratched and altered the serial number of a pipe he mistakenly
connected to part of a piping system that is to replace one that
caused a fatal blowout at Kansai Electric Power Co.'s nuclear
plant in Mihamacho, Fukui Prefecture.
On Thursday, the Economy, Trade and Industry Ministry's Nuclear
and Industrial Safety Agency began an on-the-spot inspection of
pipe replacement work at the plant.
At the Mitsubishi Takasago factory in Takasago, Hyogo
Prefecture, the worker connected an unregistered pipe to the
system. Although the worker was ordered by his superior to
replace the pipe with a correct one, he scratched out the
existing serial number and carved in the serial number of the
appropriate pipe, misunderstanding the order. (Nov. 11, 2005)
+ THE YOMIURI SHIMBUN
Copyright © The Yomiuri Shimbun.
[DAILY YOMIURI ONLINE | THE DAILY YOMIURI] Page Top
*****************************************************************
18 BBC Energy gap: the cultural roots
Thursday, 10 November 2005, 13:42 GMT [
Analysis
By Richard Black
Environment Correspondent, BBC News website
[Pylons against a dark sky. Image: PA]
Will Britain's grid have enough power to distribute in a decade?
Other countries seem to find it so easy: Finland has committed
itself to nuclear expansion, Germany is installing solar panels
at the speed of light, and Iceland is exploiting its geothermal
and hydropower resources beyond its own needs.
So why is Britain - the world's fourth largest economy, a
nuclear pioneer, blessed with wind, wave and tidal potential
beyond the normal lot of nations, a once mighty coal producer,
provider of innovators to the world, and with a generation's
worth of North Sea booty to invest - facing an enormous
shortfall in electricity provision while others are not?
This is the unspoken question behind a report compiled from the
contributions of 150 academics, entrepreneurs and business
people drawn from across the energy sector under the aegis of
the Geological Society of London (GSL).
Its headline conclusion is that within a decade, Britain will be
producing only about 80% of the electricity is needs unless big
decisions are taken - and taken soon.
[Candle flame. Image: BBC]
Britain facing energy gap
But the consensus among these 150 experts is that decisions
are not being taken.
"Despite its rhetoric about global climate change, the
government is drip-feeding the renewables sector - barely
keeping it alive," said Jeremy Leggett of the solar power
company solarcentury.
"There are long time intervals involved in the replacement
process for nuclear," observed Charles Curtis of Manchester
University and the nuclear company Nirex. "We should be starting
to prepare ourselves now."
Jeremy Leggett believes renewables and energy efficiency are the
way forward for a non-nuclear Britain; whereas Charles Curtis
says renewables have a role to play, but a substantial nuclear
capacity will still be needed.
On the need for urgent action, though, they are united.
Déjŕ vu
It's not as though the energy gap has suddenly burst through the
floor like a pantomime demon.
Five years ago the Royal Commission on Environment Pollution
(RCEP) said that rising energy demands, together with a policy
of reducing greenhouse gas emissions, posed "...a radical
challenge for the UK; a challenge that cannot be met
successfully unless the government's energy policies and its
environmental policies are coherent."
Reducing energy use should be a priority, it said, but the
government needed "...to give much higher priority to energy
efficiency, a change in public attitudes, with people linking
their own day-to-day use of energy with fossil fuel consumption
and the threat of climate change."
These arguments are echoed almost word for word in the GSL
report, as are the importance of stimulating renewables, the
need to grapple with the nuclear issue imminently, and the
potential of clean coal technologies.
Little appears to have changed.
Aspirations into action
[andybuttertonpa]
Senior officials just don't believe that you can get energy
this way [ src=] Jeremy Leggett
Talking to energy and environment experts who regularly pass
through the revolving doors of Whitehall, a clear picture
emerges of a government which is not structurally or
ideologically equipped to take these major decisions.
One common complaint is fragmentation; and here's an example.
The minister charged with managing climate change issues is
Elliot Morley, who sits within Defra.
But virtually all sources of greenhouse gas emissions are
controlled by other ministries: industry by the DTI, transport
by the DFT, and houses by the ODPM.
Just as Defra's Climate Change Review is coming to a conclusion,
the DTI has started its Energy Review.
Then there is the Treasury, which can set or veto taxes and
other financial approaches to reducing emissions.
In the early days of Tony Blair's government, this fragmented
picture was cemented together by a Cabinet "enforcer", John
Prescott, who could bang heads together and ensure that
different departments were singing the same tune.
Now, the complaint goes, Mr Prescott has been removed from his
head-banging role, and there is no-one with the same powers; the
result is discord.
The irony is that over the last year, Mr Blair has led the
international community in unifying debates on energy and
climate.
A year ago, the Kyoto Protocol process existed in magnificent
isolation, debating the niceties of CO2 levels, impacts and
mitigation; energy issues meanwhile were the providence of other
fora, such as the OECD.
Through its term in the G8 presidency, the UK government has
sought to bridge this divide; and Mr Blair's comments last week,
to energy and environment ministers gathered under G8 auspices
in London, cemented the two agendas.
From now on, he implied, energy supply and security debates
would be joined at the hip with climate issues.
But Mr Blair has not reformed the structures of his own
government to reflect his new international perspective.
Bunker mentality
The choices before the myriad ministers involved are not,
admittedly, the easiest.
[Finnish MP Mikko Elo]
Finland's nuclear decision
Finland, apparently, found few problems in deciding to build
a significant new nuclear power station and an underground
repository to store its waste.
"There is very little opposition to nuclear power - and that is
partly because of the economic benefits it brings," Finnish MP
Mikko Elo told these pages.
"I noticed that in Britain, politicians didn't want to discuss
nuclear power before the election, but I don't think that is a
good thing... the more people understand nuclear power, the less
they will oppose it."
In Britain, the nuclear industry is trying to discard its
cultural heritage of taking decisions in an impenetrable
concrete bunker, but the legacy of suspicion will not be easy to
discard.
There is also the security issue. This week the House of Commons
Environmental Audit Committee heard, in the course of its own
inquiry into energy options, that nuclear terrorism of some kind
is "inevitable".
"The security concerns of new build need to be faced up to,"
Keith Barnham from Imperial College London told the committee.
Governments generally don't like planning far beyond the end of
their own term of office; but delegates from nuclear companies
told the committee that the key time frames in their business
are at least decadal: 10 to 15 years to build a station, and a
total period of about 80 years from planning to decommissioning.
Whatever regulations were drawn up for new build, they said,
investors needed to be sure that future changes would not
impinge on business plans.
There is a similar message from companies involved in "clean"
coal technologies.
Mitsui Babcock says emissions from coal-fired power stations can
be reduced by 20% simply by using modern, efficient boilers; by
a further 20% by mixing renewably grown biomass in with the
fuel; and by 95% using carbon capture and storage.
"Our view is that it's too late for the energy gap to be filled
by nuclear," the company's director of policy liaison, Mike
Farley, told the BBC News website.
"To fill it with clean coal, we would need to build at least 2GW
of capacity annually starting in 2006 through to 2011."
The key factor which would encourage that new build, he
believes, would be for the government to set a programme for
pricing carbon dioxide emissions beyond 2012, when the current
European Emission Trading Scheme comes to an end.
[Businessmen with solar cell in front of German stock exchange.
Image: Thomas Lohnes/AFP/Getty]
Germany: Big growth in solar panels and a booming business sector
And renewables? They are being held back, Jeremy Leggett
believes, by an institutional culture within Whitehall.
"Too many senior officials just don't believe that you can get
energy this way," he said.
"They believe that you get it from building a big box and putting
in it a big coal-fired boiler or a nuclear reactor; it's just the
culture."
He points to the example of Germany, which last year installed
100 times more solar capacity than the UK, as a country which has
got its act together renewably.
The GSL report paves the way for a raft of government actions;
but then so did the RCEP report half a decade ago.
The choices are little different; but time has moved inexorably
onwards to the point when either the Whitehall barriers will soon
have to collapse, or the lights will go out.
*****************************************************************
19 NRC: Notice of Issuance of Amendment to Materials License SNM-2505;
FR Doc 05-22431
[Federal Register: November 10, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 217)]
[Notices] [Page 68478-68479] From the Federal Register Online via
GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr10no05-158]
Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, Inc.; Calvert Cliffs
Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation AGENCY: Nuclear
Regulatory Commission.
ACTION: Notice of issuance of license amendment.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joseph M. Sebrosky, Senior
Project Manager, Spent Fuel Project Office, Office of Nuclear
Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, Washington, DC 20555. Telephone: (301) 415-1132; fax
number: (301) 415-8555; e-mail: jms3@nrc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Introduction The U.S. Nuclear
Regulatory Commission (NRC or the Commission) has issued
Amendment 7 to Materials License SNM-2505 held by Calvert Cliffs
Nuclear Power Plant, Inc. (CCNPP) for the receipt, possession,
transfer, and storage of spent fuel at the Calvert Cliffs
Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation (ISFSI), located in
Calvert County, Maryland. The amendment is effective as of the
date of issuance. II. Background By application dated May 16,
2005, as supplemented on September 29, 2005, and October 28,
2005, CCNPP requested to amend its ISFSI license to incorporate
changes to the updated safety analysis report to alter the design
basis limit for the dry shielded canister (DSC) internal pressure
from 50 psig to 100 psig.
III. Finding This amendment complies with the standards and
requirements of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the
Act), and the Commission's rules and regulations. The Commission
has made appropriate findings as required by the Act and the
Commission's rules and regulations in 10 CFR Chapter I, which are
set forth in the license amendment.
In accordance with 10 CFR 72.46(b)(2), a determination has been
made that the amendment does not present a genuine issue as to
whether public health and safety will be significantly affected.
Therefore, the publication of a notice of proposed action and an
opportunity for hearing or a notice of hearing is not warranted.
Notice is hereby given of the right of interested persons to
request a hearing on whether the action should be rescinded or
modified.
Also in connection with this action, the Commission prepared an
Environmental Assessment (EA) and Finding of No Significant
Impact (FONSI). The EA and FONSI were published in the Federal
Register on September 12, 2005 (70 FR 53812).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further details with respect
to this action, see the application dated May 16, 2005, available
for public inspection at the Commission's Public Document Room
(PDR), located at One White Flint North, Public File Area O-1F21,
11555 Rockville Pike (first floor) Rockville, Maryland. Publicly
available records will be accessible electronically from the
Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) Public
Electronic Reading Room on the Internet at the NRC Web site,
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. Persons who do not have
access to ADAMS or who encounter problems in
[[Page 68479]] accessing the documents located in ADAMS, should
contact the NRC PDR Reference staff by telephone at 1 (800)
397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by e-mail to pdr@nrc.gov. Dated at
Rockville, Maryland, this 2nd day of November, 2005.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Joseph M. Sebrosky, Senior Project Manager, Licensing Section,
Spent Fuel Project Office, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and
Safeguards.
[FR Doc. 05-22431 Filed 11-9-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
*****************************************************************
20 APP.COM: Nuclear power use helps cushion natural gas price hike
Asbury Park Press Online
Thursday, November 10, 2005
11/10/05
BY LETTY GOODMAN LUTZKER
In our blindness to the importance of abundant energy
for our hugely productive economic engine, we have stumbled into
an era of unnecessarily high energy costs. It is some comfort to
reflect that we would be in a lot worse shape economically
without nuclear power, now that the price of natural gas is
going through the roof.
Contrary to the incorrect popular wisdom, the cost of producing
electricity from nuclear power is less than one-third the cost
of obtaining power from plants fueled with natural gas. Since
half of the electricity in New Jersey is nuclear-generated — a
larger percentage than in any other state in the Northeast
except Vermont — we are at least somewhat better positioned than
many of our fellow U.S. citizens to withstand the shock of
soaring natural gas prices.
Nationally, however, natural gas has become the preferred fuel
for electricity generation. It provides nearly 20 percent of the
nation's electricity, as does nuclear, but going forward more
than 95 percent of the additional electric-power capacity being
planned or brought online uses natural gas for fuel. This
increased demand, competing with the use of natural gas for home
heating and industrial processes, is driving up the price of
this commodity.
Everybody is aware that millions of homeowners will be shocked,
even devastated, by the rise in home heating costs this winter.
Fewer know of the debilitating effects of the natural gas crisis
on our industrial economy.
The price of natural gas, which supplies a quarter of the energy
used by Americans, has jumped sevenfold in just the last five
years. The United States now has the highest natural gas prices
in the world. Many Americans are unaware that many U.S.
industries — chemical, aluminum, plastics, iron and steel, and
food processing companies — use large amounts of gas in their
processes and, as they find it more difficult to compete with
countries that have cheaper supplies, are beginning to move
their facilities abroad.
According to the American Chemical Council, in the last three
years, 36 percent of the U.S. fertilizer industry, which depends
on natural gas, has been shut down or mothballed. Last year
alone, chemical companies closed 70 facilities in the United
States, and have tagged at least 40 more for shutdown. Of the
120 chemical plants being built around the world with price tags
of $1 billion or more, only one is in the United States. This
trend can only become worse unless the public and its political
leaders wake up.
For all its advantages as a relatively clean solution to our air
pollution problems, natural gas cannot by itself meet the
nation's needs for economic growth and environmental objectives.
America needs a diverse and flexible supply of energy if we are
to avoid further competitive disadvantages, with the potential
for increased movement of jobs overseas and layoffs and economic
stagnation here.
We should be exploiting all energy sources available to us,
especially those for which we have large domestic supplies. The
natural gas crisis could have been prevented, and now must be
addressed on these fronts:
We must utilize for electricity production those fuels which
have little other utility, and which we have in abundance. This
means expanding our nuclear electricity capability, which
requires immediate licensing and construction of the Yucca
Mountain nuclear waste repository, and proceeding rapidly with a
streamlined process for licensing new plants to provide clean,
reliable, affordable electricity. We should also exploit clean
coal electricity production where possible as well.
We must overcome the vociferous and destructive opposition to
extracting the huge domestic supplies of natural gas in this
country, especially those in less environmentally vulnerable
areas than the Gulf of Mexico.
Our nation's economic strength and security require dependable
access to bulk energy and the wise allocation of energy sources
to the processes they suit best. Using natural gas for
electricity production, for which we have other viable options,
diverts a valuable resource from uses for which it is better
suited and for which there is at present no good substitute.
Dr. Letty Goodman Lutzker is chief of nuclear medicine at the
St. Barnabas Medical Center, Livingston.
Copyright © 2005 Asbury Park Press. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
21 ABC: Southern Nuclear finds discrepancy at Georgia plant -
2005-11-10
Atlanta Business Chronicle
Southern Nuclear Operating Co. has reported discrepancies in
inventory at one of its nuclear plants in a required update to
the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
The nuclear unit of Atlanta-based Southern Co.(NYSE: SO) said
that based on a preliminary review it could not reconcile 68
inches of inventory at the Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant near
Baxley, Ga. The fuel inventory in the two reactor cores and the
two spent fuel pools at Plant Hatch totals more than 57 million
inches.
The inventory verification is still in progress and should be
completed Dec. 15. The company believes the material is in
another location in the spent fuel pools or was shipped to a
licensed disposal facility. There is no threat to public health
or safety, the company said.
No discrepancies were found at the Alvin W. Vogtle Electric
Generating Plant near Waynesboro, Ga., or the Joseph M. Farley
Nuclear Plant near Dothan, Ala., the company said.
© 2005 American City Business Journals Inc. Add RSS Headlines
Atlanta Business Chronicle email: atlanta@bizjournals.com
bizjournals| Contact Us | Site FAQ
*****************************************************************
22 LA Weekly: Features: Green to the Core? — Part 2
Part 1 How I tried to stop worrying and love nuclear power.
By JUDITH LEWIS
NOVEMBER 11 - 17, 2005
“I really believe that people go to work at that plant saying I
have a huge responsibility to make sure this plant is safe,”
says Rochelle Becker, the tireless executive director of the San
Diego–based Alliance for Nuclear Responsibility. “But you can be
running that plant with the best of intentions and the best of
employees, and guess what? Nature bats last.” In recent years,
Becker, a small woman with a slightly turned-up nose and
straight, light-brown-to-graying hair pulled back in a ponytail,
has focused almost all of her energy fighting the impending
re-licensing of California’s two remaining nuclear power plants
on the grounds that no safe solution exists for long-term
storage of nuclear waste.
Becker has read the National Academy of Sciences report on those
storage pools and, like that report’s authors, she worries about
terrorist attacks. But she worries as much about a 7.5-magnitude
earthquake on the Hosgri Fault, which runs two and a half miles
from Diablo Canyon’s door. She admits that an earthquake of such
power has never hit that fault, but neither had a storm surge
sufficient to submerge New Orleans ever hit the Gulf Coast.
Geological time, like radioactive decay, is not measured in the
tens of years, but in hundreds and thousands. “Earthquakes,” she
says, ”don’t happen in 30-year time frames.”
Both plants have been built to withstand, as PG’s literature
puts it, “the largest earthquake deemed credible from the
nearest earthquake fault.” The utility employs a full staff of
seismic experts to assess the risk from nearby faults. Becker
doesn’t care. “How many structures fell in the Northridge
earthquake that were supposed to have been seismically sound?
Freeway overpasses, buildings, all kinds of things. Look at
where San Onofre is compared to the ocean. It’s pretty much
right there. What happens if the coast shifts? And what happens
if an earthquake hits at one of those plants while they’re
moving fuel into the pools? Worst-case scenario: The fuel rods
could come in contact with each other, initiating a chain
reaction and subsequently starting a fire.”
Cancer deaths from such an accident could soar into the five
digits. And if it doesn’t kill you, rest assured your beach
house will be rendered worthless, says Becker. “Oceanfront
property,” she says, “will be pretty darn cheap.”
Diablo Canyon’s spent-fuel pools will reach capacity in 2006,
which is why PG has plans to institute on-site dry-cask storage
at its facility, a decision Becker prefers to trucking waste
across California. In March of 2004, the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission granted PG a 20-year license to begin storing spent
fuel in steel canisters packed in concrete and steel and
anchored to concrete pads. There was only one problem: The
license didn’t say anything about protecting the storage
facility against a terrorist attack. The Sierra Club and Mothers
for Peace, with the backing of California Attorney General Bill
Lockyear, have appealed the NRC’s approval in the Ninth Circuit
Court.
But if both nuclear plants shut down when their licenses run
out, how will California meet its energy needs without
compounding global warming?
Becker gave her official answer to the California Energy
Commission at a Sacramento workshop: “Four thousand megawatts is
a considerable amount of energy,” she said, “but we don’t
believe it’s substantial. Hundreds of millions of California’s
dollars have gone into a hole in the Nevada desert called Yucca
Mountain. If the same investment in dollars were made in
renewable, we would go from being the laughingstock to a leader
in renewable energy.”
Then again, she tells me over lunch one day, “I don’t really
feel like it’s up to me to address how we replace that power. I
do feel like it’s up to me to be questioning how much
radioactive waste California wants to store on our
earthquake-active coast. For years, we have been talking about
these as energy-generation plants. All they do is produce
energy. We’re acting like we don’t have over 6,000 tons of
radioactive waste sitting on our coast. Well, we do. And there’s
200 more tons every year.”
Even storage facilities for low-level waste have begun to
tighten restrictions: Barnwell, South Carolina, will close its
doors to out-of-region waste as of 2008; Richland, Washington,
already has.
“So when does California go, ‘This is enough’” asks Becker. “Why
aren’t we making the Department of Energy, the NRC, the federal
government deal with these problems like they promised? And why
do we continue to produce more waste when we haven’t solved the
problem of what we’ve got?”
The answer to some of Becker’s questions can be found about 100
miles north of Las Vegas at Yucca Mountain in the bleak expanse
of Nye County, Nevada. Should it seem for any reason an
inappropriate place to deposit several generations of America’s
atomic detritus, Department of Energy spokesman Allen Benson is
here to convince you otherwise. In his arsenal of evidence is
the fact that Yucca Mountain gets only seven inches of rainfall
a year and that the area surrounding the proposed repository is
chronically underpopulated, on the edge of the Nevada Test Site,
where atomic scientists working for the U.S. government sat at
perilously close range while their mystical ordnance exploded
1,500 feet over the desert. If that isn’t enough, consider this:
“Nye County,” observes Benson, “is shaped like a mushroom cloud.”
It is impossible not to be awestruck by the sheer scale of the
Yucca Mountain project, by the five-mile horseshoe-shaped tunnel
that has been drilled through the mountain, by the railroad that
runs through that tunnel, by the 450-foot-long drill that made
that tunnel, the “Yucca Mucker” that still stands at the
tunnel’s far end, because it’s too expensive to move.
“If you know anyone who’s interested, it’s for sale,” Benson
says, staring up at the beast-like machine. “$10 million.”
“But it needs some work,” I offer.
Benson laughs. “It needs some work. It’s only got five miles on
it, though.”
Inside the tunnel, thousands of note cards litter the cavern’s
rock walls, engraved with the names of prominent scientists from
Los Alamos, Sandia and Livermore laboratories — scientists who
have taken samples of Yucca Mountain’s volcanic rockfor
independent analysis of its density, its mineral content and,
most of all, its porosity: Water is the thing that defines
whether a nuclear waste storage facility will withstand the test
of time and weather.
It’s unfortunate, then, that on the day I take Benson’s tour,
with two other journalists and a geologist named John Hartley,
the desert is bursting with greenness fed by unusually plentiful
spring rains. I expected Yucca Mountain to be dry and barren;
instead, it’s a stunning stretch of high Western desert. It
seems a heartbreaking place for a waste dump.
“Get this straight,” says Benson. “We don’t dump anything. And
that really is important if you’re going to report on this. It
is not dumped. It is disposed of in a scientific and responsible
manner to protect public health and safety.” But can’t that
science change? What happens if global warming gives Yucca
Mountain annual monsoons?
“First of all, we’re dealing with solid material,” says Benson,
“in specially designed canisters, in an engineered facility
designed to enhance the natural geology. You’ve probably heard
talk in some quarters that the mountain itself was supposed to
protect the canisters. That’s not true.” The Nuclear Waste
Policy Act of 1982, says Benson, clearly indicates that
engineered facilities would be used in conjunction with natural
geology to protect against radiation exposure. “So we’re
following the law very clearly here, very precisely.”
Benson has cause to be defensive: Nevada Senator Harry Reid
calls it a “dump” nearly every time he mentions it; Shelley
Berkley, the local congresswoman, calls it a “fiscal black
hole.” This week Congress slashed the project’s funding by $127
million. Eight billion dollars have so far gone into the
project, which was last scheduled to open in 1998. Victor
Gilinsky, who formerly served on the NRC, has blasted DOE
management for shrouding the project in secrecy. “It’s hard to
have confidence in an agency that acts in such a secretive way.”
Last winter, a series of e-mails exchanged by employees of the
U.S. Geological Survey who worked on the project suggested that
research on the site had not been as meticulous as it could have
been, and in some cases may have been falsified.
“We’re not talking about the e-mails,” Benson reminded us more
than once. “The e-mails are part of an ongoing investigation,
and we’re not going to do anything to compromise that
investigation.”
After a few hours at Yucca Mountain, it becomes clear why,
despite a desperate need for a solution to the nuclear waste
problem (there is already enough waste in temporary storage to
fill it), the site has not opened: No one is absolutely sure
what will happen if it does. If all the regulatory hurdles are
cleared, if Nevada loses its political battle and Yucca
Mountain’s license — which Benson says will be measured in
“linear feet,” not pages — is finally approved, the waste that
goes into it will last for hundreds of thousands, even millions
of years. “We don’t know what will happen in 10,000 years,”
Benson admits. “Will people speak English? There probably won’t
be a United States.” He talks about the difficulty of
establishing a warning system that will matter to creatures of
the future, who likely won’t read our signs. But the very idea
that such a system is possible seems absurd. In early August,
the EPA proposed upgrading its 10,000-year safety standard for
radiation exposure to humans near Yucca Mountain to 1 million
years. As if the EPA will be around in 1 million years to
enforce it.
People in the nuclear industry, including San Onofre’s Ray
Golden, respond to the problem of nuclear waste by advocating
reprocessing. It sounds like a good idea to me, too, so I ask
Dave Lochbaum about it.
“On paper, it sounds good,” he says. “Everybody likes recycling.
But we’ve tried reprocessing three times in this country and
we’re 0 for 3.”
Why?
“General Electric spent a lot of money on a reprocessing
facility in Morris, Illinois. They got it finished, but they
never could get it to work. Once Ford and Carter issued
nonproliferation executive orders, [closing] it was less face
loss than admitting it didn’t work.”
“So why,” I want to know, “don’t we just bring a bunch of French
guys over here to show us how?”
“Well,” Lochbaum hesitates, “the French don’t really follow our
safety rules. I’m not sure that technology could be licensed in
the United States unless we just waived our existing
regulations. We have a little bit more concern about effluent.
I’m not going to say the French are ‘no blood no foul,’ but
they’re not quite as concerned about effluents as we are. They
tend to believe more in ‘the solution to pollution is dilution.’
They have high releases, but they figure it’s going into the
North Sea or the English Channel. That’s a big ocean. So there
are certain beaches on the North Seawhere you can get a suntan
at night.” Indeed, according to Britain’s Environmental
Protection Agency, concentrations of technetium-99, an isotope
produced in reprocessing, were four times higher in the coastal
waters of Belgium and the Netherlands down-plumefrom France’s
Cap de la Hague reprocessing plant.
Shortly after I return from Yucca Mountain, I look over a map I
got from Rochelle Becker showing my office in Los Angeles, just
4.7 miles away from the nearest nuclear waste transport route,
along which waste would travel on its way from Diablo Canyon to
Yucca Mountain. I find myself mentally running through the
process of loading cats in their carriers, dogs on their leashes
and cherished belongings unboxed in the car — and planning
escape routes. The 101 freeway out of Hollywood would be jammed;
the 5 freeway in either direction would be worse. I think of all
those drivers stuck on the highways out of Houston, fleeing
Hurricane Rita.
“It would most likely evolve over days, not hours,” says Ray
Golden of a nuclear accident. He takes me into the war room at
San Onofre, a high-ceiling barracks filled with long tables
lined with telephones. The phones have assignments: FEMA sits
here, the local sheriff there, the plant manager over there. The
NRC has a spot, too. “Yeah, they’d be here bossing us around,”
says Golden, as though he’d rather handle any emergency by
himself, with his trusted co-workers. As though he could.
As my nuclear anxiety accelerates, I finish Caldicott’s Nuclear
Madness: What You Can Do. I find in it Caldicott’s gloss
narratives of nuclear energy’s accidents and horrors, a fairly
familiar litany of the disasters that have happened and others
that probably will. But I also find in the book a comprehensive
summary of all the radioactive substances that have already been
released into the environment — information I first learned from
the federal EPA’s Web site: A fine dust of plutonium-239,
discovered in 1941 but kept secret as a national security threat
until seven years later, has accumulated over the world like a
toxic blanket. Writes Caldicott more specifically: “Five metric
tons were thinly dispersed over the Earth as a result of nuclear
bomb testing, satellite re-entries and burnups, effluents from
nuclear reprocessing plants, accidental fires, explosions,
spills and leakages.” One-millionth of a gram is enough to cause
cancer. And as far as living organisms on the Earth are
concerned, plutonium is forever. It has a half-life of just
under 25,000 years.
As Caldicott points out, it can’t even be destroyed. “Plutonium
does not simply vanish at the death of a contaminated organism.
If, for example, someone were to die of a lung cancer induced by
plutonium, and were then cremated, contaminated smoke might
carry plutonium particles into someone else’s lungs.” Caldicott
wrote the book in the same voice with which she speaks, and as I
read I pictured her staring me down. This time, I take her
seriously.
To produce enough electricity to keep Yonkers going for a year,
a light-water nuclear reactor would make, as a by-product, just
about enough plutonium to obliterate Yonkers.
— John McPhee, The Curve of Binding Energy, 1974.
There are, at this point, many persuasive arguments against
nuclear power. Amory Lovins of the Rocky Mountain Institute can
show you graphs and charts proving it produces less energy for
the dollar than wind or solar could, if anyone would implement
renewables on a large scale. Wall Street analysts complain that
even the current energy bill’s generous subsidies for nuclear
energy are not sufficient to spur investment. No one knows what
to do with the waste. And while its essential generation may be
free of toxic air emissions we associate with smog and
greenhouse gas, the process of mining and enriching its most
fundamental element — uranium — huffs an astonishing load of
Earth-destroying chemicals into the air. Caldicott had warned me
of this, but I didn’t believe her until I saw the data on the
EPA’s Toxic Release Inventory for 2003: The two gaseous
diffusion plants at Paducah, Kentucky, and Portsmouth, Ohio,
pour almost 10 times the amount of CFC-114 — an ozone-destroying
gas banned under the Montreal Protocol — as all other sources in
the United States combined.
But the most disturbing thing about nuclear power is that
fission of any kind, for bombs or watts, creates toxic elements
that would not otherwise exist. According to the U.K.’s National
Radiological Protection Board, cesium-137 fallout from the
Chernobyl accident will likely contribute to 1,000 additional
cancers over the next 70 years among the population of Western
Europe. Strontium-90, chemically similar to calcium, settles in
bones and blood, triggering bone cancer and leukemia. It is
perhaps not surprising that cancer clusters can’t be found in
the immediate vicinity of nuclear power facilities: According to
the EPA, strontium-90 has been so thoroughly dispersed into the
atmosphere it is “almost impossible to avoid.” It has been found
in milk and children’s baby teeth since the late 1950s, most
recently by Dr. Jay Gould and a team of researchers in their
2000 study, “Strontium-90 in Deciduous Teeth as a Factor in
Early Childhood Cancer,” which reported higher strontium-90
concentrations downwind of certain nuclear power plants.
It is not far-fetched at all, then, to imagine that it also
turns up in Hershey’s chocolate.
Thinking in 10,000-year terms is new to us. We have a long way
to go to comprehend even the size of the subject of very
long-term responsibility.
—Stewart Brand, The Clock of the Long Now: Time and
Responsibility — The Idea Behind the World’s Slowest Computer
In 1966, a young Stewart Brand dropped LSD, sat on the top of a
building in San Francisco and observed the curvature of the
earth. That led him to a campaign of buttons and bumper stickers
demanding an answer to the question, “Why haven’t we seen a
picture of the Whole Earth yet?” A few years later, an Apollo
mission shot a vision of the Earth from space fully lit by the
sun — the famous “Blue Marble” — and Brand launched the Whole
Earth Catalog with the image as his logo. In some respects he
was the original techno-environmentalist: The founder, in 1985
of the Whole Earth ’Lectronic Link (the WELL), a force behind
Wired magazine, a philosopher who brought together the nature
lovers — the “romantics” in Brand’s view — with the scientists.
It was a surprise to many, and dismaying to some, when Brand
granted nuclear power an honored place in the world’s energy
portfolio. In the months since his article “Environmental
Heresies” was published in MIT’s Technology Review, many have
tried to persuade him otherwise. Clean-energy expert Joseph Romm
tried to convince him that the nuclear industry would do just
fine without his support — it’s renewables that need his
backing. Environmental journalist Mark Hertsgaard wrote a
pointed editorial in the San Francisco Chronicle accusing Brand
of being, among other things, naive about nuclear power’s
economics. Random bloggers have accused him of shortsightedness
— a potent irony, as one of Brand’s affiliations these days is
with the Long Now Foundation, which he co-founded with Danny
Hillis to promote long-term thinking (among their projects is a
clock that measures time in millennial increments). But Brand
has held firm. The reason: Nothing — no reactor meltdown, no
waste-storage conundrum, no fine dust of plutonium spread around
the globe will cause as much damage to the Earth as the
carbon-induced changing of the climate.
“Amory Lovins bent my ear hard with how the economics don’t
work,” Brand tells me over the phone from his office in San
Francisco. “And indeed, the economics are problematic, but Amory
has not done the economics on climate change.” Even if a nuclear
disaster occurs, Brand says it won’t be as bad as losing every
coastline to global tsunamis.
“A fair question you could put to one of your concerned
scientists would be, How many Chernobyls equals one abrupt
climate change?” says Brand. “A climate change where we have
warmer and warmer oceans and deeper and deeper waters, where
Florida goes under, and Bangladesh goes under, and we have more
and more New Orleans–type events every year? A climate change
where the Gulf Stream turns off, and not only Europe but the
whole world gets much colder, drier and windier, and the Earth
then drops its carrying capacity by 20 or 40 percent?
“And what,” Brand continues, “if you can engineer out any
Chernobyl at all?”
If there’s a lot Brand hasn’t worked out — he didn’t, for
instance, know the Pebble Bed Modular Reactor produced so much
waste — no matter; Brand has enormous faith in future
engineering and human invention.
“It may well be true about the pebble bed and waste,” he allows.
“But then, okay, back to the old drawing board! That’s exactly
the kind of debate about these designs one would like to see in
public. I would like to see Greens engaging in it. Let’s bear
down and say this or that or this other thing is a problem.
Maybe we should be pushing ‘generation five’ nuclear technology
— if we even know what it is. What you want is the back and
forth instead of one side yelling ‘yes’ and the other side
yelling ‘no.’ In the meantime, we can start building some stuff,
bearing in mind that the worst nuclear disaster is still a lot
better than the worst climate disaster that rachets us into a
world we can’t come back from.”
As for the waste that so worries Rochelle Becker, that’s easy,
says Brand: Open Yucca Mountain for business. It doesn’t have to
be perfect forever, because in time, we’ll figure out a better
solution. “I think it’s a swell place to park this stuff for a
100 years while we think about what to do with it. A lot of
engineers think we’ll send robots back in a few decades to use
what will then be high-grade ore.”
The way Brand sees it, the problem with Yucca Mountain is that
the U.S. government has been trying to figure out how to store
nuclear waste safely for 10,000 years. “And that’s a very
expensive, irrelevant question,” he says. “The Canadians asked a
different question — what do we do with it right now? They got
the Indians involved, who told them seven generations is not a
bad time frame. Seven times 25 is 175 — so we have
responsibility for this thing for 175 years. After that, it is
fair to say that it is the next generation’s problem. Let them
deal with it.”
Bequeathing subsequent generations nuclear waste is “way, way
different than losing species you can’t get back. This is
passing on an engineering problem to future generations. And
that is fair to do.”
But how does that square with the express philosophy of
long-term thought, of the millennial clock?
“When we went to Yucca Mountain, we took a member of our Long
Now board,” says Brand. “And we found ourselves fascinated by
the pathology of Yucca Mountain and the billions they were
spending to study it. They were doing what we were promoting —
they were thinking long term. They were thinking ‘Let’s have an
absolute bulletproof determination of all that will happen in
10,000 years and develop an engineering solution for all those
problems.’
“But this,” Brand continues, “was a case in which thinking in
10,000-year terms was a mistake.” He laughs. “I really liked it,
because up until then we thought 10,000-years-plus is a good way
to think about everything, but it isn’t. In this case, it
created more problems than solutions. It was very bracing for us
to learn that.”
But will nuclear power save us from the fate Brand warns about?
And just how many nuclear reactors would it take to make an
appreciable difference in the carbon collecting in the
atmosphere? In 2002, the Institute for Energy and Environmental
Research did that math and concluded that it would take 2,000
nuclear reactors producing 1,000 megawatts of power to make a
dent in carbon emissions from coal-fired plants. At the United
Nations, a multinational panel on climate change suggested
reversing the carbon trend would require an average of 75 new
nuclear reactors every year for the next century. By some
estimates, the Earth will run out of uranium before we’d reach
that capacity for nuclear generation.
Brand, of course, dismisses such estimates as based on old
technology and backward data. And this is no time to wring our
hands about future uranium supplies and the release of toxic
isotopes. We need to stop climate change now.
“Chernobyl was local,” insists Brand. “It put a lot of crap into
the atmosphere, and people downwind are in bad shape. But
climate change is pretty damn universal and inescapable. It’s
not like we’re going to go somewhere else.”
Most of the world, he argues, will be uninhabitable — not just
for humans but for every other species adapted to the seasons as
we know them. And perhaps that’s where Brand wins: While climate
change has already begun to endanger a diverse range of
Earth-bound plants and animals, the consequences of widespread
nuclear contamination matter most for humans.
The evidence can be found in Chernobyl’s “exclusion zone,” an
area 10 kilometers out from the scene of the 1986 fire. A few
people have returned to Chernobyl, to the abandoned town of
Pripyat and to the formerly Red Forest on the outskirts of the
town and reactor, but the exclusion zone remains off-limits to
humans, and will remain so for as long as we can imagine. But
here’s the twist: In the absence of human impact, the land has
reverted to one of the most robust wildlife refuges in the
world. According to a report by geneticists Robert J. Baker and
Ronald K. Chesser of Texas Tech University, who have conducted
12 research expeditions to the site, moose, roe deer, foxes and
river otters frolic within the exclusion zone; 30 kilometers out
live wolves, eagles and the endangered black stork. “Diversity
of flowers and other plants in the highly radioactive regions is
impressive,” wrote Baker, “and equals that observed in protected
habitats outside the zone.”
Upon his return from the expedition, a government official asked
Baker to report on the accident’s consequences to the ecosystem.
Baker told him that “the net ecological impact has been
positive.”
“How it could be possible that the worst nuclear power plant
accident in history, releasing between 100 and 200 million
curies of radiation into the environment, could produce positive
ecological consequences?” the official wanted to know.
“The answer was simple,” the men concluded. “Humans have
evacuated the contaminated zone.” It’s not that radiation hasn’t
harmed the animals — the mice in the freakishly abundant new
wilderness show profound genetic mutations — it’s just that “the
benefit of excluding humans from this highly contaminated
ecosystem appears to outweigh significantly any negative cost
associated with Chernobyl radiation.”
Nuclear power may change the world after all.
*****************************************************************
23 LA Weekly: Features: Green to the Core? — Part 1
NOVEMBER 11 - 17, 2005
Green to the Core? — Part 1
How I tried to stop worrying and love nuclear power
by JUDITH LEWIS
Nothing in life is to be feared; it is only to be understood.
—Marie Curie
A rock, glittery gold and slate colored, has been placed on a
table next to a chip of old Fiestaware and a Big Ben clock
inside a brightly lit classroom at Southern California Edison’s
San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, the power plant whose
twin containment domes define the coastline below San Clemente.
Ray Golden, a spokesperson who conducts plant tours for
schoolchildren, foreign diplomats and anyone else he can
interest in the magic of nuclear fission, is telling me how
radiation — in the form of the clock’s glow-in-the-dark radium
or uranium oxide that gives the plate its deep reddish-orange
hue — has been used for nearly a century in manufactured goods.
But it’s the rock, a roughly elliptical piece of solid uranium
ore, small enough to fit in my hand but able to throw off
radioactive particles as it slowly decays into unstable thorium,
radium and, eventually, lead, that attracts me. And when Golden
turns his back to write some diagrams on the classroom’s
whiteboard, I quickly pick up the rock, cradling it in one hand.
Small doses of alpha, beta and even penetrating gamma rays begin
to bombard my skin, and I savor the transmutation of elements
happening under my very nose. Just about 10 seconds pass before
I put the rock back where I got it, unnoticed by Golden.
In practical terms, the chunk of ore is no more dangerous than
any other stone I might have held. Still, when Golden runs a
pale green plastic box, a dosimeter, across the surface of the
rock to measure its radioactivity, the machine emits
high-pitched beeps with each pass — sometimes slowly, like a
moderate pulse, other times in rapid succession like a jammed
letter on an old computer keyboard. Each beep represents 200
counts per minute; 2,000 counts makes a millirem, which is
atomic science’s metric for absorbed radiation. Holding the rock
for 10 seconds, I may have absorbed a millirem of radiation in
various forms, which is not so bad: The average person gets
about 360 millirems a year just from the radiation that beams
down from the sun and occurs naturally in the Earth’s rocks and
soil; mile-high Denver residents get nearly twice that. It would
take much more to hurt me.
“Fifty-thousand millirems would cause a slight change on your
body chemistry,” Golden explains. “Five hundred thousand, if you
got it in a few hours, would bring on burns, vomiting, sickness,
hair loss and, for about half the population, death.”
It would be impossible to get that kind of dose from a rock even
100 times the size of this one, and relatively easy to avoid
getting any dose at all. Although it usually takes lead or
concrete to block gamma radiation, the rock is so small and its
gamma rays so weak that it’s mostly sending out alpha and beta
particles, and when Golden places a piece of paper between the
rock and the dosimeter, the beeping fades. A sheet of Plexiglas
stops the beeping altogether.
Even plutonium, one of the world’s most toxic materials, emits
only alpha particles, which can be blocked by paper, a thin
sheet of aluminum or even your skin. “As long as you don’t
ingest or inhale [them],” Golden says, “alpha particles can’t
hurt you.” Or, in the words of Elena Filatova, the intrepid
Ukrainian motorcyclist who documented Chernobyl’s dead zone in
photographs, “You can play billiard balls with pure plutonium.
Just don’t swallow it by mistake.”
Like every magical property of nature that man has harnessed,
radiation, Golden insists, is neither good nor bad. But what
about nuclear power? Is it good or bad for the Earth? Neither?
Five years ago, few of us would have bothered to ask. You were
either for or, more likely, against nukes — if you thought about
them at all.
But nuclear energy is seeping back into our public consciousness
here in 2005, which may go down in history as the year in which
global warming went from debunkable theory to indisputable fact
for a significant part of the population, not simply because of
our record-breaking hurricane season or the record-high
temperatures in many cities around the world, but the reality
that we regularly wake up to find evidence in our mainstream
newspapers of an ecology gone awry due to warming seas and
blistering droughts — disappearing cold-water plankton and
starving seabirds in the Shetland Islands, the Russian ship that
sailed to the North Pole in August without the aid of an
icebreaker, the sudden disappearance of certain butterfly
species in Baja. In light of these conditions, almost anything
seems better than burning more coal, which for every megawatt of
power blasts a ton of heat-trapping carbon dioxide into the
skies. This is one reason why nuclear has reemerged as a viable
source of energy for new power plants — not just among George W.
Bush and his business buddies (who like the idea of more nuclear
and more coal), but even among futurists, environmentalists and
Democrats in the U.S. Senate, from quasi-Republican Joe
Lieberman to new hope Barack Obama.
“Nuclear power is the only green solution,” began a spring 2004
editorial in London’s Independent by James Lovelock, the
progenitor of the Gaia theory of the Earth as a self-correcting,
self-regenerating organism. “We cannot continue drawing energy
from fossil fuels, and there is no chance that the renewables,
wind, tide and water power can provide enough energy and in time
. . . we do not have 50 years.”
Stewart Brand, the visionary founder of the Whole Earth Catalog,
followed Lovelock this year in Technology Review: “The only
technology ready to fill the gap and stop the carbon dioxide
loading of the atmosphere is nuclear power,” he wrote. “The
industry is mature, with a half-century of experience and ever
improved engineering behind it.”
Later came Patrick Moore, a co-founder of Greenpeace (although
he quit the group a decade ago), the recently deceased Reverend
Hugh Montefiore of Friends of the Earth in England and Fred
Krupp, the notoriously well-paid head of Environmental Defense,
who stopped short of endorsing new plants but conceded that “we
all should have an open mind” about nuclear power.
At first I was tempted to treat these statements as curiosities,
extreme positions meant to stir controversy. But all this year
I’ve met serious environmentalists, from Randy Udall of the
Aspen-based Community Office for Resource Efficiency to a Bay
Area friend who runs an energy efficiency company, who share
Krupp’s “open mind” sentiment. Even Jared Diamond, author of
Collapse: How Societies Choose to Succeed or Fail, recently made
his support for nuclear power explicit when he appeared with
Brand before an audience in San Francisco. Is it possible that
we have come to this: a choice between a catastrophic warming
trend and the most feared energy source on earth?
Back in the learning laboratory at San Onofre, where I’ve come
on my own open-minded journey to test my assumptions about
nuclear power, Golden holds up a small vial of yellow powder:
uranium oxide, or yellowcake uranium, milled and refined — the
substance at the heart of the current CIA leak investigation.
Before its atoms’ energy can be harnessed, uranium oxide has to
be enriched, by centrifuge or by being turned into a gas and
passed through a series of membranes, a process called “gaseous
diffusion.” Uranium comes out of the ground only .7 percent
uranium-235 (or U-235); fueling a light-water reactor like San
Onofre’s requires a concentration of 4.7 percent U-235. Using a
mock-up of a reactor core that stands at the front of the room —
a contraption that looks like the inside of a miniature pipe
organ — Golden demonstrates how uranium pellets the size of baby
fingertips fill the core’s 236 zirconium tubes, which are then
bundled together in a fuel assembly.
The few times I’ve seen the stout, easygoing Golden at public
meetings and on this tour, his face has had the look of a
perennial mild sunburn, and his reddish-blond hair always looks
bleached by the sun. He has worked in public relations for the
nuclear industry 23 of his 45 years on Earth — his own nuclear
half-life. He accuses the nuclear industry of “falling down on
the job” by keeping so many secrets about its world, and holds
that if the American public, like the more nuclear-friendly
French, knew all the facts — what happens when atoms split, how
unstable nuclides decay, how uranium is enriched and waste is
transported — nuclear energy might be more popular with the
American public. “Most Americans think they know about radiation
because of Chernobyl, science fiction or the three-eyed fish in
The Simpsons,” he says. “So as a country, we are phobic about
radiation.”
Of course, the U-235 that fuels San Onofre is highly fissile:
When one of its atoms absorbs an extra neutron, its nucleus
splits and forms other nuclides, including radioactive versions
of strontium, cesium and iodine, along with plutonium. It also
lets loose more neutrons to hit other U-235 atoms, provoking a
chain reaction of fission events. Fission generates heat, which
in a light-water reactor turns water into steam. Maintaining the
right balance of fission events — keeping the reactor at a
“critical” state — is a tricky process. If too many neutrons fly
around splitting atoms, the core gets too hot, in which case
operators insert control rods made of boron and silver into the
fuel assembly to slow or stop the chain reaction and avert a
meltdown. If it doesn’t stay hot enough, the core loses power,
provoking a different set of events that can lead to an equally
disastrous loss of control. If the reactor drifts in either
direction, or if for some reason the core loses too much water —
which cools the core at the same rate it transfers heat — a
partial or complete meltdown could result. In the early days of
nuclear power, many people feared that once a meltdown was in
process, it would continue to melt through the Earth’s core from
North America all the way to China: the “China Syndrome” of the
movie’s title.
On the face of it, nuclear power seems like a lot of trouble
just for a little steam to run a few turbines to produce a few
thousand megawatts of electricity. The Rocky Mountain
Institute’s Amory Lovins, a steadfastly anti-nuclear advocate of
conservation and green power, has likened nuclear power to
cutting butter with a chain saw. But the flip side of that
excess is nuclear’s other great advantage: how small a uranium
pellet it takes to power the world. The fission of one uranium
atom releases 200 million electron volts of energy.
“Our core is only a 12-foot cube,” Golden says, “yet it powers
1.2 million homes for four years before you ever need to
refuel.” The trillions of fissile atoms in one tiny uranium
pellet yield enough energy to replace 150 gallons of gas, 1,780
pounds of coal, 16,000 cubic feet of natural gas and two and a
half tons of wood. And they do so without adding an ounce of
greenhouse gases to the atmosphere. It is widely accepted that
one nuclear power plant spares the atmosphere the emissions of
93 million cars.
When the pellets have been depleted down to 1 percent U-235,
specially trained plant workers replace them with fresh fuel.
Some other countries, France and England among them, take this
waste and reprocess it, separating out the remaining U-235, as
well as the plutonium, cesium and other useful nuclides,
reducing the remaining waste by 75 percent. In the U.S., the
spent fuel rods go into storage pools on site until they’ve
cooled enough to be moved into dry-cask storage.
And that’s the problem. Like everyone in the nuclear industry,
Golden is acutely aware that no such dry-cask storage for those
fuel rods exists. The spent fuel at San Onofre has been sitting
in its cooling pools since the first refueling of Unit 1 in the
early 1970s.
“It’s an issue,” admits Golden. The U.S. had two reprocessing
facilities, one in West Valley New York that operated for only a
short time and another in Morris, Illinois, that never actually
recycled any fuel. Both were shut down when Presidents Ford and
Carter declared moratoriums on the technology out of concern for
proliferation. The country’s only candidate for long-term
storage of high-level nuclear waste, which includes spent fuel
rods, is a five-mile-long tunnel bored through the rock at Yucca
Mountain, Nevada, an endeavor that has been fought at every turn
by the state of Nevada. The Department of Energy has missed its
contractual deadline for receiving commercial high-level waste
by more than seven years. Southern California Edison and Pacific
Gas and Electric, which owns the Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power
Plant near San Luis Obispo, have sued to recover costs of
storing the fuel themselves. This past spring, the National
Academy of Sciences issued a report warning that the spent-fuel
cooling pools have been inadequately protected and could be
targets for terrorists.
If the matter of where to put nuclear waste makes reasonable
people uncomfortable about the continuing use of nuclear energy,
the prospect of a nuclear accident has turned many others more
hysterically against it. The history of commercial nuclear power
in the United States is full of mishaps — the 1959 meltdown of
the Sodium Reactor Experiment in Santa Susana, 30 miles north of
downtown L.A.; the 1975 control room fire at Browns’ Ferry in
Athens, Alabama, and, more recently a significant cooling system
leak at the Davis Besse plant in Ohio. The most famous of those
accidents, the partial meltdown in 1979 at Three Mile Island,
near Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, has been blamed for turning the
American public against nuclear reactors for good, even though
the electricity market had already begun to cool toward a
technology that simply cost too much to start up. Whatever
remnant of pro-nuclear public sentiment remained was finally
erased shortly after April 25, 1986, when the graphite core of
Chernobyl Unit 4 in then-Soviet Ukraine caught fire while
workers were testing the reactor to see whether its safety
systems could run without backup power. Thirty-one people died
as a direct result, and a cloud of poison gas drifted across
Ukraine, Belarus and much of Europe, contaminating the soil for
millennia to come. The surrounding area was dubbed “the Red
Forest” after its irradiated pine trees turned a deep red.
But nuclear’s proponents argue that by all accounts, the Soviet
RBMK reactor at Chernobyl was a backward design with no
containment and large amounts of flammable graphite; poorly
trained operators were executing a flawed experiment in running
the reactor on its own power when it got so hot they could no
longer control it. Accidents in the United States have so far
simply not amounted to much: It’s useful to remember that no one
died at Three Mile Island — at least not officially. And, while
opinions of the incident’s effects differ, no one has proved
that any radioactivity that might have escaped into the
atmosphere during the meltdown endangered anyone’s health.
California’s two remaining nuclear plants have, by industry
standards, stellar safety records — in part, some say, because
the state’s powerful cadre of anti-nuclear activists has ridden
herd on them since they were built, forcing state and local
authorities to police every misstep — but also because they have
been well run by large public utilities that, at least until the
deregulation of California’s electricity market, had the
resources to prioritize safety. “Every day we manage
complacency,” says Golden. “Every day we re-dedicate ourselves
to safety. Every employee here who complains has their complaint
taken seriously, even if it’s just about the food in the
cafeteria. We want everyone to feel comfortable blowing the
whistle if they have to.”
The plant’s record is not spotless: In 1980, the Nuclear
Regulatory Commssion, the federal agency charged with monitoring
plant safety, fined Southern California Edison $100,000 after 66
workers received higher-than-acceptable doses of radiation while
fixing leaky steam tubes; four years later, Edison paid the same
fine after some fuel rods disintegrated during refueling. Unit 1
was shutdown for good in 1992 when its cracks cost too much to
fix, and in 2001, an electrical fire on Unit 3 forced a
four-month shutdown of that reactor. Just this summer, a plant
worker failed a breathalyzer test and spent 30 days in rehab.
But most of San Onofre’s safety violations are far more
ordinary. Outside the building that houses the reactor itself is
a sign registering the number of days since a such an event
occurred. The day I visit, the sign says it’s been 28 days since
the last incident.
“What happened?” I ask Golden.
He points to a short flight of stairs.
“Someone tripped,” he tells me, “and broke his ankle. A compound
fracture.”
“It’s all lies.” Dr. Helen Caldicott throws back her
red-streaked blond bob, flashes her blue eyes — really, she does
— and stares across the table at me as if she’s about throw a
punch. “They say they’re clean, do they? Nuclear power plants?
Well, let me tell you: Millions of curies of radioactive gases
are released in an unregulated way every year from nuclear power
plants. And isotopes into the water. And we haven’t even talked
about the radioactive waste.” (A curie, by the way, differs from
a rem in how it measures radiation — by the activity of the
material instead of the absorbed dose. One curie is the amount
of radiation given off by one gram of radium. The 12 radium dots
on the old Big Ben dial at San Onofre emit three one-thousandths
of a curie of radiation.)
Stewart Brand, whom Caldicott has not heard of, “doesn’t know
what he’s talking about.” James Lovelock, “to use a crude
Australian expression, has his head . . . somewhere. He doesn’t
know what he’s talking about; I really resent him.” And Fred
Krupp of Environmental Defense Fund, his fence-sitting on
nuclear notwithstanding? “He’s really a front for the nuclear
industry. They all have fronts. So in order to do your reporting
well, you have to investigate who these people are, and what
connections they have, and if they’re biologists or not. And if
they’re not, just discount what they say.”
It’s true that almost all of Caldicott’s fellow firebrands who
have come out in favor of nuclear power have some ties to the
energy industry, be they financial or merely philosophical:
Brand’s Global Business Network, for instance, secures funding
via corporate members who pay $40,000 a year for a suite of
services; among them are nuclear-power providers PG, Southern
California Edison and Duke Power. GBN co-founder Peter Schwartz,
who co-authored a pro-nuclear article in Wired magazine last
winter, was once head of scenario planning at Royal Dutch Shell.
And Lovelock serves as an informal adviser to the French-based
Association des Ecologistes Pour le Nucléaire (Environmentalists
for Nuclear).
Yet while Krupp earns a controversial salary — over $300,000 a
year according to tax records available on EDF’s Web site —
there’s no evidence that he’s a “front” for anybody. He is not,
however, a biologist, a physician or a geneticist, but a lawyer.
Which means, spits Caldicott, he lacks all qualifications to
opine about nuclear energy. “You might as well unleash him into
the operating theaters and let him operate on patients. It’s as
serious as that.”
On a furnace-hot day in late May outside a San Pedro theater,
Caldicott awaits her turn to rally opponents of
liquefied-natural-gas terminals in Long Beach. For the occasion,
she is dressed in a buttonless blue suit with a fluiddrape that
emphasizes the fact that she almost never stops moving. Her
elegant hands flail, she shifts in her chair, she shakes her
head in exasperation. Her perpetual apoplexy is charming, even
lovable, but not quite likeable — a distinction I hadn’t thought
to make before I met her. Like a televangelist, she expects
personal admissions of sin and shame in her presence; I make
sure to tell her I traveled here by public transportation, then
foolishly add that I’m grateful for the air-conditioning in city
buses. “But you’ve got no right to run air-conditioning,” she
chides. “You’re pouring HCFCs into the atmosphere. You shouldn’t
do it.”
Throughout most of the 1970s and ’80s, the Australian-born
Caldicott was the center of the international anti-nuclear
vortex. She wrote books, fought off the French effort to conduct
atmospheric testing in the South Pacific, linked arms with
Australian uranium miners who were dying of lung cancer. She has
been lauded for her precisely targeted fury, but also ridiculed
for her seemingly nuttier pronouncements. In the wake of the
accident at Three Mile Island, Caldicott asserted that Hershey’s
chocolate, made from the milk of cows that graze near the
Pennsylvania plant, had been tainted with strontium-90. “We
don’t know the ground measurements where the cows graze because
they kept that secret,” she admits. “But I’ve been saying it for
years: Don’t eat Hershey’s chocolates. They haven’t sued me. You
shouldn’t eat them.”
These days, Caldicott spends 50 percent of her time raising
funds for the Nuclear Policy Research Institute, a D.C.-based
nonprofit dedicated to “creating consensus for a nuclear-free
future.” She opposes nuclear technology in all its forms — from
nuclear weapons to fission-generated electricity, it’s all the
same to her. “The nuclear industry,” she says, “is a cancer
industry. Nuclear power is going to induce millions of cases of
cancer, particularly in children who are so radiosensitive. And
it causes genetic disease, not just in humans but in other
creatures. So it’s an evil industry, medically speaking.”
I remark that several credible nuclear-safety advocates I have
interviewed so far, including Rochelle Becker of the Alliance
for Nuclear Responsibility, Michael Marriott of the Nuclear
Information Resource Service (NIRS) and Dave Lochbaum of the
Union of Concerned Scientists, have declined to make any
proclamations about the health risks of living near nuclear
power plants; the studies, say all three, are just not complete.
Caldicott glares at me. “There are many studies. If they don’t
know they should know. They’ve got no right not to know. Around
Sellafield in Britain, which is also a reprocessing plant and a
nuclear reactor, there are large clusters of cancers there.
There are clusters of cancers in Wales, on the Irish Sea, which
is the most polluted sea in the world, polluted by Sellafield.
“In fact,” she says agitatedly, “the literature is replete with
malignancy in people who live near reactors. But because of the
latent period of carcinogenesis, the incubation time for cancer
is five to six years. You have to wait for a while and do a
decent epidemiological study to assess what’s going on.”
In 1991, the National Cancer Institute in the U.S. conducted
what might be considered a “decent epidemiological study” of
deaths from 16 types of cancer, including leukemia, in 107 U.S.
counties “containing or closely adjacent to 62 nuclear
facilities,” all of which had been built before 1982. The survey
compared cancer death rates before and after the facilities went
online with similar data in 292 counties without nuclear
facilities. After four years of research, the team of
epidemiologists found no general increased risk of death from
cancer near nuclear facilities. In some counties, the relative
risk for childhood leukemia from birth through 9 years dropped a
statistically insignificant few hundredths of a point after the
startup of a local nuclear facility. The areas surrounding four
facilities, including San Onofre, showed significantly lower
rates for leukemia in teenagers compared with the rest of the
country. A University of Pittsburgh study of the area within a
five-mile radius of Three Mile Island showed no statistically
significant increase in cancer rates 20 years after the accident
at the reactor in 1979. What’s more, neither soil nor air
samples in the area around Three Mile Island have been kept from
the public. According to the Carter-era EPA, close to 10 percent
of some 800 milk samples from local dairy farms the month after
the accident showed trace amounts of radioactive contamination.
But the highest concentration was still 40 times less than what
showed up in milk after the fallout from Chinese nuclear testing
in October 1976 that passed across the United States.
None of which placates Caldicott. “If you look at my book,
Nuclear Madness, I cite many studies. But they’re not government
studies, because the government doesn’t do the studies. A,
they’re difficult to do. You have to wait until people actually
die, and there’s a mobile population. B, it’s expensive — you
have to do autopsies on all of them, and C, you have to compare
them to an unexposed group, and D they don’t want to find out.”
At this point, I can only gaze across the table with a quizzical
smile as Caldicott, in all her fired-up glory, rants on about
all the things Americans “have no right” to do — drive cars,
farm large tracts of land, spew 25 percent of the world’s carbon
dioxide. “This country,” she says, “is quite obscene.” As an
activist, she is magnificent. Inside the theater, she gives a
speech so vivacious and funny no one seems to mind that she
doesn’t have much to say about liquefied natural gas.
But she won’t talk about children with asthma in the shadow of
Tennessee’s coal-firedpower plants, or whether hurricanes have
grown more intense because the climate is changing, or whether
it’s possible to engineer safer models of nuclear reactors.
“Listen to me,” she says. “You’re trying to balance both sides
on this, and you can’t. There are no two sides to this issue.
It’s like having a factory full of polio virus. And when the
virus reproduces it makes heat and you turn the steam into
electricity. But, by the way, millions of people might get
polio. It’s exactly the same thing.
“Promise me you’ll read my book Nuclear Madness before you write
your article, okay? Promise me? Because then you won’t be
confused anymore. Then you’ll know.”
Look, you don’t want to go out and build a plant, spend all the
money, and have the license jerked at the last minute.
[Laughter.] Nobody’s going to spend money if that’s the case.
—George W. Bush, speaking at the Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power
Plant, June 22, 2005
No new orders for nuclear plants have been submitted in the U.S.
since 1974, and none have been built since 1985. This is in part
due to the accident at Three Mile Island, which happened 12 days
after the popular movie The China Syndrome hit the theaters, and
in part because of economics — many of the early plans were
“turnkey” operations, so named because the manufacturer —
General Electric, Westinghouse or Bechtel — paid for their
construction (all the utility had to do was “turn the key”).
When subsidies for new reactors disappeared, so did plans to
build them.
Nevertheless, nuclear fission still generates a full fifth of
the country’s power. And to replace that energy with the other
most readily available source, coal-fired power, would add 600
million metric tons of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere every
year. But either we replace it or lose it, because those 103
light-water reactors are fast closing in on the end of their
natural lives. Thirty-two of the original licenses the Atomic
Energy Commission (later the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, or
NRC) granted to nuclear plants have already expired and been
renewed; applications are pending on another 16, and many more
will run out in the next 20 years, including licenses granted to
the 2,200-megawatt San Onofre Units 2 and 3 and the Diablo
Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, whose two reactors power some 2
million homes. Like many other aging plants around the country,
both San Onofre and Diablo Canyon will require extensive repairs
to continue operating to the end of their licensing periods:
Southern California Edison claims that the tubes in San Onofre’s
steam generators are up to 11 percent cracked (the NRC allows 21
percent cracking before replacement) and has set the regulatory
gears in motion to replace them for nearly $700 million; Pacific
Gas &Electric already has preliminary approval from the
California Public Utilities Commission to repair Diablo Canyon.
But it isn’t enough to repair the old plants. “Without new
construction,” explains the Department of Energy’s Rebecca
Smith-Kevern at a workshop at the California Energy Commission
during the second week in August, “nuclear capacity will fall
off rapidly in the mid 2030s and be nonexistent by 2056.” If
that happens, she warns, “the crucial challenge of capping and
ultimately reducing U.S. and world greenhouse gas emissions
would be considerably more difficult.”
Eleven countries around the world are now constructing 30
nuclear power reactors, including India and China, which has
plans for, literally, dozens more in the next half century — not
necessarily to save the planet but because oil won’t last
forever. Uranium, by contrast, is abundant, inexpensive and not
controlled by any cartel.
The Department of Energy’s “Nuclear Power 2010” program aims to
jump-start the process of building new reactors — to explore new
sites, speed the regulatory process and streamline licensing. At
the August workshop, Smith-Kevern unveils a raft of new reactor
designs — “evolutionary, not revolutionary” reactors, such as
GE’s “simplified boiling water reactor,” and Westinghouse’s
“advanced passive” pressurized water reactor. Next in line are
the “Generation IV” technologies, such as gas-cooled fast
reactors, lead-cooled reactors and molten-salt reactors. All
reduce waste, have the potential to burn existing waste and
produce economically competitive electricity, says Smith-Kevern,
at 1.5 cents per kilowatt hour (electricity from coal-fired
plants costs just over 2 cents per kilowatt hour; gas-fired
electricity runs upward of 3 cents a kilowatt hour, according to
the Utility Data Institute). They feature passive safety systems
— controls that kick in without operator action — and address
proliferation concerns by never separating plutonium from the
waste.
With the help of the new energy bill President Bush signed
August 8, nuclear ambitionsmay actually have a prayer.
Bipartisan efforts on nuclear power’s behalf secured benefits
for the industry ranging from generous tax credits for new
nuclear generation to a 15-year extension of the Price-Anderson
Nuclear Industries IndemnityAct — a controversial 1957 law
limiting the industry’s liability in the event of major
accident. The energy bill also directs the NRC and the DOE to
develop a strategy for licensing a “Next Generation” nuclear
reactor that will produce hydrogen for transportation. The first
Next Generation Nuclear Plant (NGNP) is scheduled to be online
at the DOE’s Idaho National Laboratory by 2021.
One of the more popular Next Generation designs is the Pebble
Bed Modular Reactor (PBMR), a compact gas-cooled reactor with
fuel assemblies the size of tennis balls filled with pellets of
10 percent U-235. Westinghouse plans to pitch a PBMR to the U.S.
this year; South Africa’s Eskom Energy already has PBMRs in
development. Unlike light-water reactors that use water and
steam, the PBMR cools its core and drives its turbines with
pressurized helium. Because the reactor’s 400,000 “pebbles” are
fed into the reactor core little by little, a meltdown, at least
in the conventional sense, is almost impossible. The PBMR is
thought to be so safe, in fact, that it doesn’t require the
four-foot-thick concrete containment building common to
light-water reactors. Neo-nuclear environmentalists consider it
a significant improvement in safety. Stewart Brand wrote last
spring that “problematic early reactors like the ones at Three
Mile Island and Chernobyl can be supplanted by new,
smaller-scale, meltdown-proof reactors like the ones that use
the pebble-bed design.”
“It has some good features,” says Dave Lochbaum at the Union of
Concerned Scientists. “Studies have shown that even if a [PBMR]
cooling line breaks, it won’t melt down.
I’ve come to Lochbaum, who works out of a tiny, barely
ventilated office in Washington, D.C., because he has a
reputation among anti-nuclear activists and industry advocates
alike for limiting his assertions to what he knows to be true.
And his organization is as nervous about climate change as it is
about the perils of nuclear power plants.
“By not using water you’ve significantly reduced the amount of
low-level waste you generate,” Lochbaum says, and then pauses.
“On the other hand, there is no free lunch. While it may not
melt down, it could catch on fire. The pebble bed is like the
Chernobyl reactor in that it uses an awful lot of graphite. None
of our reactors operating in the United States use graphite in
the core. Graphite’s just carbon. If the carbon catches on fire,
it’s pretty hard to put out. It’s particularly hard if you’re
using airflow to cool the reactor, which the pebble bed does. If
you have a fire and you stop the airflow, you also stop the heat
removal. So you may stop the fire and start the meltdown.
“You may not be able to get ‘fireproof’ and ‘meltdown proof,’”
Lochbaum says. “You may have to pick one or the other.”
Which one is worse?
“I don’t know,” he says. “The Three Mile Island accident was a
meltdown. It released a lot of radioactivity into the
environment. We’ve never been sure how much. Chernobyl was a
fire. Smoke carried the radioactivity into the environment. I
guess they’re pretty much the same.”
There’s one other problem with the pebble-bed reactor, one
that’s less a safety issue than a logistical one: “Because the
pebble-bed doesn’t have the same power density, or octane
rating, as our current plants do, it generates about 10 times as
much spent fuel for the same amount of electricity.” In other
words, 10 times the waste.
It is another unnaturally hot spring day when I visit Lochbaum,
who cools his office with a small fan. The son of a nuclear
engineer, Lochbaum worked in the nuclear industry for 14 years
before the owner of Pennsylvania’s Susquehanna Nuclear
Generating Station ignored his warning about a potentially
deadly design flaw in the plant’s spent-fuel pools. Frustrated,
Lochbaum submitted a lengthy report to the NRC, from which he
received no response. Only much later, when another plant owner,
concerned about the same problem at his plant, requested the
report, did Lochbaum learn that in his haste to submit the
report, he’d made one-sided copies of two-sided pages: Every
other page was blank. “It’s evidence to me that the NRC never
actually read my report,” he says.
Lochbaum eventually went to Congress with his concerns, where
safety improvements were mandated for Susquehanna and other
plants with the same issue. He worked in the industry for three
more years before joining the Union of Concerned Scientists in
1996.
Lochbaum describes himself, and UCS, as “neither for nor against
nuclear power — we’re just safety advocates, and we’re concerned
about global warming, too.” But he is clearly not optimistic
about nuclear energy’s future. It’s not so much the technology
itself; Lochbaum believes it can be made to work, and made to
work safely. But as the electricity market around the country
becomes increasingly deregulated and competitive, plant owners
have more cause to put profit above reliability and safety. And
the NRC is not working the way it’s supposed to: According to a
2003 report by the NRC’s inspector general and the Government
Accountability Office, 47 percent of NRC employees don’t feel
comfortable raising safety issues. “We get more calls from NRC
employees than from employees of all the plants combined,” says
Lochbaum.
He shows me a “bathtub curve” diagram from UCS’ literature: All
the major accidents associated with nuclear power happened
toward the beginning of each light-water reactor’s break-in
phase, on the left-hand slope of the chart’s curve. “Our concern
now is that all our nuclear power plants are in the wear-out
phase,” he says. Lochbaum points to the right-hand, upward slope
of the tub. “Left unchecked, we’ll start putting names on this
side.”
Thank you most of all for nuclear power, which is yet to cause a
single, proven fatality, at least in this country.
—Homer Simpson, saying grace in the Simpsons episode “Oh,
Brother Where Are Thou”
To read the second part of the article Green
to the Core?
*****************************************************************
24 courant.com: Energy Crunch May Be On Way
November 10, 2005
By PAUL MARKS, Courant Staff Writer
New England could feel the pinch of energy shortages within the
next five years unless it speeds development of power plants,
natural gas pipelines and electric transmission lines to ensure a
reliable regional energy supply, says a report issued Wednesday
by the New England Energy Alliance.
The recently formed coalition of energy producers, pipeline
companies and business groups said there is "no silver bullet"
available to solve energy supply problems. Instead, the existing
system of nuclear, fossil-fuel and hydroelectric power plants
must continue to expand while new technologies, such as wind
power, are brought on line.
"Our assessment of the region's resources indicates that we are
at a critical point today," said Susan Tierney, a former U.S.
Department of Energy policy official who prepared the report for
the energy alliance.
"Energy shortages could be acute soon - by 2010 at the latest,"
she said. With energy projects taking years to permit and build,
she said, "it means that policy-makers need to act aggressively
now to avoid problems in the future."
Spokesmen for Connecticut Light &Power and Yankee Gas, the
distribution companies of Northeast Utilities Co., welcomed the
report.
"Their findings are not unexpected. In fact, they reinforce what
CL has been saying for years, especially with regard to
electricity," said Mitch Gross, the power company spokesman.
"Upgrade the infrastructure, and get the power to where it is
needed."
This is especially vital to densely populated southwestern
Connecticut, Gross said. He noted that CL is building a new
21-mile power transmission line between Bethel and Norwalk.
Earlier this year, he added, the company won approval to build a
similar 69-mile line between Middletown and Norwalk, starting in
2007.
"On the distribution side, we've been in the midst of a
multiyear upgrade throughout Connecticut," Gross said, "although
we have a long way to go."
At Yankee Gas, spokeswoman Sandy St. Pierre said the company has
been pushing to expand its system for the past four years. And
progress can take years. Earlier this year, construction began
on a liquefied natural gas storage and production facility in
Waterbury that initially was proposed in 2001, she said.
"We knew back then the demand for natural gas was growing," St.
Pierre said.
Within as soon as two years, the coalition report said, demand
for both electric power and natural gas may exceed available
supplies and delivery capacity. In recent years, New England has
relied more and more on natural gas for electric power
generation - about 40 percent now, up about 10 percentage points
since 2001.
The urgent need for more gas supply argues for the development
of projects such as Broadwater Energy's controversial proposal
for a liquefied natural gas terminal in Long Island Sound, said
Carl Gustin, president of the alliance.
"There is a sense of urgency about future energy supplies,"
Gustin said, and regulatory delays and citizen opposition to
certain projects can have the effect of "stifling or chilling
investment in the region."
Joel Gordes, a West Hartford energy consultant and former state
legislator, said the report is somewhat self-serving because it
argues for the kind of expansion that power companies and
pipeline companies long have sought.
"I'd say that they're pushing the same old fossil-fuel and
nuclear [generation] agenda as in the past, and solar and
conservation are getting the short shrift," he said.
Gordes said that two years ago the General Assembly cut state
funding of its Connecticut Energy Efficiency fund as a
deficit-reduction measure. In 2004, he said, a study done for
the Energy Conservation Management Board, which Gordes serves
on, concluded that broader use of conservation measures and
better management peak power demand "could hold load growth to
zero."
Connecticut already has built close to $1 billion in new
electric transmission lines in recent years, Gordes said. He
opposed that, saying a better solution would have been
"distributed generation" - the construction of small power
generation stations close to the homes and businesses using that
electricity.
Relying on LNG from foreign suppliers to supplement gas from
North America carries particular risks, Gordes said. The No. 1
and No. 2 LNG producers, Trinidad and Tobago and Algeria, suffer
from political instability and would be vulnerable to an
Islamist coup, he said. "Do we want to rely on that for our gas
supply?" he said.
To comment on this story, or to request a correction click
here to send a message to Karen Hunter, The Courant's reader
representative. Click here to read Karen's daily Weblog.
Subscribe to the Hartford Courant today and receive up to 50%
courant.com is Copyright © 2005 by The Hartford
*****************************************************************
25 Boston Globe: More cracks found in Vermont Yankee steam dryer -
Boston.com
+ More cracks found in Vermont Yankee steam dryer Associated
Press The Vermont Yankee nuclear plant has found dozens more
cracks in a key plant component, but plant and Nuclear
Regulatory Commission officials said Thursday that they don't
matter much.
November 10, 2005 -->
[The Associated Press]
By David Gram, Associated Press Writer | November 10, 2005
MONTPELIER, Vt. --The Vermont Yankee nuclear plant has found
dozens more cracks in a key plant component, but plant and
Nuclear Regulatory Commission officials said Thursday that they
don't matter much.
Vermont's three-member congressional delegation wrote to the NRC
urging it to take a close look at the issues surrounding the 62
cracks found in the plant's steam dryer, a component at the top
of the reactor that removes moisture from steam before it is
sent to the plant's turbine.
Entergy Nuclear, Vermont Yankee's owner, said the cracks had
been found with a new, higher-resolution remote camera. It said
it had consulted with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and with
General Electric, which built the reactor, and that all agreed
the cracks "are acceptable because they are not structurally
significant and are likely to have occurred in the early years
of plant operation and further operation will not affect their
condition."
Neil Sheehan, a spokesman with the NRC's Northeast regional
office, concurred. "We're satisfied that the plant can safely
operate with its current power level," he said.
Whether Vermont Yankee can run at a 20 percent higher power
output -- a change it is seeking the NRC's permission to make --
is an open question, Sheehan said.
"As far as whether they can operate under uprate conditions,
they owe us an evaluation by the end of the month of these new
cracks and how they might affect that," he said.
Vermont's congressional delegation -- Sens. James Jeffords and
Patrick Leahy and Rep. Bernard Sanders -- sent a joint letter to
the NRC saying that the steam dryer cracking should be studied
closely, particularly given Vermont Yankee's request to increase
its power output.
"As the NRC reviews the Vermont Yankee power uprate request, we
believe it is essential that our constituents receive needed
information about whether the plant's steam dryer will be able
to withstand boosted power conditions and operate safely and
reliably," the lawmakers said. "The functioning of this piece of
equipment should receive the (NRC's) full and thorough attention
during the review of the uprate application."
Arnie Gundersen, a former nuclear industry engineer who has been
acting as a technical adviser for the nuclear watchdog group New
England Coalition, said that if the 62 cracks were present for
years or even decades, that meant plant personnel missed them
when they did an inspection last year that found just 18.
"It certainly calls into question the first inspection,"
Gundersen said. "Either they were wrong in 2004 or they're wrong
in 2005."
The fact that the NRC agreed with Vermont Yankee that the cracks
would not affect the plant at its current power level
"demonstrates the NRC's priorities for protecting the licensees
as opposed to protecting the public health and safety," said
Raymond Shadis, a technical adviser to the New England Coalition.
"Anybody that is involved in any kind of metal fabrication,
welding, metalurgy or related disciplines understands that
surface cracks are ... a significant symptom of larger
stresses," Shadis said.
Public Service Commissioner David O'Brien declined to comment on
the newly found cracks. His department negotiated a settlement
with Entergy under which it supported Vermont Yankee's power
boost request before the Public Service Board, which gave it
conditional approval in March of 2004.[ /]
© Copyright 2005 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This
*****************************************************************
26 AGI: NUCLEAR: BERLUSCONI, EUROPE NEEDS NEW NUCLEAR PLANTS
Agenzia Giornalistica Italia - News In English
Friday November 11, 2005 h.08.43
Italy On Line Special service by AGI on behalf of the Italian
Prime Minister's office
Rome, Italy, Nov 10 - Silvio Berlusconi, appearing at the first
Notaries of the EU conference, gave a list of all the reason why
Europe "finds itself in difficulty". Amongst these, the Prime
Minister underlines the problem of high energy costs; "We are
dependent on other countries for oil and gas, we spoke of this
in the last European summit. We must look more closely at this
problem." Berlusconi said that Italy could not go it alone;
"Only Europe can decide to give life to a new project of
realisation of nuclear plants because the individual countries
do not have the strength to and the word 'nuclear' frightens
everyone, but it is an essential need of the future." (AGI) -
101434 NOV 05
COPYRIGHTS 2002-2005 AGI S.p.A. [Invia questo articolo]
Invia questo articolo
*****************************************************************
27 Vermont Guardian: More cracks found in Vermont Yankee dryer
By Kathryn Casa | Vermont Guardian
Posted Nov. 10, 2005
BRATTLEBORO Inspectors at the Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power
plant discovered another 46 hairline cracks in the reactors
problematic steam dryer during a regular refueling outage,
prompting a call by Vermont's congressional delegation for
closer review of the component.
The fissures were found with specialized remote-controlled
underwater cameras that were being used to check the welds on
some 40 steam dryer cracks discovered in 2004, according to a
press release from VY spokesman Rob Williams. They are in
addition to 16 cracks found during the last refueling outage,
according to federal regulators.
The high resolution inspection of the steam dryer in this outage
and the previous outage have identified a total of 62 shallow
hairline surface cracks that Entergy, General Electric and the
Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff have determined are
acceptable because they are not structurally significant and are
likely to have occurred in the early years of plant operation,
according to Williams. He said further operation of the reactor
will not affect their condition.
Entergy is the Mississippi-based corporation that owns Vermont
Yankee, and is seeking to increase power there by 20 percent.
General Electric is the company that built the 33-year-old
boiling water reactor.
The development prompted Vermont's three-member congressional
delegation to call for more testing of the steam dryer. "We
believe it is essential that our constituents receive needed
information about whether the plant's steam dryer will be able
to withstand boosted power conditions and operate safely and
reliably," wrote Sens. James Jeffords, I-VT, and Patrick Leahy,
D-VT, and Rep. Bernie Sanders, I-VT, in a letter Thursday to NRC
Chairman Nils Diaz.
We request that the condition of the steam dryer be fully
evaluated, using the techniques of the most recent inspection
and any other appropriate means, as the NRC considers Entergy
Nuclear's request to produce an additional 100 megawatts of
power from Vermont Yankee," they wrote.
Jeffords is ranking member of the Senate Environment and Public
Works Committee.
Williams said operators were preparing Thursday to restart the
reactor, which has been shut down in refueling mode since Oct.
22.
The outage was based on 18 months of planning and involved more
than 5,000 separate tasks including refueling the reactor, as
well as testing and inspection of virtually every component and
system in the plant, Williams said in a press release. In
addition, several equipment upgrades were completed to support a
proposed increase in power output.
It is unclear what effect the increased vibrations of a power
uprate would have on the steam dryer. Although it is not
considered a safety component, breakage could lead to
complications within the plants safety systems.
NRC Region I spokesman Neil Sheehan said a special inspector was
sent to Vernon to review Vermont Yankees steam dryer work during
the outage. We have not identified any problems with the
company's evaluation and determination that the steam dryer will
be safe to operate following the outage, at current power
conditions, Sheehan said in an e-mail Thursday.
However, Entergy will be required to conduct an evaluation of
the new cracks for uprate conditions by the end of this month,
Sheehan said.
The VY uprate application is believed to be in its final stages.
In a draft safety report issued late last month, NRC staff said
the plant could be uprated safely. A two-day meeting and public
hearings on the uprate are set for Nov. 15-16 in Brattleboro.
Nuclear watchdog Ray Shadis, technical advisor to the New
England Coalition, a citizens group fighting the uprate, said
the cracking is far more serious than either the NRC or Entergy
have indicated.
Anybody who understands how metal is stressed understands that
surface indications are very, very serious because they reflect
what is beneath the metal, Shadis said. Therefore, the uprate
should not proceed until a thorough analysis is done.
Shadis rejected the contention by Entergy and the NRC that the
cracks were not recent. Why didnt they find them sooner? he
asked. The more they look, the more they find.
The NRC last month informed Entergy that it would require a
broad set of conditions before an uprate would be permitted,
including hourly monitoring of plant conditions as power is
increased and an ongoing assessment of the steam dryer.
David Lochbaum, a nuclear engineer with the Union of Concerned
Scientists in Washington, said such conditions indicate that
neither Entergy nor the NRC are confident the plant can
withstand an uprate.
Lochbaum pointed to serious steam dryer breakage at two sister
boiling water reactors in Illinois, which vibrated apart when
those plants implemented a power uprate. Both of those reactors
were also made by General Electric, and both had to temporarily
shut down due to serious steam dryer breakage.
Send us your news tips, a letter to the editor or general
comments.
Vermont Guardian
PO Box 335
Winooski, VT 05404
| | Northern Vermont: PO Box 335, Winooski, VT 05404
Southern Vermont: 139 Main Street, Suite 702, Brattleboro, VT
05301
Contact: 802.861.4880 (ph) | 802.861.6388 (fax) | 877.231.5382
(toll-free)
©2005 Vermont Guardian |
Visit us: www.vermontguardian.com
This document can be located online:
www.vermontguardian.com/local/112005/VYSteamCracks.shtml
*****************************************************************
28 VietNamNet Bridge: Australia to help VN ensure radioactive security
09:45' 10/11/2005 (GMT+7)
The symbol on radioactive equipment.
Australia will help train Vietnamese experts in defining
radioactive sources and establish legal infrastructure.
As part of a three-year US$4.5mil Australian-funded project to
ensure security for radioactive sources in Southeast Asian,
which was kicked off in July 2004, this week the Australian
Nuclear Science and Technology Agency will meet with the Nuclear
Radiation Safety and Control Agency under the Vietnamese
Ministry of Science and Technology to discuss and specify
Vietnam’s need for assistance.
Experts from the Nuclear Radiation Safety and Control Agency say
that Vietnam can currently control large, registered radioactive
sources, but problems may occur due to radioactive sources lost
during the war and radioactive equipment imported before 1997,
when the state did not manage the issue.
Lost radioactive sources may seriously affected people’s
health. In Thailand in 2000, when three radioactive sources were
dismounted 10 people were affected by radioactivity, three died.
(Source: VNE)
*****************************************************************
29 [DU-WATCH] Has the nuclear catastrophe already arrived?
Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2005 00:36:40 -0600 (CST)
X-Fingerprint: owner-imap@chumbly.math.missouri.edu-69.50
http://www.greenleft.org.au/back/2005/647/647p26.htm
From Green Left Weekly, November 2, 2005.
Has the nuclear catastrophe already arrived?
Blowin in the Wind
Directed by David Bradbury
Limited national season commencing in Sydney and Melbourne at Dendy
cinemas on October 27, other cities to follow
REVIEW BY LACHLAN MALLOCH
David Bradbury needs almost no introduction to Green Left Weekly
readers: his lifetime of progressive film-making speaks for itself.
Bradburys latest documentary a film he says youll never see on
your ABC continues that tradition into perhaps his most dangerous
subject yet, the proliferation of nuclear weapons in the era of the
war on terror.
In production terms it might seem modest just under an hour long and
made for the equivalent of chicken feed but its content is
breathtaking, sensational and urgent.
Blowin in the Wind documents the increasing use of so-called depleted
uranium (DU) in weapons around the world and forcefully reveals the
devastating health and environmental effects of these mini-nukes.
The world authority on the devastation wreaked by DU is former US Army
physicist Dr Doug Rokke, who suffers from radiation sickness due to his
work in Iraq after the first Gulf War. Dr Rokke is one of the heroes of
this film, tirelessly campaigning around the world against the criminal
use of nuclear weapons.
The other great heroes are the dying children in Iraq, whose bodies are
riddled with the minuscule deadly radioactive particles unleashed by US
bombing 15 years ago and carried for kilometres by Iraqs notorious,
dusty winds.
The condemned children stare at us as if from the other side of a great
abyss. It is impossible to look at them and not feel a burning guilt
and shame at the nightmare visited upon them in our name.
The footage seen here, of dying children and grotesquely malformed
foetuses, is not new. John Pilgers 2000 TV documentary Paying the
Price: Killing the Children of Iraq eloquently exposed the Wests
genocidal regime of economic sanctions and DU bombing in Iraq.
Before the Gulf War, few babies in Iraq were born with malformations.
Now there are 7-10 per day, some of them so badly mutated that they are
just pieces of flesh.
This medical nightmare can only be expected to worsen, with the USs
increasing use of DU on battlefields around the world. Yugoslavia was
bombed with over 84 tonnes of DU, over 1000 tonnes were dropped on
Afghanistan and Iraq was blasted with more than 2500 tonnes in the
latest invasion.
Bradburys new and sensational thesis is that these deadly nuclear
winds have come to Australia and are set to blow even harder, in
several ways.
First, Australian military veterans are suffering from the
euphemistically titled Gulf War Syndrome more likely, radiation
sickness. We meet Gulf War veteran Ed Grant, suffering an unexplained
disease and battling the Australian government to take his case
seriously. Not surprisingly hes afraid of what poison he might have
passed on to his children and eventual grandchildren.
Second, Bradbury outlines the Australian governments enthusiastic
plans for dramatically expanding uranium mining here. This is a
double-edged sword: well be faced with increased dangers of waste
storage and accidents at mine sites, as well as increasing our
complicity in the proliferation of nuclear weapons, by increasing the
global supply of uranium.
But the centrepiece of Bradburys thesis is his examination of the
secret treaty, or Memorandum of Understanding, that was signed by
Australia and the US on July 7, 2004, setting the framework for
intensified military cooperation between the two nations.
Bradbury argues that this agreement gives a 20-year-long, virtual blank
cheque to the US to use all sorts of deadly weapons, including those
with DU, in their testing and training exercises on Australian soil. It
is likely that nukes were used in the June 2005 Talisman Sabre
exercises at beautiful Shoalwater Bay on the Queensland coast, when
11,000 US troops joined the Australian military in live aerial
bombardments, doing unknown levels of damage to such a precious
environmental treasure.
Blowin in the Wind shows us that we are entering a new period in
Australias long history of complicity with and support for imperial
power, but its mostly taking place behind the backs of the Australian
people.
The extremely truncated cinematic exhibition of this film means that
activists will need to work hard to make it anything more than a voice
in the wilderness. It asks urgent questions that we ignore at our own
peril.
-------
[Visit the films website at .]
==============
***NOTICE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this
material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a
prior interest in receiving the included information for research and
educational purposes.***
---------------------------------
To help you stay safe and secure online, we've developed the all new Yahoo! Security Centre.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
Does he tell you he loves you when he hits you? Abuse. Narrated by Halle Berry.
http://us.click.yahoo.com/CjRcdD/rbOLAA/xGEGAA/Sj.0lB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~->
[Brought to you by HTTP://WWW.STOPNATO.ORG.UK]
*****************************************************************
30 Guardian Unlimited: U.N. Urges Cleanup of Iraq Waste Sites
From the Associated Press
[UP]
Thursday November 10, 2005 5:31 PM
By UTA HARNISCHFEGER
Associated Press Writer
GENEVA (AP) - Thousands of contaminated industrial and military
sites left over from wars in Iraq must urgently be cleaned up to
stop them from further harming people's health and the
environment, a U.N. agency said Thursday.
The U.N. Environment Program, or UNEP, has assessed five
contaminated sites during the past 18 months to train Iraqi
specialists to detect the risks, analyze harmful chemicals and
eventually clean up such sites.
``We are still at the beginning,'' said Narmin Othman, Iraq's
environment minister. ``We have thousands of polluted areas, and
we need millions and millions (of dollars) to clean them up. The
challenge now is to identify and assess all such areas of
contamination in Iraq and systematically restore them.''
The sites include chemical and petrochemical factories, mines,
military scrap-yards and sites polluted by depleted uranium.
Almost all the sites have been repeatedly looted after they were
destroyed or bombed during conflicts, including the 2003
U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, the 1991 Gulf War and the Iran-Iraq
war of the 1980s.
Leaking heavy metal wastes contaminate the soil, ground and
drinking water, UNEP said. Children from nearby dwellings often
play on such sites and touch or even ingest toxic materials, the
agency noted.
UNEP estimates it will cost about $40 million to tackle the
operation's next stage, which includes cleaning up an additional
20 areas and assessing other sites, implementing environmental
legislation, and buying back military scrap material. Most
importantly, Iraq must build a hazardous waste treatment
facility, UNEP said.
One of the five sites recently assessed by UNEP - a metal
plating facility near Baghdad damaged by ground and air strikes
in 2003 - is believed to contain several tons of acutely toxic
sodium cyanide, which is lethal at a dose of less than one
ounce.
``These are ... sites that have a history of contamination, all
of which are linked to massive neglect,'' said Klaus Toepfer,
UNEP executive director. He said Iraq's lack of investment into
environmental matters had further aggravated the situation.
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2005
*****************************************************************
31 RGJ: Data pours in on mine site, immediate concerns examined
[Reno Gazette-Journal]
November 10, 2005 Reno, Nevada, USA 775-788-6200
On some level or another, just about all aspects of the complex
Anaconda Mine Site west of town are being examined. With this
comes not only new sets of data, but also potential interim
measures to vanquish local concerns.
+ Interim measures
Jims Sickles, Remedial Project Manager for EPA Region 9, gave an
update on actions being taken to mitigate immediate concerns on
the site Tuesday during a stakeholders meeting in Weed Heights.
One of these is fugitive dust, which tends to sweep across the
local area during large windstorms.
To this, he said there are two different approaches. First,
excess gravel left behind during the Anaconda operation, which
shut down in 1978, could be spread over two areas thereby
capping dust coming from the sulfide tailings on the site’s
northeast side.
Second, a soil sealant could be placed over the evaporation
ponds on the northern end of the mine. Sickles said the soil
sealant would likely only remain intact for about two years
barring any large disturbances (i.e. truck traffic). He said
more permanent gravel would not be preferred within the ponds at
this time, as radiological measurements in some of the ponds are
already higher than background. If elevated levels are later
found to be a larger problem, having a gravel cap in place might
make mitigation more difficult, he said.
Overall, Sickles said this is likely to be an interim fix to the
dust concern rather than a fully developed fugitive dust work
plan. With this, he added the goal would be to see the interim
measures taking place in December and January barring bad
weather.
A second interim measure is that of PCB removal from the site.
PCB, or polychlorinated biphenyl, is a substance used in power
transformers, electrical insulation and flame retardants. Its
presence on the site stems from a PCB removal operation, which
went into place following the 1978 Anaconda closure, and
transformers left onsite via old power poles.
Sickles said nearly 170 PCB sources are onsite in various areas
and likely in various levels. Simply put, he said removal of the
PCB containers is of good value to the overall remediation
effort.
Although these were the two interim measures Sickles brought up
Tuesday, at least one more was urged onto the list. Art
Gravenstein and Joe Sawyer, both of the Nevada Division of
Environmental Protection (NDEP) said they would like to see
action taken on repair of old liners in the heap leach ponds.
The 5-6 liners in question are holding chemicals still trickling
out of the heap leach pads put in place by Arimetco, who leached
copper from Anaconda’s old tailings in the late 1990s. The
chemicals could cause pollution to the underlying soils if the
liners were to breach and, based on their condition, NDEP is
urging something to be done.
Gravenstein said NDEP had received bids on liner repairs prior
to the December 2003 findings of uranium in domestic wells to
the north of the site and would gladly turn over the information
to help speed the process.
Sickles said this project is on the EPA’s radar and is a
concern; however, it might not be the same as an interim
measure.
“We too have the same concerns about some of this stuff,” he
added.
Gravenstein later added it is important to move this ahead.
“The liner integrity (in some ponds) is really poor,” he said
noting it is relatively easy to fix.
Sickles said the liner repair might be solved via minor repair
and would be valuable; however it might not be the most
beneficial means when viewing the overall picture of site
cleanup.
+ Ongoing processes
Another cleanup measure touched upon Tuesday included
radiological contaminated soil removal in previously tested
areas such as the Process Area. Sickles said it is imperative to
have further radiological assessment before this takes place, as
what appears to be a small area of removable soil could, in his
experience, become a fairly large area very quickly when actual
removal begins.
With northern monitoring wells, Sickles said the wells are
nearly ready for testing and the first data is expected for
public summary in the first quarter of next year. The wells
should help point mine investigators in the right direction
regarding whether elevated levels of uranium found in some
domestic wells north of the mine are natural or coming from the
mine.
Chuck Zimmerman, of consultant firm Brown and Caldwell, gave a
presentation Tuesday showing monitor well placement as well as
characteristics when compared to other area wells. With this, he
showed the new mine site GIS system compiled within the past two
months, which shows various land features such as well placement
and geographic elevations.
+ New data
As for the more nitty-gritty technical side of the mine site
Sickles gave a summary of information relating to the recently
returned site investigation data. He said data has come back for
soil and groundwater samples taken on-site within the Process
Areas as well as data on the second quarterly air monitoring
effort. Also, data on additional constituent testing on archived
air monitor filters (i.e. additional radiological contaminant
testing not previously performed) could be available by the end
of this month.
Now, it is up to he technical experts within the mine’s
responsible parties to sit down and make sense of this data.
This is set to occur beginning next month when one or two,
all-day technical work group meetings are slated to take place.
Dietrick McGinnis, of McGinnis and Associates representing the
Yerington Paiute Tribe, said this might be a good idea in that
more technical aspects can be discussed at length without taking
a lot of time from uninterested parties. In fact, such
discussion could take place as to separate topics such as
groundwater and soil into two meetings.
Lastly, Sickles said a draft project schedule, including all
projects anticipated in mine remediation and order of priority,
currently remains underway and will have to undergo review
processes with EPA and site managers Atlantic Richfield Company
before final approval.
© Copyright Reno Gazette-Journal, a Newspaper.
*****************************************************************
32 RGJ: Reid says funds have been secured for Walker River Basin projects
[Reno Gazette-Journal]
November 10, 2005 Reno, Nevada, USA 775-788-6200
Appropriations agreement reached in conference; most funding
included in $70 million earmarked for UNR ag and natural
resources center to work on research, restoration and education
activities in basin. Keith TroutMVN
U.S. Senator Harry Reid announced Monday he had secured hundreds
of millions of dollars for Nevada, including $95 million for
water- and agriculture-related projects within the Walker River
Basin.
The funding is included in the Energy and Water Appropriations
bill. Different versions of the bill had passed the Senate and
House early this year and were reconciled at a committee meeting
Monday. The bill now goes back to both houses for final passage,
which is expected later this week.
The Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act of 2006 (HR
2419) was sent to conference committee after the two houses
couldn’t reach agreement, as the Senate amended the original
House of Representatives bill and the House didn’t agree with
the amendment.
Reid’s release noted he’d secured nearly $400 million for energy
efficiency, Homeland Security and flood control projects as well
as research projects for Nevada’s higher education system.
Sen. Reid also announced in the release he was successful in
slashing the Yucca Mountain budget to $450 million, after
previously the Department of Energy said it would need $1.2
billion to help keep the project on track.
Reid said the “Nevada projects funded in this legislation will
help America become more energy independent, increase economic
development, protect vital water resources in the state and fund
top research within the university.”
Reid announced the Energy and Water bill would release $95
million of previously approved funding for agriculture and water
projects in the Walker River Basin, after he, Sen. John Ensign
and Congressman Jim Gibbons had been working to release the
funding. It passed as part of the 2002 Farm Bill when Sen. Reid
included $200 million for conservation projects at places like
Walker Lake.
The HR 2419 ‘committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of
the two Houses on the amendment of the Senate to the bill’ was
ordered last month and met Monday.
According to the Congressional record of that meeting, the
committee “having met, after full and free conference, have
agreed to recommend and do recommend to their respective Houses”
a resolution. That included “that the House recede from is
disagreement to the amendment of the Senate, and agree to the
same with an amendment,” which still included the $95 million
intended for the Walker River Basin area.
Section 108 of that bill (under Bureau of Reclamation, Water and
Related Resources) reads:
“(a)(1) Using amounts made available under section 2507 of the
Farm and Security Rural Investment Act of 2002 (43 U.S.C. 2211
note; Public Law 107-171), the Secretary shall provide not more
than $70,000,000 to the University of Nevada—
“(A) to acquire from willing sellers land, water appurtenant to
the land, and related interests in the Walker River Basin,
Nevada; and
“(B) to establish and administer an agricultural and natural
resources center, the mission of which shall be to undertake
research, restoration, and educational activities in the Walker
River Basin relating to—
(i) innovative agricultural water conservation; (ii) cooperative
programs for environmental restoration; (iii) fish and wildlife
habitat restoration; and (iv) wild horse and burro research and
adoption marketing.
“(2) In acquiring interests under paragraph (1)(A), the
University of Nevada shall make acquisitions that the University
determines are the most beneficial to—
“(A) the establishment and operation of the agricultural and
natural resources research center authorized under paragraph
(1)(B); and
“(B) environmental restoration in the Walker River Basin.
Paragraph (b)(1) says from the 2002 Farm Bill “the Secretary
shall provide not more than $10,000,000 for a water lease and
purchase program for the Walker River Paiute Tribe.
“(2) Water acquired under paragraph (1) shall be-
(A) acquired only from willing sellers; (B) designed to maximize
water conveyances to Walker Lake; and (C) located only within
the Walker River Paiute Indian Reservation.
Other funding listed in Section 200 of that bill, also from the
Farm Bill, includes: “the Secretary, acting through the
Commissioner of Reclamation, shall provide—
“(1) $10,000,000 for tamarisk eradication, riparian area
restoration, and channel restoration efforts within the Walker
River Basin that are designed to enhance water delivery to
Walker Lake, with priority given to activities that are expected
to result in the greatest increased water flows to Walker Lake;
and
“(2) $5,000,000 to the United States Fish and Wildlife Service,
the Walker River Paiute Tribe, and the Nevada Division of
Wildlife to undertake activities, to be coordinated by the
Director of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, to
complete the design and implementation of the Western Inland
Trout Initiative and Fishery Improvements in the State of Nevada
with an emphasis on the Walker River Basin
It concludes under subsection (d): “For each day after June 30,
2006, on which the Bureau of Reclamation fails to comply with
subsections (a), (b), and (c), the total amount made available
for salaries and expenses of the Bureau of Reclamation shall be
reduced by $100,000 per day.
© Copyright Reno Gazette-Journal, a Gannett Co. Inc.Newspaper.
*****************************************************************
33 Nevada Appeal: Could nuke waste policy be turning around?
Opinion
Nevada Appeal editorial board
November 9, 2005
It seems hard to believe, but Congress may finally be turning
away from the dead-end strategy of storing nuclear waste in
Nevada's Yucca Mountain and toward the far more sensical
approach of figuring out how to recycle the waste into something
useful.
Such a shift in thinking would range far beyond the
environmental concerns of Nevadans, since it would reverse the
philosophy guiding U.S. policy since Gerald Ford and Jimmy
Carter were in the White House. Yucca Mountain storage has been
studied for two decades, at a cost of billions of dollars,
because of worries that recycling nuclear waste would contribute
to proliferation of radioactive materials used in bombs.
Times have changed since then - though not necessarily for the
better, when it comes to nuclear proliferation. Terrorism and
the threat of rogue nations joining the nuclear ranks remain
great risks.
Nuclear waste continues to pile up an plants across the country,
compounding the security risks. But the notion of storing it in
one "safe" underground facility - by shipping it across the
country every day from dozens of sites in hundreds of trucks and
rail cars - is a shortsighted solution. In fact, it's no
solution at all.
That's why we're encouraged by a 2006 nuclear-waste budget that
includes $50 million for spent-fuel recycling. Of that, $20
million is for communities to compete to host a recycling plant,
and $30 million is for research.
It's still a paltry sum in comparison with the $450 million for
the year for Yucca Mountain. Yet it's a step in the right
direction.
The goal of the United States and every nation producing nuclear
power must be to reduce the amount of waste, and the best way to
do that is find safe and economical ways to recycle it into
practical uses.
When the budget priorities are reversed - $50 million for
storage, $450 million for recycling - we'll know U.S. nuclear
policy is on a sensible track.
All contents © Copyright 2005 nevadaappeal.com
Nevada Appeal - 580 Mallory Way - Carson City, NV 89701
*****************************************************************
34 Bradenton Herald: Residents want case moved
| 11/10/2005 |
Judge to decide if Tampa or Manatee will host Tallevast case
DONNA WRIGHT
HERALD WATCHDOG
TALLEVAST - The legal volleys have begun.
Attorneys for Tallevast residents filed a motion to have their
suit against Lockheed Martin Corp. moved back to the 12th
Judicial Circuit in Manatee County.
Late Wednesday, Lockheed Martin Corp. said it intends to file a
counter motion within 60 days to keep the case in the Tampa
federal court.
Now a federal judge must decide which court will host the debate
over liability for a toxic plume threatening Tallevast.
Attorney Bruce H. Denson of St. Petersburg, a member of the
Tallevast legal team, filed the complaint against Lockheed on
Sept. 1 on behalf of 254 residents.
Lockheed then filed a motion on Oct. 6 to have the case moved to
the U.S. District Court in Tampa.
Tallevast leaders say they want the case to stay in the 12th
Circuit Court because they fear the federal court is too
friendly to big business.
But Lockheed Martin claims the case belongs in federal court
because all of the defendants but one are located outside of
Florida.
Other defendants include Loral Corp., the remaining vestige of
Loral American Beryllium Co; BECSD LLC, the limited Florida
holding company that now owns Tallevast factory; WPI Sarasota
Division Inc., the company operating out of the plant; and its
parent company, Wire Pro Inc. Only WPI Sarasota Division is
based in Florida.
Lockheed lawyers said the defense giant could not be sued in
state court because it was acting on behalf of and as an agency
for the federal government when the beryllium plant manufactured
parts for nuclear weapons and missile guidance systems.
But Denson's Nov. 4 motion to move the case back to state court
counters that Lockheed's arguments do not meet the test of case
law.
WPI Sarasota Division, as the current operator of the site, is a
Florida entity, Denson said. Moreover, the hazardous chemicals
and substances historically used and disposed of at the site
continue to spread.
Denson also takes issue with Lockheed's claim that it has a
right to have the case heard in federal court because the
beryllium plant did contract work for the federal government.
Denson argues there is nothing to indicate that those federal
contracts or officials directed Lockheed to engage in improper
handling of hazardous waste or fail to timely inform residents
that their properties were polluted.
"Defendant Lockheed Martin is attempting to 'shroud' its entire
facilities from state-law claims simply because the federal
government controlled some of the products manufactured there,"
Denson wrote.
Denson said Lockheed's responsibility in fulfilling federal
contractual obligations does not exclude them from following
state laws on the proper handling and disposal of hazardous
waste.
A second complaint against Lockheed was filed Monday in the 12th
Circuit Court by Sarasota attorney E. Keith DuBose on behalf of
31 other Tallevast residents. Emerson Carey of the Atlanta law
firm of Carey and Dobson is on the legal team representing those
31 residents.
Denson said he is talking with DuBose and Carey on how the two
legal teams can work together to find relief for Tallevast
residents.
The plume of industrial waste and potentially cancer-causing
solvents is now known to cover more than 131 acres.
Donna Wright, health and social services reporter, can be
reached at 745-7049 or at dwright@HeraldToday.com.
HeraldToday.com
Read the archive coverage of the Tallevast contamination.
HERALD WATCHDOG
*****************************************************************
35 AP Wire: Pieces of nuclear fuel rods missing at Ga. plant
| 11/10/2005 |
RUSS BYNUM
Associated Press
SAVANNAH, Ga. - Pieces of highly radioactive fuel rods are
missing from a nuclear plant in southeast Georgia, and Georgia
Power Co. acknowledged it's likely some will never be found.
The utility said more than 5 feet of spent fuel rods, removed in
the 1980s from a reactor at Edwin I. Hatch nuclear plant near
Baxley in southeast Georgia, could not be found during an
inventory last month.
The pencil-thin rods, kept in containment pools at the plant,
emit lethal doses of radiation. Georgia Power spokesman Tal
Wright said the pieces likely remain unfound in the pools or
were shipped to a waste disposal facility.
"Many of these pieces would be minute, and its quite possible
some of them could have broken up into smaller pieces over
time," Wright said. "It's likely we will not find much of this.
We've already put a significant effort into it."
Georgia Power, which operates the plant, notified the federal
Nuclear Regulatory Commission of the missing pieces Monday.
NRC spokesman Roger Hannah said the deadly radioactivity of the
pieces makes them virtually impossible to steal and they would
not have left the plant without setting off its radiation
monitors.
"From a public health and safety standpoint, it's extremely
unlikely this could have gotten into the public domain," Hannah
said. "This is not the kind of material you could walk out of
there with and expect to survive."
At the Baxley plant, about 90 miles southwest of Savannah,
workers have been searching 40-feet-deep containment pools with
robotic cameras. But it's like hunting for a needle in a
haystack, Wright said. The plant's two reactors and two
spent-fuel pools hold 4.75 million feet of fuel rods.
It's possible some of the missing pieces were swept up during
cleaning of the pools and sent with other waste to a disposal
facility, Wright said.
In the 1980s, some fuel rods had be removed from a reactor
because of corrosion, which required them to be taken out in
pieces.
Hannah said NRC inspectors were looking into the plant's
record-keeping and accountability programs. He could not specify
what type of fines or sanctions the plant might face.
"There's certainly the possibility there could be some sort of
enforcement action," Hannah said. "It's too early at this point
to say what that might be."
The NRC in February ordered all commercial nuclear plants to
inventory their spent fuel pools. The Georgia plant isn't the
first to report missing fuel rods to federal regulators.
Last year, operators of the Vermont Yankee nuclear plant near
Brattleboro, Vt., reported it could not find two pieces of spent
fuel rods removed from its reactor in 1979.
In 2000, the Millstone One nuclear plant near New London, Conn.,
told regulators it had misplaced two fuel rods of 13 1/2 feet in
length.
*****************************************************************
36 reviewjournal.com: Yucca loses vote on funding
Nov. 10, 2005
House OKs plan to reduce budget
WASHINGTON -- The House voted Wednesday to cut the budget for the
troubled Yucca Mountain nuclear waste dump well below this year's
level and President Bush's request.
At the same time, lawmakers again rejected Bush's proposal to
curb spending on water projects undertaken by the Army Corps of
Engineers. But the president fared much better on his plans to
send astronauts to Mars.
The moves came as the House adopted, by a 399-17 vote, a final
House-Senate compromise on a $30.5 billion energy and water
spending bill for the budget year that began Oct. 1.
Reflecting tight budget times, the bill is $750 million below
this year's levels.
In rapid succession, the House adopted a second $57.9 billion
compromise measure funding the budgets for the departments of
Commerce, Justice and State, awarding a $260 million budget
increase to NASA, funding Bush's plan to send astronauts back to
the Moon and on to Mars.
The Commerce, Justice and State bill passed by a 397-19 vote.
The programs funded by the bill would receive a 3 percent
increase over 2005 funding levels. The FBI won a 10 percent
budget increase but state and local governments would receive a
10 percent cut in law enforcement grants. Bush had sought far
deeper cuts.
Negotiators on that measure also killed a House provision to
block the FBI from routinely gaining access under the Patriot
Act to library materials and bookstore sales. But a renewal of
the Patriot Act before year's end is likely to achieve the same
purpose.
The Yucca nuclear waste repository would be funded at $450
million for the 2006 budget year, $127 million below the level
for each of the past two years.
Bill negotiators also ditched a controversial House plan to
supplement Yucca with interim storage sites for nuclear waste.
The final figure was also less than the House and the Senate
passed during earlier debates. More delays in the oft-delayed
project caused lawmakers to curb Yucca Mountain's budget.
Those cuts helped free up funds for the Corps of Engineers,
which received $5.6 billion, $1 billion above Bush's request.
That includes $8 million requested by Sen. Mary Landrieu, D-La.,
for the Corps to design a plan to bring south Louisiana up to
Category Five hurricane protection.
Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal, 1997 - 2005
*****************************************************************
37 Las Vegas SUN: Environmentalists up in arms over new mining
proposal
Today: November 10, 2005 at 8:34:14 PST
By Suzanne Struglinski
Sun Washington Bureau
WASHINGTON -- Environmental groups and mining interests are
awaiting a House vote, which could come as early as today, on a
budget reconciliation bill that would allow the sale of federal
land for mining claims.
Environmentalists are yelling "land grab" over the plan, which
would lift an 11-year-old ban on sales of federal land with
mineral deposits. The House Resources Committee insists it is
just a long overdue update of an 1872 mining law that will help
taxpayers get a better return on land bought by mining companies.
The proposal requires mining-land buyers to pay $1,000 or fair
market value, which ever is greater, for patenting and
purchasing land with mining claims. The 1872 rates of $2.50 to
$5 an acre are still in place, along with the 1994 ban. The
proposal lifts that ban and changes the selling price.
Rep. Jim Gibbons, R-Nev., who supports the proposal,
successfully added the fair market value or whichever is greater
element to the proposal to ensure that sales do not cheat
taxpayers out of land-sale money for acres valued above $1,000.
Gibbons spokeswoman Amy Maier said the proposal allows for land
sales but does not change anything related to the long process
involved with purchasing the land.
"They just don't give out patents like candy," she said.
Maier said before land could be bought at the new price, the
buyer would have to make a considerable investment in
environmental assessments and determining whether there are
actual mineral deposits worth mining on the land. She said the
proposal does nothing to change that.
But environmental groups do not support the change.
The Wilderness Society circulated an analysis of the proposal
Wednesday, calling it an attempt to "sell off our national
heritage." The group claims that the change could lead to "the
privatization of millions of acres of public land, including
National Park and Forest land."
The proposal prohibits sales of land within the National Park
System, National Wildlife Refuge System, wilderness areas,
national monuments and a handful of other protected areas, but
the Wilderness Society said the House Resources Committee did
not exempt millions of acres of other sensitive lands from sale.
Vanessa Conrad, a program assistant for the Great Basin Mine
Watch, said Nevada is especially vulnerable because of the
amount of public land in the state.
"It opens up all land for a fire sale," Conrad said.
Conrad said that under current law a company could not buy
federal land unless it actually discovered minerals or something
that could be mined. Under the proposal, she said, that is no
longer the case. Even if a company finds nothing to be mined, it
could still attempt to buy the land.
House Resources Committee spokesman Matt Streit said the
proposal does not apply to all public lands, and some land is
ineligible.
Streit said that through public hearings the committee learned
that mining companies that are closing their mines want to
purchase the land. This can help the surrounding community
because the company would be able to keep buildings and other
facilities on the land rather than having to remove everything.
The Environmental Working Group, a research organization based
in Washington, estimates that about 2.5 million acres of public
land with mining claims in Nevada could be up for sale through
the proposed language.
"Once sold there would be virtually no restrictions on how the
land could be developed, leaving some of America's most
treasured lands open to strip mines, strip malls, oil wells,
condos or luxury homes for corporate executives," according to
the group's report, "Dirt Cheap: America's Lands in Speculators'
Hands."
Luke Popovich, spokesman for the National Mining Association,
said if a company owns the land, it has always had the option of
doing whatever it wants with it.
"They own the land. They (environmental groups) are making this
sound as if this is something new," Popovich said.
Maier said the claim that this is a giveaway "simply does not
hold water."
She said this would affect about 360,000 acres nationwide. She
did not have a breakdown for land specifically affected in
Nevada.
The House might vote today on the Budget Reconciliation Bill,
which contains the proposal. It is an attempt by lawmakers to
cut as much as $50 billion from federal spending in the fiscal
year that began Oct. 1.
The Senate passed its own bill last month, and negotiators will
work out differences before it becomes law. The Senate version
does not contain the mining language.
Suzanne Struglinski can be reached at (202) 662-7245 or at
suzanne@lasvegassun.com.
All contents copyright 2005 Las Vegas SUN, Inc.
*****************************************************************
38 Las Vegas SUN: Yucca's new boss facing a moving target
Today: November 10, 2005 at 8:34:15 PST
Senators to probe Sproat's nomination
By Suzanne Struglinski
Sun Washington Bureau
WASHINGTON -- It may not matter much if White House nominee
Edward Sproat knows little about the Yucca Mountain project he
will potentially inherit. The program has possibly changed more
in the last month than it has in the past two decades.
Sproat, a former executive at Exelon, the country's largest
nuclear power utility, who now runs an energy consulting firm,
will face the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee
today for a hearing on his nomination to take over the Energy
Department's office of civilian radioactive waste management.
If confirmed by the Senate, Sproat would take over a program in
flux and face challenges not seen by his predecessors.
He told the Sun in September that he was "John Q. Public" on
his overall perception and knowledge of plans at Yucca. He said
he was hoping to be educated quickly on the proposed repository.
But the department may be waiting for its own education as well.
"DOE will be unable to estimate realistically when the license
application will be submitted," attorney Michael Shebelskie, who
represents the Energy Department, wrote in a letter to the
Nuclear Regulatory Commission last week.
The department is reworking the project and officials say they
want to simplify it.
There is also increased talk in Washington of reprocessing or
recycling nuclear waste. This would not eliminate the need for
Yucca Mountain but would change the type of waste it would store.
Acting director Paul Golan sent a memo to all top Yucca
officials assigning them new tasks to get this new version of
the project off the ground.
This is a complete shift from where the program was a year ago.
Around this time last year, the Energy Department was working
relentlessly to turn in a license application for the Yucca
Mountain project by Dec. 31, 2004.
It was not until Nov. 22 that Margaret Chu, then the director
of department's civilian radioactive waste office that oversees
Yucca, admitted it would not be turning in an application.
Now, the department will not even talk about dates. Energy
Secretary Samuel Bodman and Golan have transformed the project
from being based on a schedule to one focusing on quality work.
Golan has made this statement publicly and the department's
spokesman sticks to the same line.
If Sproat is confirmed, Golan is likely to stay on as the
principal deputy secretary and maintain this new plan.
"I think that this is so screwed up, it doesn't matter who is
in charge," said Bob Loux, executive director of the Nevada
Agency for Nuclear Projects. "DOE has got to be the most
incompetent agency in the federal government."
Sproat would be the sixth director confirmed by the Senate to
lead the program. Other officials, including Lake Barrett,
sometimes referred to as the "grandfather" of the program,
served only as acting directors and were not formally approved
by Congress.
The department created the Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste
Management in 1983. Eight Energy Department secretaries have
held office since its creation.
Suzanne Struglinski can be reached at (202) 662-7245 or at
suzanne@lasvegassun.com.
All contents copyright 2005 Las Vegas SUN, Inc.
*****************************************************************
39 Forbes: Iraq faces 40 mln usd bill to clean up toxic, radioactive waste - UN -
Forbes.com
11.10.2005, 08:23 AM
GENEVA (AFX) - Iraq faces a massive 40 mln usd environmental
clean-up campaign to tackle the lethal toxic and radioactive
legacy of more than two decades of conflict and neglect, a UN
agency and Iraqi authorities said.
Five sites near Baghdad, described by the UN Environment
Programme (UNEP) as 'the tip of the iceberg', have been
identified for an initial clean-up, but there are thought to be
thousands more.
'There are thousands of polluted areas in Iraq, either from
industrial or military pollution,' Iraq's environment minister,
Narmin Othman, said at the launch of a UNEP assessment of
environmental 'hotspots' in Iraq.
The UNEP report highlighted the Al Qadyissa metal plating
facility, bombed during the US invasion of Iraq, where several
tonnes of cyanide pellets are scattered around a site that is
accessible to children.
Other immediate priority areas include pesticides and
petrochemicals warehouses and a military scrapyard.
Many of them have been contaminating farm land and drinking
water, or are close to impoverished communities who looted sites
without knowing the risks.
The Ouireej site was a military ammunition dump. Two people have
been killed by explosions and by poisoning during clean-up
attempts there over the past two years, according to the report,
which included pictures of children playing in the site.
'Wars, conflicts, instability and the poor environmental
management of the previous regime have left their scars on the
Iraqi people and the Iraqi environment,' UNEP Executive Director
Klaus Toepfer said.
A UNEP expert, Mu ralee Thummarukundy, said the five sites were
not the worst cases of pollution but were chosen initially
because of their proximity to local communities and security
conditions.
The report did not cover pollution caused by uranium-hardened
shells used during tank battles or aerial bombardments in Iraq
in 1991 and 2003.
'We do not only have chemicals, we even have radiation. We have
depleted uranium radiation, a good programme has identified 311
sites polluted by depleted uranium, especially in the south,'
Othman told journalists.
Toepfer said a separate project was being set up with British
funding to train Iraqi experts to deal with depleted uranium,
which was used to harden munitions.
He declined to comment on the level of danger the depleted
uranium might represent.
Five key causes of severe pollution by chemicals and heavy
metals were identified, ranging from the 1980 Iran-Iraq war, the
two Gulf Wars, to years of environmental neglect under Saddam
Hussein's regime and looting which spread contamination.
pac/bar/rl
COPYRIGHT
Copyright AFX News Limited 2005. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
40 NRC: Disposal of Radioactive Material by Release Into Sanitary Sewer
Systems; Withdrawal of Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
[RIN 3150-AE90]
FR Doc 05-22432
[Federal Register: November 10, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 217)]
[Proposed Rules] [Page 68350-68368] From the Federal Register
Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr10no05-18]
AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
ACTION: Advance notice of proposed rulemaking: Withdrawal.
SUMMARY: The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is withdrawing
an advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPR) that presented
possible changes to the regulations governing the release of
radionuclides from licensed nuclear facilities into sanitary
sewer systems. Changes were proposed to account for the potential
for radionuclide concentration during some types of wastewater
treatment processes. NRC is withdrawing this advance notice of
proposed rulemaking because it has determined that there are no
widespread public health and safety concerns due to potential
radiation exposures associated with the handling, beneficial use,
and disposal of sewage sludge containing radioactive materials.
This notice of withdrawal acknowledges public comments sent in
response to the ANPR.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: A. Christianne Ridge, Office of
Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, telephone (301) 415-5673,
e-mail acr1@nrc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On February 25, 1994 (59 FR 9146), NRC
published an ANPR to seek information to determine whether an
amendment to its regulations governing the release of
radionuclides from licensed nuclear facilities into sanitary
sewer systems was needed. NRC was considering revising the
approach to limiting these releases because of the potential
effects of newly-developed sewage treatment technologies on
radionuclide reconcentration during wastewater treatment. The
Commission requested advice and recommendations on several
proposals and asked related questions regarding whether and in
what way the regulations governing the release of radionuclides
from licensed nuclear facilities into sanitary sewer systems
should be changed. NRC received seventy-four comment letters in
response to the ANPR.
The comment period expired on May 26, 1994.
Because there were concerns raised on the broader issue of long-
term effects of releases of radioactive materials into sanitary
sewer systems, action on the ANPR was deferred until studies were
conducted regarding potential radioactive contamination in sewage
sludge.
Since that time, NRC participated in the Interagency Steering
Committee of Radiation Standards (ISCORS) and co-chaired, with
the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Sewage Sludge
Subcommittee to facilitate a systematic and thorough study of the
potential concerns related to radionuclides in sewage sludge and
to obtain data to support a technical basis for a regulatory
decision.
Regulatory Framework Relevant to the Release of Radioactive
Material Into Sanitary Sewers NRC regulations governing the
release of licensed material into sanitary sewer systems can be
found in 10 CFR 20.2003. This regulation was published in the
Federal Register (56 FR 23360; May 21, 1991) as part of an
overall revision of NRC standards for protection against
radiation. Licensees were required to implement this regulation
by January 1, 1993. As part of the 1991 revision of 10 CFR Part
20 regulations, NRC removed the broad provision that allowed the
release of non-biological insoluble materials into sanitary
sewers because of the potential for this material to
reconcentrate in sewers, publicly owned treatment works (POTWs),
and sewage sludge. The current NRC regulations require that any
licensed material discharged into a sanitary sewer system must be
readily soluble in water or be readily dispersible biological
material. In addition, the concentration limits for radionuclides
released into a sanitary sewer system, listed in Table 3 of the
Appendix B to Part 20, were reduced by a factor of 10 as part of
an overall reduction in effluent release limits. In addition to
the limits in 10 CFR 20.2003, NRC recommends that licensees
should maintain doses as low as is reasonably achievable (ALARA)
by setting goals for effluent concentrations and quantities to be
only a modest fraction (10 to 20 percent) of their allowable
limits, as described in NRC Regulatory Guide 8.37, ``ALARA Levels
for Effluents from Materials Facilities,'' dated July 1993. NRC
also conducts periodic inspections to ensure that licensees are
in compliance with NRC regulations.
Surveys, Studies, and Reports Relevant to the Release of
Radioactive Material Into Sanitary Sewers In May 1992, NRC issued
the results of a scoping study in NUREG/CR- 5814, ``Evaluation of
Exposure Pathways to Man from Disposal of Radioactive Materials
into Sanitary Sewer Systems,'' which evaluated the potential
radiological doses to POTW workers and members of the public from
exposure to radionuclides in sewage sludge. The first part of the
analysis estimated the potential doses to workers for five cases
in which radioactive materials were detected at POTWs (Tonawanda,
NY; Grand Island, NY; Royersford, PA; Oak Ridge, TN; and
Washington, DC). Doses from the case studies were estimated to
range from less than 10 microsieverts per year ([mu]Sv/yr) (1
millirem per year (mrem/yr)) to 930 [mu]Sv/yr (93 mrem/yr) for
members of the public, using a deterministic scenario analysis
and the reported radionuclide concentrations and/or discharges.
The second part of the study estimated the maximum radiation
exposures to POTW workers and others who could be affected by low
levels of man-made radioactivity in wastewater. The quantities of
radionuclides released into the sewer systems were assumed to be
the maximum allowed under NRC regulations at the time. Estimates
of the hypothetical, maximum exposures to workers ranged from
zero to a dose roughly equal to the dose individuals receive from
natural background radiation.
In May 1994, the U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO, now U.S.
Government Accountability Office) issued a report,
GAO/RCED-94-133,
[[Page 68351]] ``Nuclear Regulation: Action Needed to Control
Radioactive Contamination at Sewage Treatment Plants'', that
described nine cases where contamination was found in sewage
sludge or ash or in wastewater collection systems. GAO concluded
that the full extent of contamination nationwide was unknown. GAO
also concluded that the ``problem of radioactive contamination of
sludge and ash in the reported cases was the result, in large
part, of NRC's regulation, which was incorrectly based on the
assumption that radioactive materials would flow through
treatment systems and not concentrate.'' In June 1994, a joint
U.S. House of Representatives and Senate hearing (June 21, 1994;
S.
Hrg. 103-1034) was held to officially release and address
questions raised in the GAO report. At the hearing, NRC and EPA
agreed to cooperate to develop guidance for POTWs and to collect
more data on the concentration of radioactive materials in
samples of sewage sludge and ash from POTWs nationwide.
Between 1994 and 1997, Federal, State, and industry studies were
conducted to assess reconcentration of radioactive materials that
are released into sanitary sewer systems. In December 1994, NRC
published NUREG/CR-6289, ``Reconcentration of Radioactive
Material Released into Sanitary Sewers in Accordance with 10 CFR
Part 20.'' A review of the literature demonstrated that some
radioactive materials discharged into sanitary sewer systems
reconcentrate in sewage sludge. However, the report concluded
that the available data were not sufficient to assess the
adequacy of the requirements in 10 CFR 20.2003 in preventing
occurrences of radionuclide reconcentration in sewage sludge at
levels which present significant risk to the public; nor is the
available data sufficient to suggest strategies for changing the
requirements.
In 1996, the Association of Metropolitan Sewerage Agencies (AMSA)
conducted a limited survey of reconcentration of radioactivity in
sewage sludge and ash samples from some of its member POTWs.
Samples were obtained from 55 wastewater treatment plants in 17
States.
The most significant sources of radioactivity were potassium and
radium isotopes, which are Naturally Occurring Radioactive
Materials (NORM). In December 1997, the Washington State
Department of Health issued a report WDOH/320-013, ``The Presence
of Radionuclides in Sewage Sludge and Their Effect on Human
Health,'' that was based on sludge samples taken at six POTWs in
the State. The report concluded that that there was no indication
that radioactive material in sewage sludge in the State of
Washington poses a health risk.
The Interagency Steering Committee on Radiation Standards
(ISCORS) was formed in 1995, to address inconsistencies, gaps,
and overlaps in current radiation protection standards. In 1996,
the Sewage Sludge Subcommittee of ISCORS was formed to coordinate
efforts to address the recommendations in the 1994 GAO Report.
Between 1998 and 2000, the EPA and NRC (through the ISCORS)
jointly conducted a voluntary survey of POTW sewage sludge and
ash to help assess the potential need for NRC and/or EPA
regulatory decisions. Sludge and ash samples were analyzed from
313 POTWs, some of which had greater potential to receive
releases of radionuclides from NRC and Agreement State licensees,
and some of which were located in areas of the country with
higher concentrations of NORM. In November 2003, the results of
the survey were published in a final report, NUREG-1775, ``ISCORS
Assessment of Radioactivity in Sewage Sludge: Radiological Survey
Results and Analysis.'' No widespread or nationwide public health
concern was identified by the survey and no excessive
concentrations of radioactivity were observed in sludge or ash.
The results indicated that the majority of samples with elevated
radioactivity had elevated concentrations of NORM, such as
radium, and did not have elevated concentrations of radionuclides
from manmade sources.
In February, 2005, the Sewage Sludge Subcommittee published a
report, NUREG-1783, ``ISCORS Assessment of Radioactivity in
Sewage Sludge: Modeling to Assess Radiation Doses.'' This report
contains dose modeling results for seven different sewage sludge
management scenarios for POTW workers and members of the public.
Results of the dose models and survey results indicated that
there is no widespread concern to public health and safety from
potential radiation exposures associated with the handling,
beneficial use, and disposal of sewage sludge containing
radioactive materials, including NORM.
In February, 2005, the Sewage Sludge Subcommittee also published
a report, ``ISCORS Assessment of Radioactivity in Sewage Sludge:
Recommendations on Management of Radioactive Materials in Sewage
Sludge and Ash at Publicly Owned Treatment Works;'' (EPA
832-R-03-002B; ISCORS Technical Report 2004-04). This report
provides guidance to: (1) Alert POTW operators, as well as State
and Federal regulators, to the possibility that radioactive
materials may concentrate in sewage sludge and incinerator ash;
(2) inform POTW operators how to determine whether there are
elevated levels of radioactive materials in the POTW's sludge or
ash; and (3) assist POTW operators in identifying actions for
reducing potential radiation exposure from sewage and ash.
Reasons for Withdrawing the ANPR The results of the survey and
dose modeling work conducted by the ISCORS Sewage Sludge
Subcommittee regarding radioactive materials in sewage sludge and
ash provide a technical basis for withdrawing the ANPR. The
survey demonstrated that the most significant levels of
radioactive materials in POTWs are attributable to NORM. The dose
modeling work indicated that, in general, the doses from licensed
materials in sewage sludge present a sufficiently low health and
safety risk to POTW workers and to the public under the current
regulatory structure. Therefore, it is not necessary to modify
the current restrictions regarding the release of radioactive
materials into sanitary sewers (10 CFR 20.2003) as discussed in
the ANPR. In addition, public comments indicated that several of
the options discussed in the ANPR would be costly to implement
and may not be consistent with efforts to maintain doses ALARA.
For these reasons, NRC is withdrawing the ANPR.
Public Comments on the Potential Changes to 10 CFR Part 20 In the
ANPR, NRC invited comment on the following aspects of the
regulation of release of radionuclides into sanitary sewers: The
form of materials suitable for disposal, the limits on the total
radioactivity of materials that can be released by a licensee
into sanitary sewers in a year, also called the ``total quantity
limit,'' the types of limits applied, and the exemption for
medical patient excreta. The following is a summary of those
comments and NRC responses.
(1) Form of Material for Disposal The May 21, 1991, final rule
(10 CFR 20.2003) allows soluble and readily dispersible
biological material to be released but prohibits the release of
any non-biological insoluble material. Because NRC recognized
that new technologies for wastewater treatment, such as ion-
exchange and some types of biological treatment, can
reconcentrate radionuclides, NRC invited comments regarding
whether and how regulations should account for the effects of
different wastewater treatment
[[Page 68352]] technologies on radionuclide reconcentration. NRC
also invited comments regarding the potential impacts that
additional restrictions on the form of materials allowable for
release into sanitary sewers would have on licensee operations.
Public comments regarding the adequacy of the current
restrictions also were received.
Comment: Nine commenters, including representatives of the New
York State Energy Office, New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation, AMSA, and the Department of Energy
(DOE), expressed the view that the regulations should be
reevaluated because of new sewage treatment technologies or
should account for the effects of new technologies used to treat
sewage or sewage sludge. One commenter suggested that NRC limits
should account for a variety of POTW-specific factors, including
sludge handling processes, and sludge disposal methods, and
restrictions on the POTW's treated water discharge. Another
commenter suggested NRC should take new sewage treatment
technologies into account only if the results of NUREG/CR-6289,
which was incomplete at the time the comment was made, indicated
that new sewage treatment technologies had the potential to cause
significant reconcentration of radionuclides in sewage sludge.
Two commenters recommended NRC develop technology-specific
reconcentration factors to help POTW operators to design
appropriate pretreatment plans. A representative of DOE suggested
NRC should expect that advances in the sewage treatment process
would result in increasing concentration of radionuclides in
sewage sludge. Two commenters recommended NRC regulations account
for synergistic health effects of radiation and pollutants in
wastewater, and one suggested NRC evaluate the synergistic
effects of radiation and the chlorine and fluoride used in
drinking water treatment.
Response: NRC acknowledges the commenters' support for
regulations that would account for the reconcentration of
radionuclides by wastewater treatment processes. However, the
regulations will not be changed because the ANPR is being
withdrawn for the reasons previously explained.
Comment: Four commenters expressed the view that NRC regulations
should not take sewage treatment technologies into account.
Reasons included uncertainty that new technologies will be
implemented and a lack of information about the effects of the
new technologies on radionuclide reconcentration. A
representative of the State of Illinois Department of Nuclear
Safety suggested NRC should keep informed of technological
developments, but should not implement additional restrictions
without significant evidence that the current restrictions are
not adequate. Two commenters suggested that, rather than revising
Sec. 20.2003 to account for new treatment technologies, NRC
should consider placing additional restrictions on individual
licensees to provide the necessary protection to the receiving
POTWs in unusual cases where the number of licensees, size of the
sewage treatment plant or nature of the technology used at the
treatment plant may cause doses above 100 mrem/yr. One commenter
stated that it is unnecessary for NRC regulations to account for
sewage sludge treatment technologies because local POTWs have the
authority and mandate to account for these technologies by
developing industrial water discharge permits pursuant to 40 CFR
403.5(c)(1). Response: NRC acknowledges the commenters'
opposition to the proposed rule change, which supports NRC's
decision to withdraw the ANPR. With respect to the comment that
POTWs have the authority and mandate to impose limits on
radioactive materials released into sanitary sewers, NRC notes
that, as described in Section 4.7 of the ISCORS recommendations
on management of radioactive materials in sewage sludge and ash
(EPA 832-R-03-002B), POTWs may not have the same authority to
regulate radioactive material as they do to regulate other
materials released into sanitary sewers.
Comment: Eight commenters expressed the view that NRC regulations
should account for the fact that several licensees may discharge
to the same POTW, and, of those, five expressed the view that the
regulations should also take the capacity of the POTW into
account. Five commenters stated that restrictions on the release
of nonradioactive pollutants established under EPA's National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) account for the
capacity of the receiving POTW, the wastewater treatment systems
used, and the number of industrial users discharging to a POTW,
and suggested any new regulations governing the release of
radioactive materials into sanitary sewers should take these
factors into account. A representative of DOE expressed the view
that changes to the regulations to account for multiple
dischargers should be considered but may not be necessary because
sanitary systems serving multiple licensees would probably be
large systems in which the licensees' effluent would be diluted
by many other inputs to the sewer system. One commenter suggested
that, if limits on the total amount of radioactivity individual
POTWs could receive were developed, any cases in which the limits
are being exceeded by licensees that were already discharging
sewage into the sewer system before the limits were developed
should be handled on a case-by-case basis.
Response: NRC acknowledges the commenters' support for
regulations that would account for the capacity of individual
POTWs and the number of licensees discharging to a single POTW.
However, the proposed change will not be implemented for the
reasons previously explained.
Comment: Twenty-seven commenters were opposed to additional
restrictions on the forms of material suitable for release into
sanitary sewers. Twenty-one stated that the potential for
significant reconcentration of radionuclides during wastewater
treatment probably had been addressed by the May 21, 1991 changes
to Part 20 (56 FR 23360) that restricted the forms of materials
that could be released into sanitary sewers and lowered
concentration limits. Another commenter expressed the view that
it was unclear whether contamination described in the case
studies discussed in the ANPR occurred because of violations of
the existing regulations, and also that it would be inappropriate
for NRC to respond to individual violations of regulatory
requirements by making changes to the regulations for all
licensees. Representatives of six licensees indicated that
additional restrictions on the forms of material appropriate for
disposal would impose a significant burden on their operations.
Commenters listed the costs of building new storage facilities,
analyzing samples of waste to determine whether insoluble
radionuclides were present, and establishing new collection,
handling, and disposal procedures as well as retraining of
personnel as expenses that would be incurred if additional
restrictions were imposed. In addition, three commenters
expressed the concern that further restricting the forms of
material appropriate for disposal in a sanitary sewer would not
be consistent with NRC's policy that doses should be maintained
ALARA because the additional waste handling that would be
required would cause doses to workers that would not be justified
based on the minimal dose to members of the public or POTW
workers that might be avoided.
Response: NRC acknowledges the commenters' remarks, which support
[[Page 68353]] the withdrawal of the ANPR. However, the NRC staff
notes the need to analyze samples of waste to determine if the
waste contains insoluble radionuclides should not impose an
additional burden because the restriction on releasing insoluble,
non-biological wastes was already in place when the comment was
made.
Comment: Twenty-three commenters encouraged NRC to continue to
allow release of readily soluble wastes that met the quantity and
concentration release criteria in 10 CFR Part 20. Twenty-one of
those commenters indicated that they were unaware of any
significant problems caused by the disposal of soluble
radioactive material in sewer systems. Three commenters stated
that they were not aware of any mechanisms that would
reconcentrate the wastes typical of biomedical research in sewage
sludge, and two of these stated that the activity levels were
sufficiently low that reconcentration, even if it did occur,
would not cause a significant dose.
Response: NRC acknowledges the commenters' support for the
continuation of the current regulations which allow certain
concentration and quantities of readily soluble radioactive
material into sanitary sewers.
Comment: Two commenters suggested that NRC should change the
regulation to re-establish disposal of dispersible non-biological
materials. One commenter suggested disposal of non-biological
dispersible materials should be allowed for materials that have
half- lives of less than 100 days or are below the concentrations
listed in 10 CFR Part 20 Appendix C.
Response: NRC acknowledges the commenters' suggestion that
release of non-biological dispersible material into sanitary
sewers be allowed. NRC understands that reconcentration of a
radionuclide in sewage sludge can be limited by its half life.
However, NRC has chosen not to change the regulation governing
the release of radioactive material into sanitary sewers for the
reasons previously explained.
Comment: Six commenters, including a representative of DOE, noted
that the chemical form of materials released into the sewer can
change, and that materials that are soluble when released may
precipitate or sorb to solid particles in the sewer or treatment
plant. A representative of the New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation suggested NRC study not only the
effect of new technologies on radionuclide solubilities, but also
how the solubility of radioactive materials change in sanitary
sewers. A representative of DOE noted that precipitation and
sorption could cause risks to individuals who work in POTWs, work
in close contact with sewers, or who incinerate or use wastewater
treatment sludge. In addition, the commenter remarked that, while
it appeared to be reasonable to limit sewer releases to soluble
and dispersible biological materials, NRC should realize that
licensees could release insoluble or nondispersible materials to
sewer systems inadvertently. One commenter expressed the view
that NRC regulations should account not only for the form of
material when released, but the form it was likely to take after
being discharged.
Three commenters expressed the view that, because the form of a
material discharged is likely to change when it reaches the sewer
or POTW, the modification to 10 CFR 20 that eliminated disposal
for non- biological ``readily-dispersible'' materials may not
have removed the chance that radionuclides could reconcentrate in
wastewater treatment sludge. Two commenters remarked that
reconcentration of radionuclides probably would continue, in part
because POTWs are designed to remove dissolved contaminants from
wastewater. However, both commenters expressed the opinion that
reconcentration is not necessarily a problem if the dose any
individual is expected to receive from exposure to sewers,
sewage, or sludge is low.
Response: NRC understands that materials that are released into
the sewer in a soluble form can precipitate or sorb to solid
materials in sewers or POTWs, as discussed in NUREG/CR-6289. Most
of the commenters' concerns about the potential risk to POTW
workers are addressed in the ISCORS dose modeling report
(NUREG-1783), as previously explained. Although the ISCORS dose
analysis (NUREG-1783) does not include an analysis of doses to
workers that come into contact with sewers, those doses are
expected to be limited because of the limited amount of time a
worker would spend in close contact with a sewer and because of
the relatively low doses predicted for most scenarios that
involve contact with sewage sludge.
NRC acknowledges the concern that licensees may inadvertently
dispose of insoluble non-biological material. NRC also
acknowledges the suggestion that the regulations should account
for changes in the form of materials that are likely to occur in
sewers and POTWs and the concern about the efficacy of the 1991
revisions. For the reasons previously explained, NRC has decided
not to change the regulations governing the release of
radioactive material into sanitary sewers. However, NRC staff
notes that, in addition to restrictions on form, NRC also has
imposed annual limits in 10 CFR 20.2003(a)(4) on the total amount
of radioactivity that can be released into sanitary sewers to
limit the potential for reconcentration of radioactive material
in sanitary sewers, sewage sludge, and sludge ash.
Comment: Five commenters supported additional restrictions on the
form of materials that can be released into sanitary sewers. One
commenter expressed the view that the practice, used by some
medical research laboratories, of releasing pureed tissue samples
to the sanitary sewer was distasteful. Another commenter
expressed the opinion that NRC should impose any requirement that
would minimize the amount of radioactivity in the environment.
Response: NRC acknowledges the commenters' support for additional
restrictions on the forms of material suitable for release into
sanitary sewers but is not changing the regulations because it
believes the current approach is sufficiently protective, as
previously explained.
Comment: Three commenters requested clarification regarding the
distinction between soluble and readily dispersible materials.
One requested that an information notice be produced to address
materials used in the biotech industry. Another commenter
expressed the concern that it would be difficult to demonstrate
compliance with the restriction that only soluble and
readily-dispersible biological materials be released into
sanitary sewers if colloids that flow through filters and resins
are classified as non-biological dispersible material. The
commenter proposed an operational procedure to distinguish
between soluble and readily dispersible materials. A
representative of the New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation noted that traces of insoluble radioactive material
could be released into sewers with soluble materials, and
requested that NRC establish a lower limit of detection for
insoluble material.
Response: NRC acknowledges the commenters' request for additional
guidance on how licensees should demonstrate the solubility of
radioactive material released to sanitary sewers. Although NRC
does not have plans to provide additional guidance on this issue,
the staff notes that, as discussed in NRC Information Notice
94-007, licensees are free to develop alternative methods of
demonstrating the solubility of materials they wish to release
into sanitary sewers and to submit these
[[Page 68354]] procedures to NRC for evaluation on a case-by-case
basis.
(2) Total Quantity of Material In the May 21, 1991 final rule,
NRC did not change the total quantity limits, which allow a
licensee to release 185 gigabecquerel (GBq) (5 curies (Ci)) of
H-3, 37 GBq (1 Ci) of C-14, and 37 GBq (1Ci) of all other
radioactive materials combined into sanitary sewers each year.
The use of total quantity limits has been a long-standing
requirement and was originally included in the rule (10 CFR
20.2003(a)(4)) to address concerns regarding the possibility for
reconcentration of radionuclides. In the ANPR, NRC invited
comments about the alternative approach of limiting the annual
release of each radionuclide individually. NRC also invited
comments about the current total quantity limits and the
potential impacts that additional restrictions on the annual
releases into sanitary sewers would have on licensees.
Prior to publishing the ANPR, NRC received a petition for
rulemaking to amend 10 CFR 20.303 (superseded by Sec. 20.2003)
and Sec. 20.305 (superseded by Sec. 20.2004) from the Northeast
Ohio Regional Sewer District (PRM-20-22). A notice of receipt of
the petition was published in the Federal Register (58 FR 54071;
October 20, 1993). The petitioner requested that NRC amend its
regulations to require that all licensees provide at least 24
hours advance notice to the appropriate POTW before releasing
radioactive material to the sanitary sewer system. The petitioner
also requested that NRC exempt materials that enter the sanitary
waste stream from the requirements regarding Commission approval
for incineration under NRC's current regulations. NRC solicited
comments on the petition in the ANPR. The denial of the petition
was noticed in the Federal Register on January 27, 2005 (70 FR
3898).
Comment: Six comments received in response to the ANPR supported
annual total quantity limits. Two commenters, including a
representative of DOE, suggested total quantity limits should be
retained because they help prevent reconcentration of
radionuclides in sewage sludge and two supported the total
quantity limits because they are easy for licensees and
regulators to understand and implement. Two commenters, including
the representative of DOE, suggested it may be worthwhile for NRC
to evaluate whether the regulation could be optimized by changing
the annual release limits for some radionuclides. A
representative of the Illinois Department of Nuclear Safety
expressed the opinion that the relatively low doses calculated
for the case studies described in the ANPR and predicted for
other scenarios in NUREG/CR-5814 indicated that reconcentration
of radionuclides in sewage sludge could be addressed on a
case-by-case basis rather than by changing the total quantity
limits in Sec. 20.2003. Response: NRC acknowledges support for
the current approach of using annual limits on the total quantity
of radioactive material that can be released into sanitary sewers
by a licensee. In accord with the commenters' suggestion, NRC
performed a study to evaluate the reconcentration of various
radiounuclides in POTWs, the results of which are discussed in
NUREG/CR-6289.
Comment: A representative of the City of Oak Ridge made positive
and negative statements about NRC annual total quantity limits.
The commenter stated that both concentration and total quantity
limits were necessary to ensure protection of workers and to
ensure that traditional methods of sludge disposal remain
acceptable.
However, the commenter also expressed the view that the current
values of the total quantity limits are too high and stated that
disposal of 37 GBq (1 Ci) of Co-60 annually to the Oak Ridge POTW
would result in unacceptably high concentrations of Co-60 in the
POTW's sludge, especially if the material was released during a
relatively short time period. The commenter also expressed the
opinion that the total quantity limits are inappropriate for low
specific activity radionuclides because of the large mass of the
radionuclide that could be discharged. As an example, the
commenter stated that release of 37 GBq (1 Ci) of U-238 to the
city's POTW in a year would result in a mass concentration of
uranium of more than 0.05 percent in the POTW's sludge, making
the sludge licensable source material. In addition to these
comments, the commenter suggested that, because the mean
retention time of sludge at a POTW typically is one month or
less, a monthly discharge limit would be more appropriate than an
annual limit.
Response: NRC acknowledges the commenter's concern about the
release of Co-60 to a POTW and the suggestion that quantity
limits should be implemented on a monthly, rather than an annual,
basis. The staff notes that the 1991 revision to 10 CFR Part 20
that eliminated the discharge of insoluble non-dispersible
radioactive material into sanitary sewers was implemented to
reduce the possibility of significant contamination of sewage
sludge with insoluble radionuclides, such as Co-60. NRC has
decided not to change the regulations governing sewer release of
radioactive material for the reasons previously explained. NRC
acknowledges the commenter's concern about the applicability of
the total quantity limit to low specific activity radionuclides.
However, NRC does not agree that the accumulation of large masses
of low-specific activity radionuclides in POTWs is likely to be
problematic. In addition POTWs have some authority to impose
limits on the release of material into sanitary sewers when the
purpose of the limits is not radiation protection, as discussed
in Section 4.7 of the ISCORS recommendations on management of
radioactive materials in sewage sludge and ash (EPA
832-R-03-002B).
Comment: Twenty-three commenters described concerns about the
current approach of limiting the total amount of radioactivity a
licensee may release into a sanitary sewer system. Nineteen
commenters expressed the opinion that it is not appropriate to
apply the same total quantity limit to large and small facilities
that discharge different amounts of sewage and therefore dilute
radioactive materials to different extents. Another commenter
stated that NRC should not attempt to impose total quantity
limits on large facilities.
Seventeen commenters expressed the view that NRC should consider
relaxing the total quantity limits because of the new restriction
on the form of material and lower release concentration limits
implemented in the 1991 revision to 10 CFR Part 20. The
commenters expressed the opinion that adherence to the new form
and concentration limits may eliminate the need for total
quantity limits. Three commenters suggested that, instead of
limiting the total quantity of radioactivity a licensee could
dispose of into a sewer, NRC should focus on the radionuclides
and chemical forms of radionuclides that reconcentrate in POTWs
to a significant extent. One commenter expressed the concern that
a person could dispose of 37 GBq (1 Ci) of Cs-137 within a month
while remaining in compliance with the current concentration and
total quantity limits. Another commenter suggested concentration
limits are sufficient and are superior to total quantity limits
because concentration limits account for the total volume of
water a licensee releases to the sanitary sewer system. The
commenter noted that, although the nominal purpose of the total
quantity limits is to eliminate reconcentration, the total
quantity limits do not appear to prevent reconcentration, as
evidenced by the case studies described in the
[[Page 68355]] ANPR. The commenter suggested reconcentration
could be avoided by reducing the allowable concentrations of
those radionuclides that have shown a tendency to reconcentrate
in sewage sludge.
Response: NRC acknowledges the comment about the application of
the same total quantity limit to large and small facilities, but
believes that the system is appropriate. Because the total
quantity limit is designed to reduce the potential for
reconcentration of radionuclides at POTWs, an appropriate total
quantity limit is more dependent on the volume of sewage received
by a POTW than it is on the volume of a licensee's effluent.
NRC acknowledges the comment that total quantity limits should be
relaxed or eliminated, but does not agree that the limits on form
and concentration eliminate the need for annual quantity limits.
As discussed in NUREG/CR-6289, the form of radionuclides can
change upon entering a sewer or POTW because of sorption and
precipitation.
NRC also acknowledges the concern that total quantity limits did
not prevent the cases of contamination discussed in the ANPR. NRC
believes that limiting both the form and total quantity of
material released into sanitary sewers is the best way to limit
the potential for significant reconcentration of radionuclides
released by licensees into sanitary sewers.
NRC acknowledges the commenters' suggestion that, instead of
imposing total quantity limits, it should focus on those
radionuclides that have been shown to reconcentrate in sewers or
sewage sludge. NRC also acknowledges the commenter's concern
about the discharge of Cs-137 but believes the current approach
to be sufficiently protective for the reasons previously
explained.
Comment: One commenter expressed the view that additional
limitations on the release of H-3 and C-14 into sanitary sewers
would not produce any public health benefit because any dose an
individual received from sewer-disposed H-3 and C-14 would be
negligible in comparison to the dose the individual would receive
from naturally- produced H-3 and C-14.
Response: NRC acknowledges the commenter's view that additional
restrictions on the quantities of H-3 and C-14 are unnecessary.
The comment supports the withdrawal of the ANPR and the current
total quantity limits which allow the annual release of 185 GBq
(5 Ci) of H-3 and 37 GBq (1 Ci) of C-14 in addition to the
release of 37 GBq (1 Ci) of all other radionuclides combined.
Comment: Eight licensees expressed the view that additional
restrictions on the total quantity of radioactive material that
could be released into sanitary sewers annually would have a
severe negative impact on their facilities' operations.
Representatives of a biomedical company, a university, and the
National Institutes of Health (NIH) noted that a reduction in the
total quantity limits would impose a significant financial burden
on organizations involved in biotechnical research, development,
or medical practice, especially if the limits were reduced to a
point that liquid wastes would need to be solidified and disposed
of as low level waste (LLW). The representative of NIH estimated
that solidification and disposal of liquid wastes as LLW would
cost NIH 2.8 million dollars annually, as of 1994. Two commenters
remarked that companies would bear the additional expense of
acquiring or building storage facilities or acquiring treatment
technologies to remove radioactivity from liquid waste streams.
One commenter noted that LLW disposal of many of the materials
currently released into sanitary sewer systems would be a
particularly unnecessary expense and inefficient use of LLW
landfill space because, in many cases, the material would decay
to negligible quantities before it reached the LLW landfill.
Five commenters associated with medical research facilities or
companies that produce radiopharmaceuticals suggested additional
restrictions on the total quantity of radioactive material that
could be released into sanitary sewers annually could harm public
health and safety by causing companies to limit biomedical
research and development efforts. One of these commenters stated
that the amount of radioactivity released into sanitary sewers in
association with medical research was insignificant as compared
to the amount of radioactivity released to sewers in patient
excreta and concluded that release of radioactive materials
associated with biomedical research should be allowed as long as
the exemption for patient excreta is continued. Two commenters
expressed the opinion that additional restrictions on the total
quantity of radioactivity a licensee could release into sanitary
sewers annually would not be consistent with efforts to maintain
doses ALARA because workers would be exposed to radioactive
material while processing liquid waste to make it suitable for
LLW disposal.
A representative of a company that offers health physics services
stated that, for most of its clients who want to release
radioactive material into sanitary sewers, the most limiting
factor is the annual total quantity limits. A representative of
the University of California expressed concern that the numerical
limits in 10 CFR 20.2003 would be lowered, although the
university typically releases only 11.1 Gbq (0.2 Ci) of
radioactivity into sanitary sewers each year.
Response: NRC acknowledges the commenter's concerns about the
potential impacts of additional restrictions on the total
quantity of radioactive material that a licensee can release to
sewers annually. As previously explained, the additional
restrictions discussed in the ANPR will not be implemented.
Comment: A representative of AMSA stated that, although the
organization understands that lowering total quantity limits
could impose financial burdens on licensees, additional
restrictions are appropriate if they are needed to prevent
contamination of sewage sludge.
Response: NRC acknowledges the commenter's statement, but has
decided not to change the total quantity limits because it
believes the current approach is sufficiently protective for the
reasons previously explained.
Comment: Twenty-one letters received in response to the ANPR
included comments on the Northeast Ohio Regional Sewer District's
request for NRC to amend its regulations to require that all
licensees provide at least 24 hours advance notice to the
appropriate POTW before releasing radioactive material into a
sanitary sewer system. Six of the twenty-one commenters supported
a requirement for licensees to provide the sewage treatment plant
with some type of reporting on the radioactive materials released
into the sanitary sewer system.
These commenters supported a wide range of reporting
requirements, including the petitioner's request for a 24-hour
advance notification before licensees release radioactive
material, monthly or annual discharge reports, reports of
releases that could be a threat to the POTW workers or the
environment, or notification of large accidental releases. One
commenter suggested licensees should analyze effluent samples and
include the results in discharge reports. A representative of
AMSA stated that advance notice of releases is necessary so that
POTW operators can ensure worker health and safety and make
appropriate decisions about sludge disposal and reuse.
Fifteen of the twenty-one commenters did not support such a
requirement for licensees to provide at least 24-hour
[[Page 68356]] advance notice to the appropriate sewage treatment
plant before releasing radioactive material into a sanitary sewer
system.
Several commenters said that a 24-hour advance notification would
result in an unnecessary regulatory burden without providing
additional protection against radiation or dose reduction. These
commenters expressed the view that the existing regulations for
discharges of licensed material maintain doses at or below the
existing dose limits for members of the public and if licensees
meet the ALARA goals, the 24-hour advance notification would be
unnecessary. Several commenters noted that such notification
would be impractical because most releases are continuous and
involve very small quantities of radioactive material. For
example, discharges from hospitals and medical facilities would
change daily depending on the number of patients treated and
types of treatment used.
Several commenters also noted that there could be large cost
implications and regulatory burdens associated with such
notification. In addition, commenters were concerned that data
about releases of radioactive material could be misinterpreted if
release reports were received and interpreted by sewage treatment
plant personnel rather than radiation safety specialists. Several
commenters stated that such an NRC requirement for licensees to
provide a 24-hour advance notification was unnecessary because
local municipalities have authority over their local sewer
district, already have requirements to follow the Clean Water
Act, and may establish a pretreatment program for wastewater
acceptance. One commenter noted that the usefulness of a 24-hour
advance notification should be assessed after the new limits for
sewer discharges are in place.
Response: NRC has determined that a requirement for advance
notification of each release of radioactive material to a
sanitary sewer would impose an unnecessary regulatory burden on
licensees without a commensurate health and safety benefit.
Additional reasons for the denial of the petition are discussed
in the Federal Register notice published on January 27, 2005 (70
FR 3898).
Comment: Six comment letters received in response to the ANPR
included comments on the Northeast Ohio Regional Sewer District's
request that NRC exempt materials that enter the sanitary waste
stream from the requirement for NRC approval prior to treatment
or disposal of licensed material by incineration. Four commenters
supported such an amendment because, given the radioisotopes and
activities involved, the pathways for human exposure from
radioactive wastes seem no more or less significant if the wastes
are dispersed into water or air.
These commenters suggested that, if release into a sanitary sewer
system is to be considered disposal, the limits should be set so
that no further regulation of the radioactive material is needed
after release.
One commenter did not support such an amendment and expressed the
view that it would only serve to provide an open-ended system for
radioactive material to pass into the environment and to the
public without limitation or characterization.
Response: NRC approval to incinerating waste is required to
ensure that NRC may evaluate the potential impact to the public
health and safety and the environment on a case-by-case and
site-specific basis. Hazards associated with incineration of
sewage sludge will depend on the specific characteristic of the
sludge and the radionuclides that may be present. Additional
reasons for the denial of the petition are discussed in the
Federal Register notice published on January 27, 2005 (70 FR
3898).
(3) Type of Limits The present approach to limiting releases of
radioactive material into sanitary sewers is to specify limits on
both the monthly average concentration of each radionuclide in a
licensee's sewage and the total quantity of radioactive matter
that a licensee can release annually. Table 3, Appendix B, of 10
CFR Part 20 lists the allowable monthly average concentration of
each radionuclide in a licensee's release to sewers. Allowable
concentrations are based upon a calculated dose of 5 mSv/yr (500
mrem/yr) due to ingestion of 2 liters per day of a licensee's
effluent into the sanitary sewer.
In the ANPR, NRC invited comments on this regulatory approach.
Specifically, NRC invited comment as to whether it should
continue to base concentration limits on the assumption that an
individual would drink 2 liters of the effluent from a licensee's
facility each day, and whether exposure at other locations, such
as at a POTW, should be considered in developing release limits.
In addition, NRC invited comments about how other exposure
scenarios, such as exposure to radionuclides in contaminated
sludge, should be accounted for.
NRC also invited comments as to whether it should establish
limits in terms of dose instead of limits on the quantity and
concentrations of radioactive material discharged. Included with
the responses to these inquiries were several comments about
monitoring, enforcement actions, and regulatory authority to set
limits on releases of radioactive material into sanitary sewers
that have been addressed with the General Comments.
Comment: Twenty-three commenters supported the current modeling
approach of assuming that an individual ingests 2 liters of water
taken from the licensee's outfall to the sewer system each day.
Nineteen of these commenters, representing hospitals, biomedical
laboratories, and universities, noted that this assumption is
conservative and easy for licensees to understand. A
representative of DOE noted that the approach appears to be
bounding, and has been ``largely successful as a regulatory
measure''. The commenter also expressed the view that, because
this type of consumption is not expected to be chronic, it is
appropriate to base concentration limits on a calculated annual
dose of 500 mrem instead of 100 mrem. One commenter did not
specifically address the assumption that an individual would
drink 2 liters of a licensee's discharge each day, but did
support the use of a licensee's sewer outfall as an appropriate
exposure location. Two commenters expressed the view that the
modeling assumption was appropriate because individuals,
including children, could drink or otherwise be exposed to water
directly downstream of a sewer outfall. Another commenter that
supported the current assumption expressed the view that modeling
exposure at a licensee's outfall to a sewer system is consistent
with modeling exposure at a licensee's fence line, as is done in
other NRC assessments, and that considering a downstream location
would be inconsistent with modeling exposure to the maximally
exposed individual.
Response: NRC acknowledges support for the current modeling
assumption. The staff notes that several commenters appeared to
believe that the concentration limits were based on the
assumption that an individual would consume 2 liters of sewage
from a POTW outfall, rather than 2 liters of a licensee's
effluent into the sewer system, each day. Staff notes that the
assumption that an individual would consume a licensee's effluent
is more conservative than the assumption that an individual would
consume POTW effluent because the concentration of radionuclides
in POTW effluent will have been diluted with effluent from all of
the other residential and industrial dischargers to the POTW.
[[Page 68357]] Comment: Three commenters expressed concern that
the concentration limits are based on an annual dose of 5 mSv
(500 mrem) and stated that the concentration limits should be
based on an annual dose of no more than 1 mSv (100 mrem), in
accord with the 10 CFR 20.1301 limit on doses to members of the
general public from licensed activities. One commenter expressed
the view that the 1 mSv (100 mrem) annual public dose limit
should be lowered. Two commenters expressed the view that the
dose from ingesting a licensee's effluent should be included in
the 1 mSv (100 mrem) TEDE annual public dose limit rather than
being calculated separately and excluded from the 10 CFR 20.1301
limit. Another expressed the view that, if any activity were to
be permitted to be discharged into sanitary sewers, the limiting
dose for exposure to sewage sludge should be no greater than the
dose limit for low level radioactive waste.
Response: NRC acknowledges the commenters' concern about the
hypothetical dose used as the basis for the concentration limits.
As discussed in the ANPR, the NRC staff believes the
concentration limits based on an annual dose of 5 mSv (500 mrem)
are reasonable because it is unlikely that an individual would
have access to and would consume water at the point at which a
licensee discharges water into the sanitary sewer and because
dilution from additional discharges into the sewer is likely to
reduce the expected dose to well below the 1 mSv (100 mrem)
annual dose limit.
NRC also acknowledges the commenters' suggestion that the dose
from consuming effluent released into the sanitary sewer be
included in the TEDE from other licensee operations. However, in
the case of sewer discharge, the point of exposure is expected to
be remote from the licensee's facility. Because individuals that
could be exposed to a facility's effluent are different
individuals than those that live closest to the facility, it
would be unrealistic to include the dose from exposure to a
licensed facility's effluent in the total dose from all of the
facility's activities. The staff notes that comments regarding
the appropriate value of the annual dose limit for members of the
public from licensed activities specified in 10 CFR 20.1301 are
beyond the scope of this rulemaking.
Comment: Ten commenters did not support the use of the current
modeling approach of assuming that an individual ingests 2 liters
of water taken from a licensee's sewer outfall each day. Almost
all of these commenters expressed the view that the assumption is
unrealistic. One commenter expressed the view that, while the
assumption that an individual ingests 2 liters of water taken
from a licensee's sewer outfall each day is a reasonably
conservative basis for concentration limits, the assumption may
not be a basis for total quantity limits because it would
over-emphasize the potential impact of short-lived radionuclides.
Response: NRC acknowledges the commenters' opposition to the
current modeling approach. However, it will be retained because
the ANPR is being withdrawn for the reasons previously explained.
With respect to the comment about the basis for total quantity
limits, the staff notes that the assumption that an individual
would consume a licensee's effluent is used as the basis of the
concentration limits but is not used as the basis of the total
quantity limits.
Comment: Ten commenters suggested alternate locations that NRC
should consider when developing restrictions on the release
radioactive materials into sanitary sewer systems. Of these, five
suggested NRC consider the dose to a person ingesting water once
it has reached or is leaving a POTW rather than at the licensee's
sewer outfall.
Three commenters suggested NRC consider locations downstream of a
POTW that would be likely to be locations from which a
municipality would extract drinking water, while one suggested
doses in the nearest residential area should be considered.
Another commenter suggested realistic models would incorporate a
factor of at least one million between the point of discharge and
a receptor locations, and suggested that, if NRC used a more
realistic dose model, it would become clear that additional
release restrictions are unnecessary. One commenter suggested
that, in considering potential doses to members of the public,
NRC should consider that sludge could be sent to a landfill,
applied to agricultural land, or made into compost for sale to
the public.
Five commenters, including representatives of POTWs and DOE,
recommended NRC consider doses to sanitation workers and two
commenters suggested NRC consider doses to workers that come into
contact with sewage collection systems as well as POTW workers.
One commenter noted the importance of matching exposure locations
to appropriate pathways and suggested external radiation by gamma
emitters may be an important pathway for POTW workers, whereas
ingestion of beta emitters would be expected to be more important
at a downstream drinking water source. Five commenters suggested
NRC consider that the careful treatment given to sewage and
sludge because of the other hazards it presents should limit
doses to sanitary system workers. One commenter added that NRC
regulations also should prevent contamination of sewers, POTWs,
receiving waters, and sludge and ash disposal sites. Another
commenter suggested NRC consider potential exposures to all POTW
residuals, including sludge, screenings, grit, and ash. The
commenter also pointed out that sewer pipes may leak and
suggested NRC consider the potential for groundwater
contamination.
Response: The alternate locations that the commenters suggested
should be considered in dose models will not be used as a basis
for a revision to the regulations because the ANPR is being
withdrawn for the reasons previously explained. However, the NRC
staff notes that several of the modeling scenarios suggested by
the commenters, including sludge handling by POTW workers, sludge
incineration, and exposure to land- applied sewage sludge, were
considered in the ISCORS dose modeling project (NUREG-1783).
Comment: Six commenters, including representatives of POTWs and
the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation,
suggested that, in addition to protecting the general public and
sanitation workers, NRC regulations should ensure that POTWs can
continue to use traditional forms of use or disposal of biosolids
(sewage sludge). One commenter noted that events that have not
resulted in significant worker exposure have prevented POTWs from
using or disposing of sewage sludge.
Response: Additional restrictions on the release of radioactive
material into sanitary sewers will not be implemented for the
reasons previously discussed. Section 7.2 of the ISCORS
recommendations on management of radioactive materials in sewage
sludge and ash (EPA 832- R-03-002B) provides guidance to assist
POTW operators in reducing sources of radiation entering their
treatment facilities.
Comment: Four commenters made suggestions about ways to account
for complex exposure scenarios, such as exposure to contaminated
sewage sludge. One commenter suggested that a variety of
scenarios should be evaluated and that the scenario resulting in
the highest dose should be used to establish limits on releases
of radionuclides to sewers. Another commenter expressed the
opinion that dose models should reflect limitations on access
that are imposed to protect individuals from other health risks
associated with sewage and sewage sludge. One
[[Page 68358]] commenter suggested no model could adequately
represent complex exposure scenarios because dose modeling was
not sufficiently well developed.
Response: The approaches the commenters suggested will not be
used as a basis for new restrictions on the release of
radioactive material into sanitary sewers because the ANPR is
being withdrawn for the reasons previously explained. NRC staff
acknowledge the commenter's statement about the capabilities of
dose modeling.
Comment: Of the fourteen commenters that addressed dose limits,
seven supported implementation of dose limits. One commenter
expressed the view that dose limits are preferable to limits on
concentration and quantity alone because dose limits are easier
to relate to risk.
The commenter suggested the assumptions used to evaluate
compliance with dose limits should be realistic. The commenter
also suggested the use of a tiered approach, in which simple
bounding assumptions are first used to evaluate compliance, and
more complex models and more site- specific data are used only if
the simple bounding model does not demonstrate compliance.
Another commenter suggested that, if the appropriate models were
developed, releases into sanitary sewers should be controlled
under the requirements of 10 CFR 20.1302 and ALARA guidelines
just as other facility effluents are. The commenter also noted
that the potential doses calculated in NUREG/CR-5814 indicate
that the current regulations governing the release of
radionuclides into sanitary sewers are more restrictive than
other NRC dose limits on facility effluents. Two commenters
expressed the view that dose limits should be adopted only if the
current limits were found not to be protective of the public or
POTW workers. Four commenters agreed with the proposal in the
ANPR that, if dose limits were adopted, NRC should publish a
regulatory guide that included concentration and total quantity
guidelines to facilitate compliance. One commenter asked if
licensees would have a choice of complying with the dose limit or
with the concentration and quantity guidelines published in a
Regulatory Guide. Two commenters advocated dose limits, but
expressed the view that the dose limits should be based on
measured radionuclide concentrations from samples taken from
sewer outfalls and intakes or on readings from dosimeters placed
at POTWs rather than on concentrations calculated based on
assumptions about releases to and dilution in sanitary sewers.
Response: NRC acknowledges the commenters' support for sewer
release restrictions to be expressed as limits on dose rather
than activity. NRC also acknowledges the commenters' suggestion
that compliance with dose limits be made based on sample
measurements. However, these options will not be implemented
because the ANPR is being withdrawn for the reasons previously
explained. No response is required to the commenter's question
about compliance with dose limits because the ANPR is being
withdrawn.
Comment: Of the fourteen commenters that addressed dose limits,
six commenters opposed dose limits, and a representative of the
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation noted
potential problems with implementing dose limits but suggested
NRC study the option. Almost all of the commenters that opposed
dose limits commented on the uncertainty of assumptions about
exposure pathways and the relative complexity of implementing
dose limits as compared to concentration and quantity limits.
Three commenters predicted dose limits would require more
regulatory oversight because NRC would need to review each
licensee's dose model. One commenter expressed the concern that
dose limits could make it necessary for licensees to require
prior approval for releases of radioactive material into sanitary
sewers. One commenter supported the current limits but suggested
that, if dose limits were adopted, the dose limit should be 500
mrem/yr, realistic modeling assumptions should be made, and the
modeling assumptions to be used in compliance calculations should
be clearly defined.
Another commenter advocated the use of limits expressed in
``verifiable units of measure'' rather than limits expressed as
dose and expressed doubts about the capabilities of computer
models used to calculate dose. Another commenter stated NRC
should not limit the dose a patient could receive from a
prescribed medical procedure.
Response: NRC acknowledges the commenters' opposition to dose
limits, which will not be implemented because the ANPR is being
withdrawn.
With respect to the commenter's concern that NRC should not limit
the dose a patient could receive due to a medical procedure
prescribed by his physician, the NRC staff notes the scope of the
ANPR was limited to potential doses due to exposure to
radioactive material in sewage or sludge. In general, NRC
regulates the uses of radionuclides in medicine as necessary to
provide for the radiation safety of workers and the general
public and does not intrude into medical judgments affecting
patients. Additional detail on this topic can be found in NRC's
Final Policy Statement on the Medical Use of Byproduct Material,
which was published in the Federal Register on August 3, 2000 (70
FR 3898).
Comment: Two commenters expressed concern that NRC would consider
setting any non-zero dose limit for POTW workers. Both commenters
expressed the view that any dose received by a POTW worker
because of exposure to radionuclides released into sanitary
sewers by licensees would not be ALARA if the only reason such
releases were allowed was to provide an inexpensive method of
waste disposal to NRC licensees.
Response: NRC acknowledges the commenters' concern about sanitary
system worker doses but disagrees with the view that only a dose
of zero could be ALARA. The staff notes that the ISCORS dose
modeling report (NUREG-1783) concludes that POTW worker doses
typically are very low and are dominated by exposure to NORM.
Additional restrictions on the release of radioactive material
into sanitary sewers will not be implemented for the reasons
previously discussed.
Comment: Three commenters expressed views on the appropriate time
period over which releases should be averaged. A representative
of a municipality suggested monthly averages should not be used
because the practice encourages the use of dilution as a means of
meeting the regulations. A representative of AMSA suggested daily
averages should be used because POTW workers could be exposed to
sewage and sludge on a daily basis. In contrast, a representative
of a public utility district supported the use of weekly or
monthly averages.
Response: NRC acknowledges the commenters' suggestions about
appropriate time periods over which releases should be averaged.
NRC believes monthly averages are appropriate because the effects
of small quantities of radioactivity released during a month are
not expected to depend on the time period over which the
radioactive material is discharged. Monthly limits will be
retained because the ANPR is being withdrawn for the reasons
previously explained.
Comment: Ten commenters supported the development of annual
release limits for individual radionuclides or groups of
radionuclides.
Eight commenters suggested limits for individual radionuclides
should be based on the results of dose models. Specific factors
that commenters
[[Page 68359]] suggested should be included in a dose model
included a radionuclide's specific activity, half-life, and
solubility, and factors affecting the radionuclide's fate and
transport in sewers, wastewater treatment process, and the
environment. Two commenters recommended NRC consider imposing
different discharge limits for those radionuclides and chemical
forms that reconcentrate in POTWs to a significant extent and
those that do not. Another commenter suggested NRC set limits for
individual radionuclides based on whether they pose a risk
primarily due to internal or external exposure and specifically
suggested pathway modeling should include exposure to
radionuclides that volatilize from sewage at a POTW, exposure to
raw river water, and ingestion of treated river water. Another
commenter suggested NRC consider the fate of radionuclides in
engineered wetlands that are used by some POTWs as a final
treatment step. One commenter predicted annual release limits for
individual radionuclides would provide more flexibility to
licensees and eliminate the need for special licensing exceptions
to the current total quantity limits. A representative of DOE
predicted that only a very few radionuclides would require
reduced quantity limits even if the limits were conservative to
bound variations in sewage plant designs and operating
characteristics and to account for potential improvements in
waste water treatment technology.
Four commenters suggested that annual release limits should be
based on radionuclide half-life. A representative of the Texas
Department of Health predicted it may be difficult for licensees
to keep track of the quantity of each radionuclide released and
suggested NRC impose one quantity limit for short-lived
radionuclides that would be unlikely to reconcentrate in sewage
sludge and a lower limit for long-lived radionuclides that have a
greater potential to reconcentrate in sewage sludge.
A representative of the New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation noted that it may not be appropriate
to use Annual Limit of Intake (ALI) values as a basis for annual
release limits for individual radionuclides, as suggested in the
ANPR, because the ingestion pathway may not be the most
significant exposure pathway and because the chemical form of a
radionuclide may be significantly different when it is released
from a POTW than it was when it was originally discharged to the
sewer. One commenter suggested both the total quantity of all
radionuclides as well as quantities of individual radionuclides
released should be limited, and that quantity limits for
individual radionuclides should be based on fractions, rather
than multiples, of ALI values. The commenter also suggested
annual limits should assure the lowest possible rather than the
lowest ``reasonably achievable'' exposure of members of the
public to radionuclides.
Response: NRC acknowledges the commenters' support for the
development of annual release limits for individual radionuclides
or groups of radiounuclides. However, the proposed change will
not be made because the ANPR is being withdrawn for the reasons
previously explained.
Comment: Five commenters opposed the development of annual
release limits for individual radionuclides. Two commenters
suggested the low calculated doses received in the case studies
discussed in the ANPR indicate the current regulations are
adequate. Two commenters suggested that, if NRC were to change
the annual quantity limits, it should focus on Co-60, Sr-90,
Cs-137, Ir-192, and Am-241, because these radionuclides were
identified in NUREG/CR-5814 as having the potential to result in
a significant dose, based on the pre-1991 release limits. A
representative of the State of Illinois Department of Nuclear
Safety recommended NRC change the total quantity limits only if
the releases of Co-60, Sr-90, Cs-137, Ir-192, and Am-241 that
were determined to be potentially problematic in NUREG/CR-5814
would still be permitted, given the restrictions on form and
lower concentration limits introduced in the 1991 revision to 10
CFR part 20.
Another commenter noted that, although limiting the quantities of
radionuclides released would not necessarily be difficult, the
need to analyze batches of wastewater to determine the quantities
of individual radionuclides being released would be a significant
burden as compared to the current method the company uses, which
is to base releases on DOT shipping papers that identify the most
limiting radionuclide in a batch. However, the commenter also
noted that using limits based on multiples of ALI would be ``on
the right track'' and would be similar to methods used in Europe.
One commenter expressed the view that the biokinetics of
individual radionuclides could not be modeled well enough to
provide a basis for limits on the quantity, concentration, or
form in which a radionuclide could be discharged, especially
because the models would not include the synergistic effects of
radiation and other pollutants. The commenter also expressed the
view that the exempt quantities published in 10 CFR Part 30
represented quantities ``below regulatory concern'' (BRC) and
suggested it would be inappropriate to use multiples of the
exempt quantity values as annual quantity limits.
Response: NRC acknowledges the commenters' opposition to annual
release limits for individual radionuclides, which supports
withdrawal of the ANPR.
(4) Exemption of Patient Excreta The fourth topic on which NRC
invited comment was the exemption of patient excreta from the
regulations governing releases of radioactive material into
sanitary sewers. NRC received fifty-two letters that addressed
the exemption for patient excreta.
Comment: Forty-four commenters, including a representative of
AMSA, recommended the exemption for patient excreta be continued
and suggested it required no additional evaluation. Thirty-three
of the commenters stated the exemption is necessary to maintain
doses ALARA. Several commenters predicted that the radiological
risks to health care workers, in the case of hospitalized
patients, or family members, in the case of patients released
from the hospital, associated with managing excreta would be far
greater than any risk that the excreta would pose to POTW workers
or members of the general public once released to the sewer
system. Several commenters noted the possibility that excreta
could be spilled or inadequately shielded, especially in the case
of patients that had been released from the hospital.
One commenter expressed concern about radioactive materials
volatilizing from containers of urine. Another commenter noted
that children or pregnant women could be subject to increased
risk from excreta stored in the home if the exemption were
withdrawn. Seven commenters noted that, in addition to the
radiological risks, collection and storage of patient excreta
also could pose biological hazards.
Twenty-seven of the commenters that supported the exemption noted
the short half life of most radiopharmaceuticals, and most of
these commenters hypothesized that the risk that
radiopharmaceuticals could pose to sanitary system workers or
members of the general public would be limited by their short
half lives. Representatives of two hospitals indicated that
approximately 90 percent of the radioactivity used at their
hospitals was
[[Page 68360]] in the form of Tc-99m, which has a half life of 6
hours, and that most of the remaining radionuclides used have a
half-life on the order of a few days. Twenty commenters noted the
soluble or dispersible nature of patient excreta and five
commenters suggested the dilution of patient excreta that occurs
in the sewer system affords ample protection to the public and to
the environment.
Four commenters remarked that, if NRC believes the regulation is
adequate, as stated in the ANPR, there should not be a need to
modify the exemption for patient excreta. Two commenters
predicted restrictions on the release of patient excreta into
sanitary sewers would not provide a significant benefit to public
health and eleven commenters suggested the current exemption
creates no environmental or public health hazard. One commenter
remarked that none of the six case studies presented in the ANPR
indicated that patient excreta released into sanitary sewers had
caused a significant dose to any individual. A representative of
a large health care organization noted that no complaints had
been made about the sewage from any of the organization's
hospitals, although the hospitals' effluents were tested by
sanitary system staff routinely. Another hospital representative
expressed the opinion that hospitals should not be required to
monitor patient excreta because the practice causes undue anxiety
in the patients, creates additional burdens for nursing staff,
and is unnecessary because survey readings generally are low.
Response: NRC acknowledges the commenters' support for the
exemption for patient excreta, which supports the withdrawal of
the ANPR.
Comment: Fourteen commenters stated that elimination of the
exemption would impose significant burdens on their facilities'
operations. Commenters expressed concern about the costs of
building holding tanks for excreta, building separate plumbing
systems, retraining workers, and employing additional workers to
manage patient excreta. One commenter remarked that facilities
would also incur the cost of hiring professionals to assess their
current waste management practices and to recommend changes that
would be needed to comply with new regulations. Three commenters
remarked that medical facilities may also incur the costs of
increased NRC licensing fees and inspections. Several commenters
suggested any net health benefits associated with eliminating the
exemption could not justify the costs of controlling the excreta,
particularly for patients being treated on an out-patient basis.
Seven commenters predicted the costs of compliance with
restrictions on release of patient excreta into sanitary sewers
would cause a significant increase in health care costs for
patients.
Three commenters predicted that health care costs would increase
both because of the increased infrastructure and labor required
to manage patient excreta and because patients' hospital stays
would be extended so that their excreta could be managed by
hospital staff. A physician and member of the NRC's Advisory
Committee on the Medical Uses of Isotopes (ACMUI) estimated that
the national increase in health care costs would be approximately
4.5 billion dollars for patients undergoing therapeutic
procedures and 62 billion dollars for patients undergoing
diagnostic procedures, as of 1994. The American College of
Nuclear Physicians and the Society of Nuclear Medicine jointly
estimated that elimination of the exemption would cause an
increase in health care costs of 5.9 billion dollars annually.
One commenter expressed the concern that medical facilities may
stop offering nuclear medicine services to avoid the legal
consequences that could result if patients did not comply with
restrictions on the release of excreta to sewer systems. Five
commenters predicted that it would be difficult to compel
patients being treated on an out-patient basis to store their
excreta for decay or return it to a licensed facility. One
commenter expressed the concern that strict controls over
patients could infringe upon a patient's constitutional rights.
Several commenters expressed the concern that elimination of the
exemption would impact patient care. Four commenters expressed
the opinion that, if the exemption were eliminated, the costs or
logistical difficulties associated with managing patient excreta
would cause many facilities to discontinue offering nuclear
medicine services and could cause the end of nuclear medicine in
the United States. Three commenters expressed the concern that
elimination of the exemption for patient excreta would limit
patient access to diagnostic and therapeutic nuclear medicine
services and five commenters expressed the view that
inaccessibility of nuclear medicine services would be far more
detrimental to public health than any adverse health effects that
could be averted by eliminating the exemption for patient
excreta. One commenter noted that many facilities already have
eliminated some clinical procedures because of the lack of access
to low level radioactive waste disposal facilities. Two
commenters expressed the concern that eliminating the exemption
for patient excreta would diminish the quality of care that
patients received if facilities limited patient doses to comply
with restrictions on the radioactivity of patient excreta
released into sanitary sewers. One commenter expressed the
concern that patients may decline beneficial medical procedures
because of an objection to collecting or having someone else
collect their excreta. One commenter noted that patient
well-being would be compromised if patients needed to remain in
the hospital so that their excreta could be managed because it
would prolong the time away from their families and jobs. Another
commenter suggested the current exemption for patient excreta
should be maintained until the impact on health care could be
assessed.
Response: NRC acknowledges the commenters' concerns about the
potential costs, legal implications, and impacts on patient care
that may be caused by removing the exemption for patient excreta.
The exemption will be maintained because the ANPR is being
withdrawn for the reasons previously explained.
Comment: Three commenters suggested the effects of the exemption
should be studied to determine if the exemption should be
eliminated or modified. A representative of DOE recommended NRC
maintain the exemption for the excreta of patients undergoing
diagnostic procedures, but consider placing restrictions on the
excreta of patients undergoing therapeutic procedures because
they typically receive higher doses of radiopharmaceuticals.
Another commenter remarked that it would be inconsistent of NRC
to impose strict restrictions on the release of excreta by
hospitalized patients if the excreta of patients being treated on
an out-patient basis contributed more radioactivity to sanitary
sewer systems. A representative of an association of POTWs in
Minnesota stated that the organization is prepared to rely on NRC
judgement about the appropriateness of the exemption once NRC has
evaluated the amounts and types of radioactive materials released
into sanitary sewers through patient excreta, but expressed
concern that the ANPR indicated that the effects of the exemption
had not been studied and would not be included in planned
modeling efforts. The commenter also expressed the opinion that
the safety of the exemption should be evaluated irrespective of
the origin of the waste in medical uses. A
[[Page 68361]] representative of the New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation suggested that a range of
possibilities, including retaining the exemption, eliminating the
exemption, and modifying the exemption, should be evaluated in an
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). The commenter stated an EIS
would provide a ``long-needed'' record of the rationale for the
decision to exempt patient excreta from the sewer release
restrictions and the expected impacts of the exemption on the
environment and public health.
Response: NRC acknowledges the suggested modifications to the
exemption of patient excreta and the suggestion that an EIS
should be performed. However, those suggestions will not be
implemented because the ANPR is being withdrawn for the reasons
previously explained.
Comment: Two commenters suggested releases of radioactive
materials into sanitary sewers should be regulated uniformly,
irrespective of the origin of the wastes. One of the commenters
questioned why the ANPR specifically stated that doses from
patient excreta were expected to be ``far below the NRC's dose
limit'' when this description was equally appropriate for the
discharges from other licensees. Another commenter remarked that,
although it may be difficult for medical institutions to meet
restrictions on the release of patient excreta, the releases
should be regulated because they have been shown to contaminate
sewage sludge. Another commenter provided measurements of I-131
in sewage and sludge in one municipality's POTW and expressed the
concern that I-131 could be a source of radiation exposure to
sanitary system workers. The commenter also expressed the concern
that, although it has a short half life, Tc-99m could cause
significant radiation doses to workers exposed to sewage
collection systems directly downstream of hospitals.
In addition, the commenter expressed the concern that, because
I-131 is very soluble, most of the I-131 that entered a POTW
would be discharged in the treated effluent and that the POTW's
effluent may, therefore, exceed NRC limits on the allowable
releases of radioactivity to unrestricted areas. The commenter
also expressed concern that many municipalities are not aware
that releases of patient excreta are exempt from NRC restrictions
and can be a significant source of radioactivity in wastewater.
Response: NRC acknowledges the commenters' suggestion that the
release of radioactive material should be regulated uniformly
irrespective of its origin. However, NRC believes the exemption
for patient excreta is appropriate because of the potential
biological and radiological hazards associated with alternate
methods of managing patient excreta. Additional limitations on
the release of patient excreta into sanitary sewers are not being
imposed for the reasons previously discussed. NRC appreciates the
commenter's concern that municipalities may be unaware of the
potential for patient excreta to contribute to the radioactivity
of wastewater and sewage sludge. Section 3.2 of the ISCORS
recommendations on managing radioactive material in sewage sludge
and ash (EPA 832-R-03-002B) alerts POTW operators that a
significant amount of the radioactivity discharged to POTWs that
serve medical facilities can be discharged in the form of patient
excreta.
Comment: Two commenters suggested the exemption for patient
excreta should be eliminated to minimize the release of man-made
radioactivity to the environment. One commenter expressed concern
about NRC's policy on allowing patients who had received nuclear
medicine treatments to leave the hospital (described in NRC
Information Notice 94-009).
The commenter also expressed concern about specific incidents in
which, the commenter believed, patients had not been warned that
high residual radioactivity would result from the medical
procedures they had undergone or had been told that releasing
excreta to a septic system would not cause adverse health
effects. The commenter remarked that, although the radionuclides
used in nuclear medicine procedures may be short-lived, each
contribution of radioactivity to wastewater increased the
potential dose to a member of the public. Another commenter noted
that the contribution of radiopharmaceuticals to the
radioactivity of wastewater increases as the number of procedures
performed increases. The commenter also remarked that, if the
half-lives of radioisotopes used in medical procedures typically
are short, as NRC stated in the ANPR, the burden of storing the
excreta until the radioactivity decays to background levels
should not be large.
Response: NRC acknowledges the commenters' concerns about the
potential effects of the release of patient excreta into sanitary
sewers. However, NRC believes the current regulations are
protective and has decided to retain the exemption and withdraw
the ANPR for the reasons previously explained. The staff notes
that comments about the regulations governing the release of
nuclear medicine patients from the hospital are beyond the scope
of this rulemaking.
Comment: One commenter suggested patient ``vomitus'' should be
included in the exemption for the release of patient excreta into
sanitary sewers explicitly. Two additional commenters mentioned
sweat, saliva, blood, tears, and nasal fluids, but did not make
any specific suggestions about how those fluids should be
addressed in NRC regulations.
Response: The suggested change to the wording of the exemption
will not be made because the ANPR is being withdrawn. However,
NRC staff note that, in practice, the term ``patient excreta''
typically is understood to include situations when patients
vomit.
Comment: A representative of a company that manufactures
equipment that removes radionuclides from hospital waste noted
German law requires that radioactive materials be removed from
hospital effluent before it is released into sanitary sewers.
Response: NRC appreciates the information provided by the
commenter. However, the exemption for patient excreta will be
retained because the ANPR is being withdrawn for the reasons
previously explained.
Comment: Three commenters asked questions about the regulatory
implications of potential modifications to the exemption of
patient excreta from sewer release restrictions. Two commenters
asked whether patients would be required to store their excreta
at home until it decayed to background levels of radioactivity or
if they would be required to return it to the medical facility at
which they were treated. Two commenters asked whether the homes
of nuclear medicine patients would need to be monitored to ensure
that proper waste disposal procedures had been followed. One
commenter asked if the elimination of the exemption would result
in changes to 10 CFR 35.75. The commenter also asked whether
restrictions would apply to all patients treated with
radiopharmaceuticals, irrespective of the dose they had received.
The commenter also asked how a licensee would calculate the
radioactivity released by each patient and whether records of the
releases would need to be maintained by the licensee.
Response: NRC acknowledges the many questions on this issue, but
is not responding to them because the ANPR is being withdrawn.
Comment: One commenter suggested NRC should exempt the excreta of
animals used in biomedical research from the restrictions
governing the
[[Page 68362]] release of radioactive material into sanitary
sewers.
Response: NRC notes that this comment is beyond the scope of this
rulemaking.
(5) General Comments In addition to comments on the topics
discussed in the ANPR, NRC received a number of comments on other
aspects of the release of radioactive material into sanitary
sewers. These comments are addressed in this section.
Comment: Sixteen commenters expressed the opinion that the
current regulations governing the release of radioactive
materials into sanitary sewers are adequate and should not be
changed. To support this view, commenters remarked that the
number of incidents of contamination is small compared to the
number of POTWs receiving radioactive materials and that the
doses received in those instances are believed to be low.
Commenters also suggested the regulations should not be changed
in response to a small number of cases of contamination,
especially if some of those cases involved violations of the
applicable regulations. One commenter noted that modeling results
described in NUREG/CR-5814 indicate that releases of
radionuclides used in biomedical research are expected to result
in doses below the ALARA guidelines in NRC Regulatory Guide 8.37.
A representative of the Texas Department of Health suggested the
regulations should not be changed unless modeling results
demonstrated that exposures other than ingestion could cause an
annual dose greater than 5 mSv (500 mrem). Two commenters
suggested the risk of adverse health effects associated with
exposure to radioactive material released into sanitary sewers
should be evaluated in comparison to the health risks associated
with exposure to hazardous chemical and biological materials in
sewage and sludge. One commenter suggested the current limits are
appropriate because the quantities and concentrations of
radionuclides at affected POTWs appear to be within 10 CFR part
30 limits for general licensees.
Response: NRC acknowledges the commenters' support for the
current regulations, which supports withdrawal of the ANPR.
Comment: Nine commenters, including a representative of DOE,
suggested the changes made to 10 CFR part 20 in 1991 may have
significantly reduced the potential for reconcentration of
radionuclides in POTWs, and that resources should not be expended
to address a problem that may have already been solved. Of these,
five commenters noted that the ANPR did not include any
information about contamination problems that had occurred since
the modification of 10 CFR part 20 and two commenters noted that
most of the contaminants in the case studies presented in the
ANPR were insoluble non-biological materials and would not meet
current release criteria. Several commenters recommended NRC
evaluate the effects of the lower discharge concentration limits
and prohibition against discharging insoluble, non-biological
materials into sanitary sewers before making additional changes
to 10 CFR part 20. One commenter expressed the opposite view and
stated that the NRC should not assume that the changes made to 10
CFR part 20 in 1991 would eliminate contamination of POTWs with
licensed radioactive materials.
Response: NRC acknowledges the commenters' recommendation that it
study the effect of the changes made to 10 CFR part 20 in 1991 on
the amount of radioactive material at POTWs. The NRC staff notes
that the ISCORS sewage sludge survey and dose modeling work were
performed several years after the January 1, 1993, deadline for
licensees to meet the revised requirements and should reflect the
effects of the 1991 revision of the regulation.
Comment: Five commenters expressed the view that additional
restrictions on the release of radioactive materials into
sanitary sewers would not be consistent with efforts to keep
doses ALARA. Several of the commenters predicted that doses to
workers that were required to collect or prepare waste for
disposal would be far greater than the collective dose that could
be averted by more restrictive sewer release limits.
Response: NRC acknowledges the commenters' opposition to
additional restrictions on the release of radioactive materials
into sanitary sewers, which supports the withdrawal of the ANPR.
Comment: Four commenters stated that any additional restrictions
on the release of radioactive material into sanitary sewers would
have a significant negative impact on the facilities they
represented.
One commenter expressed the view that banning the release of
radioactive material into sewers would impose a large financial
burden on all biological research facilities and estimated that,
as of 1994, alternative disposal methods would cost his company
$150,000 to $300,000 annually. A representative of a nuclear
laundry stated that additional restrictions on the release of
radioactive material into sanitary sewers could have a serious
detrimental effect on his company and its customers in nuclear
laundries could no longer operate.
Another commenter suggested new restrictions should be
implemented gradually by adding new restrictions during license
renewals.
One commenter expressed concern that additional restrictions on
the release of radioactive material to sewers would encumber
facilities that perform medical research, and requested that
educational and medical research institutions be exempted from
the regulations because the long-lived radionuclides that had
been detected in the cases described in the ANPR typically are
not used by medical research facilities. The commenter also
requested that, if medical research facilities were not exempted,
more explicit guidance about the implications of the regulations
on specific practices used in medical research facilities be
provided by NRC. Another commenter proposed that the regulation
should explicitly permit disposal of medical diagnostic products
in aqueous mixtures that contain less than 370 kBq (10
microcuries) of radioactivity and which are composed of isotopes
with half-lives less than 61 days.
Response: NRC acknowledges the commenters' information about the
burdens that could be caused by additional restrictions on the
release of patient excreta into sanitary sewers, which supports
the withdrawal of the ANPR. The staff notes that requests for
exemptions of certain classes of facilities or types of waste are
beyond the scope of this rulemaking. NRC acknowledges that
guidance written specifically for medical research facilities
would be helpful to some licensees, but does not have plans or
resources to develop such guidance.
Comment: A representative of DOE expressed the view that the
current rules are protective of public heath and safety and the
environment, and noted that, if the provision for release of
radioactive materials into sanitary sewers was not available,
risks to the public would result from other waste management
options. As an example, the commenter predicted elimination of
the release of radioactive material into sewers would cause an
increase in traffic accidents because of the need to transport
more waste to LLW disposal facilities. However, the commenter
also recommended NRC increase inspections of licensees' releases
into sanitary sewers and perform additional analyses of potential
doses to members of the public and sanitary system workers to
ensure that adequate safety provisions are in place to preclude
accidental discharge of large quantities of
[[Page 68363]] radioactive material. The commenter also
recommended NRC contact AMSA and industry trade groups to obtain
additional information about variations and trends in wastewater
treatment technologies, practices, and regulations.
Response: NRC acknowledges the commenter's remarks regarding the
risks that could result from additional restrictions on the
release of radioactive material into sanitary sewers, which
support the withdrawal of the ANPR. In accord with the
commenter's suggestions, NRC participated in the ISCORS sewage
sludge survey (NUREG-1775) and dose modeling report (NUREG-1783),
the results of which provide a technical basis for withdrawing
the ANPR. The staff acknowledges the suggestion regarding NRC
inspection activities but notes the topic is beyond the scope of
this rulemaking.
Comment: A representative of NIH stated that, although NIH is a
large facility conducting both biomedical research and medical
diagnosis and treatment, and its usage of some isotopes
fluctuates considerably, NIH has been able to manage its
radioactive liquid wastes in compliance with NRC regulations. The
commenter also stated that NIH uses large, centrally-located
tanks to hold short-lived radionuclides for decay, and that NIH
has been granted an exception to the total quantity limits that
allows it to discharge a total of 296 GBq (8 Ci) annually.
Response: NRC acknowledges the commenter's information regarding
the adequacy of the current regulations governing the release of
radioactive material into sanitary sewers.
Comment: A commenter who was a member of ACMUI as well as a
physician and professor of Radiological Sciences at the
University of California, Los Angeles, expressed several concerns
regarding the possible changes described in the ANPR. The
commenter expressed the opinion that NRC resources would be
better spent changing other parts of 10 CFR part 20 than by
making the changes proposed in the ANPR. The commenter also
stated that Agreement States had been reluctant to adopt the
changes made to 10 CFR part 20 in 1991 because of unspecified
problems with the revised rule. The commenter expressed concern
that user fees were used to support a National Council on
Radiation Protection study of the number of various types of
nuclear medicine procedures performed annually as of 1989. The
commenter also expressed concern that any change in NRC
regulations governing the release of radioactive materials into
sewers would later be changed by an EPA rule, and that NRC
licensees would, in effect, pay for a rule twice by paying both
NRC user fees and paying taxes to support EPA.
The commenter asked why the NRC had published the ANPR and
expressed concern that NRC wasted licensees' time by asking for
data regarding various nuclear medicine procedures. The commenter
stated that the data had been given to NRC in 1990 and asked why
NRC did not use these data to derive concentrations of various
radionuclides in sanitary sewage. The commenter also suggested
NRC could request data regarding concentrations of radioactive
materials in wastewater and sewage sludge from POTWs in Agreement
States. In addition, the commenter suggested NRC review any
proposed changes related to medical uses of isotopes with the
ACMUI and expressed an unfavorable opinion about NRC's program to
regulate medical uses of radionuclides.
Response: NRC acknowledges the commenter's statements about the
1991 revision to 10 CFR part 20 but notes that other parts of the
regulation are beyond the scope of this rulemaking. A response to
the commenter's displeasure at paying licensing fees to support
this rulemaking is not needed because the ANPR is being
withdrawn.
The same applies to the commenter's concern that EPA would impact
a change in NRC's regulations. Because the ANPR is being
withdrawn, that concern is no longer applicable to this issue.
NRC published the ANPR to invite comments and recommendations
from interested parties on potential changes in the regulations
governing the release of radioactive materials into sanitary
sewers. In response to the commenter's concern about the time
licensees may have spent responding to the ANPR, NRC notes that
the ANPR invited comment but did not require a response. In
addition, NRC notes that the ANPR invited comment on a variety of
issues and was not limited to a request for information to
support the derivation of concentrations of radionuclides in
sewage.
NRC acknowledges the commenter's suggestion that potential
changes to the rule be discussed with the ACMUI, and the
commenter's statements about NRC's program to regulate medical
uses of radionuclides.
Comment: Three commenters expressed the view that cases of
contamination at POTWs demonstrate that the current regulations
governing the release of radioactive material into sanitary
sewers is inadequate. All three commenters expressed the concern
that the regulations did not adequately protect the health and
safety of POTW workers. In addition, a representative of AMSA
expressed the concern that the current regulations could
jeopardize the ability of POTWs to fulfill their environmental
objectives. The commenter also expressed concern about NRC's
involvement with existing cases of contamination and urged NRC to
take a more active role in protecting POTWs from contamination
with radionuclides.
Each of the three commenters expressed the opinion that the
current regulations also fail to protect POTWs from the legal and
financial consequences of contamination of POTWs and POTW
biosolids with radionuclides. Two commenters noted that the
public ultimately bears the costs associated with contamination
of POTWs and one estimated that billions of dollars of public
funds could be required to dispose of contaminated sludge and
decontaminate POTWs. A representative of the City of Oak Ridge
outlined the history of contamination of the Oak Ridge POTW with
Co-60, Cs-137, uranium isotopes, and I-131 from 1984 to 1994. The
commenter noted that, as of 1994, disposal of wastewater
treatment sludge cost the City of Oak Ridge approximately
$100,000 per year, primarily because of radioactive
contamination. The commenter stated that, because of this
expense, the city is in the process of implementing its own
limits to control releases of radioactive materials into the
sanitary sewers and provided a reference that describes the
approach that has been taken to control radioactive materials
through the municipality's industrial pretreatment program.
A representative of the Northeast Ohio Regional Sewer District
noted that, although no significant health or safety problems had
been found to result from the contamination at the district's
Southerly Facility, the district has had to manage difficult
regulatory issues and concerns from the public and from workers
that had cost the district, as of 1994, $1.5 million to resolve.
The commenter remarked that the sanitary district had over one
hundred thousand cubic meters (4 million cubic feet) of Co-60
contaminated ash at its Southerly Facility and had recently
discovered contamination at another one of its POTWs. The
commenter expressed the view that the District's problems were
attributable to inadequate regulations or ineffective enforcement
by NRC and suggested that major revisions to both 10 CFR part 20
and to NRC's enforcement program were overdue.
[[Page 68364]] Response: NRC acknowledges the commenters'
concerns about cases of contamination and protection of POTW
workers. However, NRC believes that the restrictions on the forms
of material suitable for release and lower concentration limits
established in the 1991 revision to 10 CFR part 20 have reduced
the potential for significant contamination of POTWs or sewage
sludge with radionuclides. Although additional restrictions on
the release of radioactive material into sanitary sewers will not
be implemented, Section 7.2 of the ISCORS recommendations on
management of radioactive materials in sewage sludge and ash (EPA
832-R-03-002B) provides guidance to assist POTW operators in
reducing sources of radiation entering their treatment
facilities. Comments about NRC's enforcement program are beyond
the scope of this rulemaking.
NRC acknowledges the information provided by the City of Oak
Ridge regarding the POTW's industrial pretreatment program.
Information about the program is summarized in Appendix F of the
ISCORS recommendations on management of radioactive materials in
sewage sludge and ash (EPA 832-R-03-002B).
Comment: A representative of a sanitary district stated that,
contrary to the position taken by NRC in the ANPR, many cases of
contamination of POTWs are the result of relatively basic
wastewater treatment technologies. In addition, the commenter
expressed the view that NRC's emphasis on the concept of
``reconcentration'' as the cause of contamination problems is
misleading and noted that, at one POTW in the district, it
appeared that particles of Co-60 were removed from the sewage
through settling, as other solids are removed, rather than
through reconcentration of dissolved cobalt or agglomeration of
fine particles. The commenter expressed the view that the new
restrictions on the forms of materials suitable for release into
sanitary sewers may prevent many problems with insoluble
materials such as Co-60 if the regulations are properly enforced.
Response: NRC acknowledges the commenter's concern that the term
``reconcentration'' was used in the ANPR to describe all
processes by which the concentration of radionuclides in sewage
sludge or ash could be increased on volumetric basis. NRC
understands that radioactive materials may be concentrated by
common wastewater treatment processes, as discussed in
NUREG/CR-6289.
Comment: Seven commenters expressed the view that discharges of
radioactive materials into sanitary sewers should be regulated
locally. Two commenters suggested that, because relatively few
cases of contamination had been observed, it appeared that the
cases could be resolved without NRC involvement. One commenter
expressed the view that local control would be easiest to
implement if the problematic discharges involved other hazardous,
nonradioactive materials.
Five commenters, including a representative of AMSA, expressed
the opinion that POTWs should have the legal authority to
establish local limits for the release of radioactive material
into sanitary sewers. Three of the commenters expressed the
concern that, although municipalities are held responsible for
the disposal or beneficial use of POTW sludge, the municipalities
have no control over the radioactivity of materials discharged to
the sewer system that affect sludge quality. One commenter
expressed the concern that the existing regulatory framework is
inadequate because NRC maintains that the party in possession of
the radioactive material is responsible for remediation, offers
no assistance to POTWs that have been contaminated by a
licensee's effluent, and states that the AEA indicates that its
regulations preempt more restrictive local regulations. The
commenter expressed concern that NRC has indicated that this
position would not change even if NRC had proof that material was
illegally discharged by a licensee and that a POTW's only
recourse to recover remediation costs is to take legal action
against the discharger. One of the commenters suggested NRC
should either assume responsibility for disposing of radioactive
sludge generated in POTWs as a result of ``errant discharge''
from NRC licensees or allow POTWs to regulate the discharge of
radioactive materials into sewer systems. The other commenter
suggested that, in cases in which the reuse or disposal of sludge
is restricted because of its radiological contamination, NRC
should cooperate with EPA to help affected POTWs establish local
discharge limits to protect the traditional method of disposal or
reuse of the biosolids.
Another commenter stated that it was not necessary, feasible, or
appropriate for NRC to develop new regulations that would limit
the disposal of radioactive material into sanitary sewers because
POTWs already had the legal authority and mandate to establish
and enforce appropriate pretreatment standards that would prevent
contamination of POTWs or sewage sludge, pursuant to the Clean
Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1317(b) and (d) and 1319) and EPA Clean
Water Act Standards (40 CFR Part 403).
Response: NRC acknowledges the commenters' concern about the
power that local authorities have to regulate the release of
radioactive material to their POTWs. The U.S. Supreme Court has
held that, for certain activities covered by the AEA, Federal
authority preempts other regulatory authorities whose purpose is
radiation protection. It is difficult to predict whether unusual
cost to the POTW caused by radioactive effluent discharges would
be a sufficient reason to impose more restrictive discharge
limits than those permitted under Federal law because there are
no Federal cases in which the specific facts corresponded to the
scenarios faced by local POTW authorities.
More information on this issue is presented in Chapter 4 and
Section 7.2 of the ISCORS recommendations on management of
radioactive materials in sewage sludge and ash (EPA
832-R-03-002B).
Comments regarding NRC's responsibility for the disposal of
contaminated sludge are beyond the scope of this rulemaking. As
discussed in Chapter 7 of the ISCORS recommendations (EPA
832-R-03- 002B), in individual cases of contamination, legal
counsel should be consulted to determine if dischargers may be
liable for portions of remediation costs.
Comment: One commenter recommended NRC exempt POTWs from any
regulations that would apply to material released into their
systems because the potential benefits of regulating POTWs would
not justify the costs.
Response: This suggestion is beyond the scope of this rulemaking.
Comment: Five commenters, including a representative of AMSA,
expressed the view that POTWs should be able to apply the same
type of pretreatment standards to radionuclides in licensees'
effluent that are applied to toxic materials discharged into
sewer systems by industrial dischargers as part of EPA's NPDES
program. Commenters noted that local limits can account for the
number of licensees discharging to a single POTW, the total flow
into a POTW, and the effects of various treatment process on
radionuclide reconcentration. Three commenters noted that, in
general, local restrictions on discharges of pollutants to POTWs
are established by determining an allowable load of a pollutant
to a POTW that will not create a violation of the POTW's effluent
limit and not interfere with disposal or reuse of the POTW's
[[Page 68365]] biosolids, and then allocating that limit among
industrial facilities that discharge effluent to the POTW. Two
commenters expressed the view that the same process should be
used to develop individual limits for each radionuclide, taking
into account each radionuclide's specific activity, half-life,
and solubility. One commenter noted that this procedure cannot be
followed with radioactive materials because no ``acceptable''
levels of radionuclides in sludge have been established. Another
commenter recommended NRC coordinate any future regulations
affecting sanitary sewer discharges with EPA requirements for
Clean Water Act discharges, including Categorical Standards,
NPDES permits, and regulations pertaining to sewage sludges.
Two commenters suggested that, because setting limits for
radioactive materials will be new to many POTWs, NRC should
provide guidance on establishing local limits on the release of
radioactive materials into sanitary sewers. A representative of
AMSA suggested a number of topics that the recommended guidance
should address and recommended NRC consider two EPA resources
used to develop limits on industrial discharges to POTWs.
Response: This comment includes detailed recommendations about
the creation of a program in which the release of radionuclides
into sanitary sewers would be regulated by local, rather than
Federal, authorities, and is beyond the scope of this rulemaking.
Although guidelines for the development of local limits under
such a program have not been developed, many of the topics the
commenters requested be included in such guidance are included in
the ISCORS recommendations on management of radioactive materials
in sewage sludge and ash (EPA 832- R-03-002B), as is information
about local pretreatment programs established in Albuquerque, NM,
St. Louis, MO, and Oak Ridge, TN. Comment: One commenter was
concerned that system-specific discharge limits could be
difficult to implement if, as is done in the NPDES process,
discharge limits are based on the ``waste assimilative capacity''
of the receiving waterway, which, the commenter stated, could be
difficult to determine. The commenter also expressed concern that
licensees would need to obtain prior approval for sewer
discharges, and that regulatory agencies would need to keep track
of separate discharge allotments for each licensee and any
changes to each POTW's treatment processes. The commenter noted
that an alternative to establishing system-specific discharge
limits would be to set activity limits so low that regulatory
limits or ALARA goals for public doses would be met, irrespective
of the wastewater treatment process used, the capacity of the
receiving POTW, or the number of dischargers discharging to the
POTW. The commenter noted that this approach would not require as
much regulatory oversight and suggested these approaches should
be evaluated in an EIS.
Response: NRC acknowledges the commenter's concerns about the
difficulties involved with implementing system-specific discharge
limits. An EIS that evaluates the alternatives will not be
developed because the ANPR is being withdrawn for the reasons
previously discussed.
Comment: One commenter asked for clarification as to how the
revised rule would relate to NRC decommissioning standards and
various EPA rules and suggested NRC hold public hearings on the
issue.
Response: NRC is not responding to the request for clarification
on the relationship between the proposed rule and EPA or NRC
standards because the ANPR is being withdrawn.
Comment: Ten commenters expressed the view that any change to the
regulations governing the release of radioactive materials into
sanitary sewers should have a solid technical basis. Three
commenters recommended NRC delay decisions about the need for
modifications to the regulation until NUREG/CR-6289, which was
incomplete at the time, was made available to licensees. Two
commenters expressed concern that the ANPR was offered without a
significant risk assessment. Six commenters recommended that any
proposed change in the regulation should be based on a realistic
assessment of either the collective dose or the risks to members
of the public and POTW workers that the new regulations would
avert. Two commenters expressed the concern that changes to the
regulations would be made for reasons other than technical
reasons, including regulatory convenience, a perception of public
opinion, or political pressure.
A representative of the New York State Department of Labor
remarked that some of the regulatory changes proposed in the ANPR
would be complex for both licensees and regulatory agencies to
implement and, therefore, should not be undertaken without a
without a firm technical basis. The commenter expressed the view
that, except for the exemption of patient excreta, all of the
options discussed in the ANPR required more analysis before NRC
would have sufficient information on which to base a decision.
The commenter expressed the opinion that frequent changes in the
same regulation are especially burdensome for licensees and urged
NRC to perform the necessary analyses before changing the rule
again. Representatives of the New York State Energy Office and
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
encouraged NRC to develop an EIS to evaluate the options
discussed in the ANPR.
The representative of the New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation remarked that the current regulations,
including the revisions made in 1991, had never undergone a full
environmental review.
Two commenters expressed the concern that the current limits on
the discharge of radioactive material to sewers do not reflect
the hazards radioactive materials could pose in a POTW or after
release to the environment. The commenters recommended NRC
initiate a study that would include a POTW hazard identification
and assessment, exposure and toxicity assessments, and a risk
characterization. The two commenters also recommended NRC study
the fate and transport of radionuclides in sewers, POTWs, and the
environment. A representative of the City of Oak Ridge provided a
reference that discussed the fate and transport of radionuclides
in the municipality's POTW. A representative of AMSA recommended
NRC cooperate with EPA, POTWs, and affected industries to assess
the exposure and contamination pathways of radionuclides, and the
impact of radioactive materials on wastewater treatment
processes.
Response: NRC acknowledges the commenters' view that the 1991
revision to the regulations governing the release of radioactive
materials into sanitary sewers should have been based upon
detailed risk analyses. As discussed previously, NRC cooperated
with representatives of EPA and POTWs in developing the ISCORS
survey and dose modeling project to assess the radioactive
contamination in POTWs and pathways for exposure of POTW workers
and members of the general public to radionuclides released into
sanitary sewers. The results of these analyses served as the
technical basis for the withdrawal of the ANPR. An EIS for the
rulemaking will not be performed because the ANPR is being
withdrawn for the reasons previously discussed.
Comment: Three commenters, including a representative of AMSA,
[[Page 68366]] recommended NRC study the extent of the use of
sewer discharges and contamination of POTWs around the country.
The representative of AMSA suggested that, because NRC had
acknowledged that it did not know how many POTWs in the country
were contaminated with radionuclides and because it would be
inappropriate to develop national standards based on
contamination in a few isolated cases, NRC should establish a
task force composed of NRC and EPA staff as well as
representatives of POTWs and licensees to study the nature and
extent of radioactive contamination of POTWs nationally. Three
commenters recommended NRC determine which licensees release
radioactive material into sanitary sewers and two of these
commenters recommended NRC make the information available in a
national database. Of these commenters, one suggested the
database should be similar to the EPA's Toxic Release Inventory
and the other suggested the database should include information
about the mass of each radionuclide discharged per year by each
licensee, the volume of the licensee's discharge, and the
licensee's POTW service area. A representative of one utility
district expressed concern that, as of 1994, the NRC had not been
able to provide a list of the licensees discharging into the
district's sewer system and that the district had, therefore,
been unable to initiate an appropriate monitoring program.
Response: NRC acknowledges the commenters' request for a national
database, but notes that a database that contains information
about releases of radioactive material into sanitary sewers by
licensees is not being developed. As discussed in Section 5.1 of
the ISCORS recommendations on management of radioactive materials
in sewage sludge and ash (EPA 832-R-03-002B), POTW operators are
encouraged to contact the applicable NRC Regional Office,
appropriate State Radiation Safety Office, and any nearby DOE
facilities if they have questions about the sewer releases of
facilities in the POTW's service area that use radioactive
materials.
Comment: One commenter requested that, because NRC had just begun
to study the fate of radionuclides in POTWs and because NRC did
not know which of its licensees discharged materials into
sanitary sewers, a moratorium be imposed on the disposal of
radioactive material into sanitary sewers until NRC had the
information necessary to help POTWs develop protective limits.
Response: NRC notes that this comment is beyond the scope of this
rulemaking.
Comment: One commenter expressed concern that the assumptions
used in 10 CFR part 20 ignored exposures to children, fetuses,
elderly, people with existing body burdens of radioactive
material, and individuals in other sensitive groups. The
commenter expressed concern that the risk of birth defects from
ionizing radiation had been limited to only two generations in
NRC analyses and stated that the greatest number of birth defects
will be seen in generations beyond the next two. The commenter
also expressed the view that NRC should consider non-cancer and
nonfatal cancer health effects in risk calculations and expressed
concern that these effects were not considered in the
promulgation of 10 CFR part 20.
Response: The commenter's remarks about NRC's development of
standards for the protection against radiation are beyond the
scope of this rulemaking.
Comment: Three commenters recommended NRC perform a cost/benefit
analysis of alternatives to the release of radioactive materials
into sanitary sewers before proceeding with a rulemaking and two
of those commenters expressed the view that the proposed changes
could not be justified by either a risk analysis or cost/benefit
analysis.
One commenter urged NRC to apply the backfit provisions that
apply to power reactors to a broader scope of rulemaking
decisions, and expressed the view that the alternatives suggested
in the ANPR could not be justified in a backfit analysis.
Response: NRC is not performing a cost/benefit analysis or risk
analysis because the ANPR is being withdrawn for the reasons
previously discussed. The staff note that the commenter's
opinions about NRC's backfit provisions are beyond the scope of
this rulemaking.
Comment: One commenter expressed the concern that limits based on
overly-simplified dose models could be overly-restrictive and
could cause unintended harm to the public by limiting beneficial
uses of radioactive materials. The commenter suggested NRC
consider the ``total societal impact'' of its release limits, and
expressed the view that NRC and other regulatory agencies
typically perform inadequate assessments of the financial impacts
of their rules. The commenter added that NRC should not avoid
this responsibility by claiming that the AEA does not give it the
responsibility to evaluate the total societal impact of its
rules, because evaluation of cost, benefit, and total societal
impact is inherently included in the concept of maintaining doses
ALARA.
Response: NRC acknowledges the commenter's concern about the
adequacy of financial impact analyses performed by NRC and other
regulatory agencies. NRC staff agree that, as defined in 10 CFR
20.1003, the term ``ALARA'' indicates consideration of societal
and socioeconomic impacts.
Comment: Five commenters expressed the opinion that, in general,
any changes to the regulations should allow less radioactive
material to be released into sanitary sewers. Reasons for this
position included new information about the adverse effects of
chronic exposure to low levels of ionizing radiation, information
about the synergistic effects of radiation and chemical
pollutants, and concern about the cumulative effects of multiple
sources of radiation on public health and the environment. Two
commenters suggested that all radioactive waste should be
isolated in secure storage or disposal facilities. Another
commenter stated that NRC should not allow environmental build-up
of multiple sources of radiation even if each, individually,
could be dismissed as being minimal. One commenter stated that
his organization had commented on the revision of 10 CFR part 20
repeatedly and that it remains concerned that the allowable
concentrations of many radionuclides in air and water increase.
Response: The ANPR is being withdrawn for the reasons previously
explained. Comments about the basis for NRC's standards for the
protection against radiation are beyond the scope of this
rulemaking.
Comment: Four commenters expressed the opinion that the potential
burden that additional restrictions on the release of radioactive
material into sanitary sewers would impose on licensees is
secondary to the primary goal of protecting public health and
safety and should be given little weight in the evaluation of
whether additional restrictions should be established. Two
commenters expressed concern that, in the ANPR, NRC made several
inquiries about the impacts of new restrictions on licensees
without expressing a similar interest in the potential impacts of
the release of radioactive material into sanitary sewers on other
parties. One of the commenters expressed the view that the
concern for licensees may be misplaced because it is
municipalities, and not licensees, that ultimately bear the costs
of disposal of contaminated sludge and POTW decontamination. The
commenter also remarked that it appeared to be more appropriate
for
[[Page 68367]] licensees, rather than the public, to bear the
expense of the disposal of radioactive materials used by
licensees. The other commenter suggested NRC should have
solicited comments regarding the potential impact of the
regulations on public health, healthcare costs, contamination of
agricultural land, restriction of land uses, and environmental
degradation. Two commenters stated that it would be inappropriate
for NRC to allow any risk to members of the public to lessen
economic or regulatory burden on licensees. Another commenter
noted that, in cases in which contamination of a POTW has been
discovered, licensees must recognize that safety of the community
is more important than the desire for a licensee to use its
current disposal options.
Response: NRC acknowledges the commenters' concerns regarding the
specific requests for comment in the ANPR. With regard to the
consideration given to the potential effects of changes in the
regulation on public health and the environment as compared to
potential burdens on licensees, the NRC staff notes that a
significant effort was made to study the potential effects of the
release of radioactive material into sanitary sewers on the
public and POTW workers in conjunction with the ISCORS reports
that were described previously. Comments about the basis for
NRC's standards for the protection against radiation are beyond
the scope of this rulemaking.
Comment: Six commenters suggested that detection of radionuclides
at a few POTWs is an insufficient reason to impose additional
restrictions on the release of radioactive material to sanitary
sewers. These commenters stated that radioactivity can be
measured at very low levels that are not expected to cause a
significant adverse health effect for any individual. One
commenter stated that lowering release limits to values that are
significantly lower than limits needed to protect the public
makes it more difficult for licensees to assure compliance of
medical research and clinical staff with radiation safety
procedures and undermines the public's confidence in realistic
exposure or activity standards. Another commenter recommended NRC
acknowledge that the risks caused by radioactivity in sewage
sludge are small compared to the risks associated with the extra
handling and transportation of waste that would occur if releases
of radioactive material to sanitary sewers were eliminated.
One commenter also suggested that, because radioactivity can
exist in sewer systems and POTWs without causing a significant
dose to any individual, and because there are beneficial uses of
radioactive materials, that it might be better to attempt to
build public acceptance of the current practices than it would be
to lower release limits or eliminate sewer discharge. Another
commenter suggested incidents of contamination should be handled
in a consistent, routine way without undue alarm. A
representative of DOE predicted that any discovery of radioactive
contamination of sewage pipes or sewage treatment plants is
likely to result in regulatory concern, even if the possible
doses are tiny, because it may take time to determine whether the
contamination poses a threat to public health and safety.
Response: NRC acknowledges the commenters' opinions, which
support the withdrawal of the ANPR. The staff acknowledges the
commenters' recommendations about proper treatment of cases of
contamination, but notes they are beyond the scope of this
rulemaking.
Comment: Three commenters addressed the potential for accidental
releases of radioactive material into sanitary sewers. One
commenter hypothesized that the case studies presented in the
ANPR may have been the result of abnormal events and expressed
the opinion that no amount of regulation, planning or
notification can prevent inadvertent releases that result from
system failures or other errors.
Another commenter suggested NRC should realize that, irrespective
of its regulations, an individual is likely to find a way to
defeat ``reasonable safeguards.'' Another commenter expressed
concern that the modeling results described in the ANPR did not
account for the potential for accidental releases in excess of
the 10 CFR part 20 limits and suggested the reported calculated
doses may be underestimates.
Response: NRC acknowledges the commenters' statements about the
possibility of accidental releases. NRC staff note that its
inspections are designed to ensure licensees' operations are
conducted safely and in accordance with good practices and
license conditions. With respect to the commenter's concern that
the dose modeling results discussed in the ANPR do not include
the effects of accidental releases, NRC staff note that the doses
estimated in NUREG/CR-1548 did not include the potential effects
of accidental releases; however, the doses reported in the ISCORS
dose modeling report (NUREG-1783) were based on observed levels
of radioactivity measured in conjunction with the ISCORS sewage
sludge survey (NUREG-1775) and, therefore, reflect any accidental
releases that may have been made to the 313 POTWs surveyed.
Comment: Seven commenters addressed LLW disposal. Four commenters
noted that additional restrictions on the release of radioactive
materials to sewers would increase the amount of low level
radioactive waste that would need to be disposed of in some other
way. Two commenters recommended NRC evaluate the options proposed
in the ANPR in the context of the risks associated with the
disposal of low level nuclear waste and the limited capacity of
LLW disposal facilities. Two commenters noted that many licensees
had, as of 1994, very limited or no access to LLW disposal
facilities and one of the commenters noted that licensees without
access to a LLW disposal facility would need to store waste on
site indefinitely. Three commenters noted that additional
restrictions on the release of radioactive materials into
sanitary sewers would be especially burdensome because the
facilities they represented lacked access to LLW disposal sites.
One commenter stated that sewer disposal is the primary way that
many medical research and biotechnology laboratories minimize
generation of LLW.
One commenter expressed the concern that the use of sanitary
sewer disposal of radioactive material would increase because of
the high cost and limited availability of LLW disposal. The
commenter noted that the release of radioactive material into
sanitary sewers itself can lead to the creation of large volumes
of LLW by contaminating sludge. Another commenter opposed the
implication that sanitary sewer disposals would be used as a
means of relief from the relative inaccessibility of LLW disposal
and noted that most types of LLW do not meet the requirements for
release into sanitary sewers.
Response: NRC acknowledges the commenters' concerns regarding the
impact that the proposed changes would have because of some
licensees' lack of access to LLW disposal facilities. These
comments support the withdrawal of the ANPR.
NRC also acknowledges the commenter's concern that limitations on
LLW disposal could lead to an increase in the release of
radioactive material to sanitary sewers. The NRC staff notes that
the results of the ISCORS sewage sludge survey (NUREG/CR-1775) do
not indicate that the frequency of POTW contamination incidents
has increased since the commenters' remarks were made in 1994.
Comment: Five commenters expressed the opinion that licensees
[[Page 68368]] should bear all costs associated with waste
disposal. One commenter suggested NRC's descriptions of case
studies should include a description of the financial costs
associated with the contamination and should indicate the party
paying the remediation costs. Two commenters stated that NRC
licensees should bear the costs of data collection, data
reporting, and worker training needed to implement any new NRC
studies or regulations needed to protect POTWs from
contamination. Two commenters expressed the view that licensees
should pay to have monitoring equipment installed at POTWs.
Response: NRC acknowledges the commenter's suggestion that NRC's
descriptions of case studies should include information about the
economic aspects of the contamination and notes that some
information about remediation costs is provided in Section 1.2 of
the ISCORS recommendations on management of radioactive materials
in sewage sludge and ash (EPA 832-R-03-002B). Comments regarding
the costs associated with implementation of new sewer release
restrictions are moot because the ANPR is being withdrawn.
Comment: Six commenters expressed opinions about NRC enforcement
actions. A representative of DOE stated that it was unclear
whether one or more of the incidents described in the ANPR
involved violations of the regulations, and suggested enhanced
inspections, and not additional rulemaking, would be the most
appropriate way to eliminate contamination of POTWs. Three
commenters suggested NRC or POTWs should verify licensee's
reported discharges into sanitary sewers and one commenter
suggested compliance with NRC regulations should be demonstrated
at the licensee's outfall into the sanitary sewer system so that
POTWs would not be impacted and would not need to implement
special controls. Two representatives of POTWs noted that POTWs
routinely sample the effluent of major industrial users as part
of their industrial pretreatment programs. Another commenter
suggested NRC should assist POTWs with monitoring of licensee's
effluents and enforcement of the discharge limits.
Response: NRC notes that suggestions about inspection and
enforcement activities are beyond the scope of this rulemaking.
Comment: Six commenters made specific suggestions about
monitoring. Two commenters suggested licensees' outfalls and
potable water intakes should be monitored, and three commenters
suggested monitoring also should occur at POTWs. One of the
commenters that advocated monitoring at POTWs expressed the view
that monitoring would limit uncertainty in model results and
would facilitate the study of the effects of influent
radionuclide form and quantity on POTW worker doses. The
commenter also suggested licensees should be encouraged to
provide dosimetry and elementary radiation safety training to
POTW workers. One commenter expressed the opinion that
radionuclides in licensees' effluents should be monitored to
record the highest concentrations discharged and facilitate a
regulator's ability to link discharges with their sources. Three
commenters suggested the radioactivity of sewage sludge should be
monitored. One commenter expressed concern about the
radioactivity of an engineered wetland used to treat wastewater
in his town.
Response: Recommendations regarding locations for monitoring a
licensee's effluent are beyond the scope of the proposed
rulemaking.
Comment: A representative of the New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation recommended that the Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking for any change to the regulation governing
the release of radioactive material into sanitary sewers notice,
for public comment, the compatibility category NRC intends to
apply to each provision so that Agreement States and other
interested parties can participate in decisions about
compatibility requirements. The commenter stated that, as of
1994, Agreement States were required to develop regulations that
were compatible with the revised 10 CFR part 20 without NRC
having determined compatibility requirements and stated that this
type of situation must not recur.
Response: NRC acknowledges the commenter's recommendation that
intended compatibility categories be included in Notices of
Proposed Rulemaking. Compatibility categories for the options
discussed in the ANPR are moot because the ANPR is being
withdrawn.
Comment: One commenter expressed a number of concerns about the
case studies described in the ANPR. Concerns raised by the
commenter included specific exposure pathways that may not have
been included in the dose analyses, the appropriateness of NRC's
comparison of doses with background radiation, and the concern
that calculated doses to individuals could have been higher if
the sludge to which they were exposed included radiation from
multiple sources. The commenter expressed the view that
radioactivity in the environment may increase because of human
activity, and that it would be inappropriate to consider manmade
contributions of radioactivity to the environment in the
calculation of ``background'' radiation, or to allow releases
because they would be minimal in comparison to background
radiation. The commenter also remarked that the cases of
contamination that had occurred in Washington, DC, and Cleveland,
OH, indicated the potential for contamination to be significant
to large populations. In addition, the commenter asked specific
questions about the assumptions used to calculate the doses
resulting from the case studies discussed in the ANPR and what
sources of radiation NRC included in its calculation of
``background radiation.'' Response: The commenter's concerns
about the doses calculated in the case studies are no longer
applicable because more recent studies served as the technical
basis for the withdrawal of the ANPR.
NRC acknowledges the commenter's concern regarding contamination
at POTWs. The commenter's specific questions about the modeling
assumptions used to calculate doses for the case studies
discussed in the ANPR are addressed in NUREG/CR-1548. NRC notes
that its definition of ``background radiation,'' provided in 10
CFR 20.1003, excludes contributions of radioactivity from source,
byproduct, or special nuclear materials regulated by NRC.
For the reasons cited in this document, NRC withdraws this ANPR.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 11th day of October, 2005.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Luis A. Reyes, Executive Director for Operations.
[FR Doc. 05-22432 Filed 11-9-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
*****************************************************************
41 Newsday.com: Diver in Indian Point spent fuel pool finds no leaks so far
November 10, 2005, 5:33 PM EST
BUCHANAN, N.Y. (AP) _ A diver studded with radiation sensors has
found no leaks so far in the liner of the spent fuel pool at the
Indian Point 2 nuclear power plant, the plant's owner said
Thursday.
Entergy Nuclear Northeast is trying to find the source of a small
amount of radioactive water discovered just outside the spent
fuel pool. A remote-controlled video camera lowered into the pool
last week detected three areas, 16 to 22 feet down, that looked
like rust spots and might have been leaking.
The diver _ tethered to keep him away from the highly
radioactive spent fuel _ slipped into the pool on Tuesday and
fixed a vacuum box over two of the three spots. The vacuum
action would have pulled material in through the flaws if there
were a leak, but that did not happen, Entergy's Jim Steets said.
The third and deepest spot is to be examined by a diver next
week, Steets said.
The 40-foot-deep pool holds the highly radioactive fuel
assemblies that have been used in the nuclear reactor in
Buchanan, about 35 miles north of midtown Manhattan.
Concern about the leak grew last month after low levels of
tritium, a radioactive isotope, were found in water at the
bottom of six sampling wells on the Indian Point property.
In a separate development involving Indian Point, a state
appeals court in Albany rebuffed Entergy when it affirmed a
regulation that says power plants must use "the best technology
available" in cooling-water intake structures.
Critics have argued that millions of fish are killed by Indian
Point's intakes in the Hudson River and that it should be forced
to build new cooling towers, which could cost $1 billion, if it
is relicensed.
Entergy has been fighting the cooling tower requirement on
several fronts, and the ruling was "not really material to the
process going forward, the administrative argument," Steets
said.
However, Victor Tafur, an attorney for the Riverkeeper
environmental group, which was one of the parties on the winning
side, said the ruling was "quite relevant and important."
"The state regulations have been upheld," Tafur said, "and they
are quite clear."
Copyright 2005 Newsday Inc.
*****************************************************************
42 Berkley: Yucca Budget Cut Shows Growing Lack of Support in Congress for
Failed Dump Project
Congresswoman Shelley Berkley -
Legislation: Press Releases 2005
New Provisions Will Protect Funds for State, Local Scientific
Oversight of DOE
(Washington, DC -- November 9, 2005) Congresswoman Shelley
Berkley today said that the latest cut to the Yucca Mountain
budget is another sign of the growing lack of support in
Congress for moving ahead on the controversial nuclear garbage
dump. The House version of the FY 2006 Energy and Water
Development Appropriations bill, which was passed this
afternoon, includes $450 million for Yucca Mountain -- $200
million less than the Presidents budget request for this year,
and $120 million less than last years funding level.
"I am appalled that Congress would even waste one more cent on
this colossal failure known as Yucca Mountain, but I am pleased
that we at least succeeded in cutting the budget again this
year, said Berkley. This vote shows that the rest of Congress is
finally waking up to what we have been saying in Nevada all
along - that Yucca Mountain is too dangerous and too expensive
to ever go forward. We should be spending these dollars on
securing nuclear waste at the plants where it was produced and
on research into waste alternatives that will not endanger the
lives of millions of Americans. The battle to stop nuclear waste
from being sent to Nevada is not over, but this budget cut is
another victory in our fight against becoming the nations
radioactive garbage dump, said Berkley, who has sponsored
legislation that would end all funding for the Yucca Mountain
Project.
Berkley noted that the House package, which she opposed, also
contains more than $10 million in funding for oversight by the
State of Nevada, Clark County and other so-called Affected Units
of Local Government. Legislative language included in the bill
will protect the ability of communities affected by Yucca
Mountain to conduct independent scientific oversight on DOE work
to win approval for the dump. In the past, DOE has targeted
local funding in a harassment campaign aimed at those
communities opposed to the dump and their local leaders.
"DOE has attempted to bully and harass local officials involved
in independent oversight on scientific work at Yucca Mountain.
These oversight activities are 100% legal, but year after year,
DOE has tried to intimidate those Nevadans involved in this
effort. This bill now makes it clear that DOE needs to abide by
the law, and not interfere with oversight money allocated to
counties and other local units of government, said Berkley.
# # #
Photos courtesy of the Las Vegas Convention and Visitor Authority
For Our Privacy Policy, click here
Please direct all questions about this site to the Site
Manager
Page Last Updated: 11/09/2005
439 Cannon HOB
Washington, DC 20515
Phone - (202) 225-5965
Fax - (202) 225-3119 2340 Paseo Del Prado, Suite D-106
Las Vegas, NV 89102
Phone - (702) 220-9823
Fax - (702) 220-9841
*****************************************************************
43 Reid: Senator Reid Will Not Oppose utah Wilderness Provision
Tuesday, November 8, 2005
Reid’s concerns about provision remain, but says timing now
critical for UT fight against nuclear waste facility
WASHINGTON, D.C. – U.S. Senator Harry Reid, the Senate’s
Democratic Leader, announced today that he will drop his
opposition to a provision that would create a new wilderness
area near the Skull Valley Goshute Indian Reservation in Utah.
The wilderness designation could potentially prevent the opening
of a nuclear waste storage facility on the reservation,
something Utah’s elected leaders have fiercely opposed.
Reid has traditionally opposed the provision out of concerns it
would set a bad precedent for future wilderness designation.
But, after a recent conversation with Utah’s Senator Robert
Bennett, Reid agreed to set aside his concerns in order to help
the efforts of Sen. Bennett and other state officials to prevent
the nuclear site from opening.
“Land use designation is one of the biggest challenges we face
in Nevada, where the federal government controls more than 80%
of the state’s land,” Senator Reid said. “I have spent my
public career working on public lands issues and have come to
appreciate that Congress must be very careful in how we approach
wilderness designation.
“While I continue to have concerns about the Cedar Mountain
wilderness proposal, of even greater concern is the threat posed
by deadly nuclear waste. After speaking with Utah leaders,
including Sen. Bennett and Governor Huntsman, I have agreed to
drop my opposition to this proposal. With the proposed Goshute
nuclear waste site moving forward, timing has become critical
and the state of Utah will need every available resource to
fight this project.”
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission recently approved the Goshute
site as suitable for temporary storage of nuclear waste, a key
hurdle for the Private Fuel Storage consortium’s plans to open
a facility in the near future. Utah’s elected leaders have
vowed to continue fighting the project.
In Nevada, plans for a permanent nuclear waste site at Yucca
Mountain continue to be delayed indefinitely, putting that
project in jeopardy. Reid and Nevada’s other congressional
members have fought the project for decades, resulting in
successful challenges and continued delays.
Sen. Reid has proposed a more realistic approach to solving the
nation’s nuclear waste storage problems by leaving the waste
at the sites where it is generated. Reid has been working on
gaining support for his proposal. Sen. Bennett recently
announced that he would support the idea and with bipartisan
support growing, Reid hopes to introduce legislation soon.
###
*****************************************************************
44 AU ABC: Uranium groups urge Qld Govt to change policy -
Thursday, 10/11/2005
Pro-uranium groups are stepping up their campaign to change
Queensland Government policy that prohibits any new uranium
mines.
There were signs of growing community support at a meeting of
aboriginal, political and business leaders in Mt Isa last night.
The managing director of Summit Resources, Allan Eggers, told
the meeting that uranium could be worth up to $1 billion to the
region.
He says his company has a controlling interest in 35 million
kilograms of undeveloped uranium deposits in north-west
Queensland.
"We have a number of deposits here and at the moment we have
sufficient resources to kick off with a 10-year mine life, that
would rapidly expand to a 25-year mine life, and if the drilling
was positive as we think it is at the moment, we'll have 50
years plus of uranium mining nearby," he said.
National Rural News
*****************************************************************
45 AU ABC: Pressure mounts for uranium mining licence.
11/11/2005. ABC News Online
Last Update: Friday, November 11, 2005. 12:21pm (AEDT)
Advocates in favour of uranium mining are taking advantage of
strong community support in north-west Queensland to step up
pressure on the State Government to grant a mining licence.
Stakeholders met this week in Mount Isa to hear the managing
director of Summit Resources, Allan Eggers, outline his
submission to a parliamentary inquiry into Australia's uranium
resources.
The Member for Mount Isa and Speaker in Queensland Parliament,
Tony McGrady, says he welcomes debate, but for the right reasons.
"The jury is still out and there are many questions that still
have to be answered such as what do we do with the waste ... and
when can we work out the answers to those questions? Then maybe
the government of the day may consider a change of policy," he
said.
© 2005 ABC| Privacy Policy
*****************************************************************
46 PRN: Southern Nuclear Makes Initial Spent Fuel Notification to U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission
ATLANTA, Nov. 10 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- In accordance with a
February 2005 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Bulletin that
requires all nuclear power plants to verify their spent fuel
inventories, Southern Nuclear Operating Company today notified
the agency that the company could not -- based upon a preliminary
review of data -- reconcile inventory totaling approximately 68
inches at the Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant near Baxley, Ga. The
fuel inventory in the two reactor cores and the two spent fuel
pools at Plant Hatch totals more than 57 million inches.
The inventory verification is still in progress and is scheduled
to be completed Dec. 15. The company believes the material is in
another location in the spent fuel pools or was shipped to a
licensed disposal facility. There is no threat to public health
or safety.
The possibility of theft or diversion is not plausible because of
radiation monitoring instrumentation, the plant's physical
security measures and the size and type container required for
transporting nuclear material of this nature.
No discrepancies were found at the Alvin W. Vogtle Electric
Generating Plant near Waynesboro, Ga., or the Joseph M. Farley
Nuclear Plant near Dothan, Ala.
Southern Nuclear informed the agency that it found a discrepancy
between records of fuel locations and the visual verifications of
the fuel within the spent fuel pools at the plant. A final report
is scheduled to be sent to the NRC in Jan. 2006.
Special equipment is being used to search areas of the spent fuel
pool floor and selected fuel assemblies that have not been
examined to date.
The material is best characterized as partial-length segments of
individual fuel rods. To improve the mechanical performance of
fuel assemblies in the 1980's, individual fuel rods were moved
out of some fuel assemblies that were being reused for additional
operating cycles - that is, placed back into the reactor core as
fuel. This activity was performed during refueling operations.
The fuel rod segments were generated when some of the individual
rods selected for removal were not able to be removed as intact,
full length rods.
In the early to mid-1980s, fuel rod cladding corrosion occurred
in some of the fuel rods used in some boiling water reactors
across the industry. Moving the fuel rods out of some assemblies
ensured that only corrosion-resistant, sound fuel rods were being
used in the reactor.
Research by Southern Company, the fuel vendor and the industry
determined that copper in the reactor's condenser tubes was
causing early corrosion of the fuel cladding -- the material
surrounding the fuel pellets. The condenser tubes were replaced
and the cladding material on the fuel was improved. Both steps
corrected the problem. This issue has not re-occurred for Plant
Hatch.
Fuel assemblies are used typically for two or three operating
cycles of the reactor before they are replaced. They are then
placed in the spent fuel pool for long term storage.
Plant Hatch maintains fuel accountability in accordance with
accepted industry standards. These standards require accounting
for fuel at a fuel assembly and discrete fuel rod level. Tracking
of rod segments, pieces or pellets was not part of the physical
inventory process. Inventories were conducted annually as
required by regulations.
In a February 11, 2005, Bulletin (Bulletin 2005-01), the NRC
required all of the nation's nuclear facilities to provide a
description of their special nuclear material physical inventory
and accounting processes that ensure the records accurately
reflect receipt, inventory, acquisition, transfer and disposal of
all SNM.
Nuclear fuel is placed in a reactor in what's referred to as fuel
assemblies. There are 560 fuel assemblies in each of the two
reactors at Plant Hatch and each reactor core contains over
49,000 fuel rods of varying lengths. The fuel rod is a tube, a
little larger than the diameter of a pencil, in which fuel
pellets are stacked; most fuel rods contain about 150 inches of
fuel.
State and local officials have also been informed and the company
will continue working with the NRC in this verification.
SNC, based in Birmingham, Ala., and a subsidiary of Southern
Company, operates Hatch, Vogtle and Farley for their respective
owners. Plants Hatch and Vogtle are jointly owned by Georgia
Power Company, Oglethorpe Power Corporation, the Municipal
Electric Authority of Georgia and the City of Dalton. Plant
Farley is owned by Alabama Power Company.
SOURCE Southern Company
Copyright © 1996- PR Newswire Association LLC. All Rights
*****************************************************************
47 KLASTV.com: Shoshone Tribe Will Try Again to Stop Yucca Waste Dump
An Indian tribe will try again to get a federal judge to stop
plans for a national nuclear waste dump in Nevada based on the
Ruby Valley Treaty of 1863 after its initial lawsuit was
dismissed, a lawyer for the tribe said Wednesday.
The Western Shoshone National Council will appeal a ruling that
the U.S. government had sovereign immunity from the tribe's
lawsuit, the Las Vegas federal court lacked jurisdiction, and
the case was premature because the Yucca Mountain project has
not been built, said Robert Hager, a Reno-based lawyer who
represents the tribe.
"The U.S. government has spent $8 billion and hollowed out a
sacred mountain, yet the court found that the government's
actions are still merely 'hypothetical,"' said Hager, who
received notice of U.S. District Judge Philip Pro's ruling this
week.
A spokeswoman for the Justice Department, which had argued the
government's case, declined immediate comment.
An Energy Department official in Las Vegas said Yucca Mountain
project administrators welcomed the ruling.
It came two days after congressional lawmakers agreed to slash
the 2006 budget for development of the repository to $450
million from $577 million -- just the latest in a series of
setbacks that have included a required court-ordered rewrite of
radiation safety standards and an investigation into possible
falsification of scientific data.
The tribe filed suit March 4, citing the Ruby Valley Treaty of
1863. Tribal members said the treaty allows only specified uses
of Western Shoshone ancestral lands -- including settlements,
mining, ranching, agriculture, railroads, roads and
communication routes. They maintained that entombing 77,000 tons
of the nation's most radioactive nuclear waste was not among the
approved uses.
The same judge in May declined the tribe's request for an
injunction to stop the federal government from applying to the
Nuclear Regulatory Commission for an operating license and from
planning a railroad line across Nevada to reach the $58 billion
repository.
In his ruling filed Nov. 1, Pro rejected outright the tribe's
contention that it had standing to sue the government because
the two parties were equal signatories to the 1863 treaty. The
treaty recognized vast stretches of territory in present-day
Nevada, California, Utah and Idaho as Western Shoshone tribal
land.
However, an Indian Claims Commission decided in 1946 that the
tribe lost the land through "gradual encroachment."
The date for opening the Yucca Mountain project 90 miles
northwest of Las Vegas has been pushed back from 2010 to 2012 or
later after the Energy Department postponed submitting an
application for an operating license to the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission.
"The challenged actions in this case are not final because the
decision-making process regarding whether Yucca Mountain will
become a nuclear repository is not completed," the judge said.
"Additionally, (the Energy Department) has not completed its
decision-making process regarding methods for transporting waste
to Yucca Mountain, should it be licensed."
The Western Shoshone say they will ask the judge to reconsider.
If he won't, they plan to go to the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of
Appeals.
(Copyright 2005 by The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.)
*****************************************************************
48 Tribune-Review: Group disputes radioactive ash burial safety
PittsburghLIVE.com:
Group disputes ash safety -
Friday, November 11, 2005
Activist Patty Ameno S.C. Spangler/Tribune-Review
By Sam Kusic
TRIBUNE-REVIEW
Thursday, November 10, 2005
State environmental officials told a group of 30 or so people
Wednesday that it's safe to bury radioactive ash in an East
Huntingdon Township landfill.
To that, the group responded: Hogwash.
Farley Kalp, a lawyer and township resident, organized the
meeting with people who live near the Greenridge Reclamation
Landfill, which is where the Kiski Valley Water Pollution
Control Authority plans to ship 12,000 cubic meters of
radioactive ash.
The ash is leftover from the incineration of sewage generated by
the former Nuclear Materials and Equipment Corp. and its
successor companies, Atlantic-Richfield Co. and Babcock &Wilcox.
The ash was contaminated with uranium between 1978 and 1984.
Right now, it's sitting in an old wastewater treatment lagoon in
Allegheny Township.
The authority is under an order by the Department of
Environmental Protection to dispose of it, and the landfill,
located near Alverton, won the contract to do so.
But to receive a permit, the landfill had to show that once the
ash was buried, it wouldn't emit more than 1 millirem, a unit
that measures a person's exposure to radiation.
Average exposure to radiation in the United States is about 360
millirems per person per year, according to the U.S. Department
of Energy's Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management Web
site.
But most residents who attended the meeting appeared to go into
it unconvinced that it was safe to deposit the ash there,
especially in a landfill so close to three Southmoreland School
District buildings.
Superintendent John Halfhill has sent a letter to the DEP,
asking the agency's officials to reconsider the decision.
Township supervisors, too, indicated they are opposed to the
plan.
Those at the meeting asked the DEP and the authority to come up
with another solution.
Patty Ameno, an activist from Leechburg, told the audience that
the ash and the uranium within is inherently dangerous.
"There are absolutely no safe levels of radiation exposure," she
said. "It is the deadliest thing known to man."
But the DEP officials, when they weren't being shouted down,
tried to say that while the ash is radioactive, the amount or
radiation escaping from it would be safe.
One township resident, Sarah Seaton, challenged DEP officials to
scoop up some of the ash and hold it.
Mike Forbeck, an environmental program manager, said he would,
with no qualms.
And Dwight Shearer, chief of the radioactive materials section,
said that if the law would allow, he'd use the ash in his
driveway.
Nonetheless, residents who attended yesterday's meeting said
they remain opposed to the plan.
"This stuff doesn't belong here," Seaton said.
"This stuff is deadly. Why put it in front of our kids?" said
Gregg Thompson, of Ruffsdale. "The DEP doesn't care about these
people," he said.
The meeting lasted for almost 2 1/2 hours. Few, if any, went
away feeling any better about the plan.
"I'm not going to listen to the DEP," said Julie Martinosky.
"They're discredited in my book as it is."
Part of the underlying problem is that many residents have
long-standing issues with the landfill, chiefly the odor that it
sometimes produces.
They say that neither the landfill nor the DEP has done enough
to solve the problem.
"If they can't control the odor now, how can they control this
type of waste?" said Leanne Barza, of East Huntingdon.
DEP spokeswoman Betsy Mallison said if residents have issues
with the plan, they should call the landfill or the authority.
But she added that the DEP does not plan to review the project
again.
"We've already made the decision," she said.
Individuals who want to voice their opposition may appeal the
DEP's decision to the state's Environmental Hearing Board. The
five-member panel of administrative law judges reviews all
appeals of DEP decisions.
If the hearing board rules in favor of DEP's permit approval,
opponents of the plan may appeal that decision to Commonwealth
Court.
Reporter Wynne Everett, of the Valley News Dispatch in Tarentum,
contributed to this story.
Sam Kusic can be reached at skusic@tribweb.comor 724.463.8742.
Back to headlines
Images and text copyright © 2005 by The Tribune-Review
Publishing Co.
*****************************************************************
49 La Crosse Tribune: Meeting set on nuclear storage transportation
By REID MAGNEY,
La Crosse Tribune .
Anti nuclear activists are planning a public meeting Saturday at
University of Wisconsin-La Crosse to discuss nuclear waste
transportation.
This is about the very real possibility of high-level nuclear
waste being transported on the railroad tracks through the
middle of De Soto or on I-90 through La Crosse, Rochester or
Winona County, said Guy Wolf of rural Stoddard, Wis., one of
the organizers.
At issue are plans by Private Fuel Storage Inc., headquartered
in La Crosse at Dairyland Power Co., to open a temporary nuclear
waste storage facility in Utah on land owned by the Goshute
Indian tribe. The conference is being sponsored by UW-Ls Native
American Student Association.
PFS is a consortium of utilities with nuclear power plants,
including Dairyland and Xcel Energy. The idea is to create an
interim storage site until the federal government can gain
approval on its Yucca Mountain storage facility.
John Parkyn, chairman of PFS, said any transportation of nuclear
waste is several years away and will only be done by trains, not
trucks.
In September, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission approved a
permit to PFS for the Utah site. Parkyn said the U.S. Department
of Transportation has a separate process to allow moving the
nuclear waste, which will involve local communities.
Its unclear whether Dairyland will use PFS to store waste as it
decommissions its Genoa reactor in coming years. At a recent
public meeting in De Soto, Dairyland officials said they havent
decided whether to ship waste to Utah or store it in dry casks
in Genoa.
Wolf said the activists goal is to convince Dairyland Power
(and) Xcel to choose a different course of action.
If you go
WHAT: Radioactive Waste and Public Safety: Municipalities,
Counties and Tribal Governments
WHERE: University of Wisconsin-La Crosse Cartwright Center, 1725
La Crosse St.
WHEN: 1 to 5 p.m. Saturday
WHO: Speakers will include:
+ Margene Bullcreek, a member of the Goshute tribe.
+ Bob Halstead, transportation adviser to Nevadas Agency for
Nuclear Projects.
+ Kevin Kamps, a nuclear waste transport specialist with the
Nuclear Information and Resource Service, Washington D.C.
+ John LaForge, co-director of Wisconsin-based Nukewatch, an
environmental action group.
+ Oscar Shirani, an Exelon Corp. employee and whistle-blower on
the Holtec nuclear waste cask design.
+ Alfred Meyer of Physicians for Social Responsibilitys
Wisconsin chapter.
MORE INFO: Call (608)785-8838, or see www.uwlax.edu/native
Reid Magney can be reached at (608) 791-8211 or
rmagney@lacrossetribune.com.
Copyright © 1997 - 2005 The La Crosse Tribune. All rights
*****************************************************************
50 Guardian Unlimited: Utah Asks Court to Reject Nuclear Dump
From the Associated Press
[UP]
Thursday November 10, 2005 1:31 AM
By PAUL FOY
Associated Press Writer
SALT LAKE CITY (AP) - Utah asked a federal appeals court on
Wednesday to overturn the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's
approval of a nuclear waste storage site in the state's western
desert.
The petition, filed by lawyers in Washington, D.C., challenges a
license authorized but not yet issued by the commission. It
allows a group of nuclear-power utilities to stockpile 44,000
tons of spent fuel rods at the Skull Valley Goshute Indian
Reservation, about 45 miles southwest of Salt Lake City.
Gov. Jon Huntsman directed lawyers to file the petition, which
was filed at the District of Columbia U.S. Circuit Court of
Appeals.
``We're just going to keep fighting as hard as we can until it's
dead,'' the governor's general counsel, Mike Lee, said
Wednesday.
The commission authorized the license in September for Private
Fuel Storage, a consortium of utilities, rejecting Utah's
arguments that the site was too dangerous.
Lee said the petition asserts the commission underestimated the
risk of a fighter jet crashing into the site and releasing
radiation. Hill Air Force Base uses Skull Valley as a flight
path to a training range in Utah's western desert.
Utah's petition also argues that Private Fuel Storage plans to
keep spent nuclear fuel rods in welded steel casks that won't be
accepted for storage at Nevada's Yucca Mountain, where the
Energy Department is working to open a federal repository for
nuclear waste. Private Fuel Storage plans to use Skull Valley as
a temporary way station for nuclear waste pending work at Yucca
Mountain.
``All along we have encouraged the state of Utah to do what they
need to do in protesting this project because we have always
said, 'If it's not deemed to be safe, then it won't be built,'''
said Bruce Whitehead, a spokesman for the utility consortium.
``But we have passed every criteria, every test, put up by the
Nuclear Regulatory Commission. We have proven all of our points
along the way. Our opposition really has yet to prove their
points.''
Huntsman has vowed to ``stop at nothing'' to keep the nuclear
waste out of Utah.
``We are urging Congress, the Bush administration, and the
courts not to let PFS force us to accept nuclear waste that we
didn't produce, we don't want and shouldn't have to take,''
Huntsman said.
Lee said Utah wasn't asking for a court injunction because even
if the NRC issues the license, Private Fuel Storage won't
immediately be able to deliver any waste to Skull Valley.
The Bureau of Land Management is refusing to grant a right of
way for a rail spur that would carry the waste across government
land to the reservation.
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2005
*****************************************************************
51 KTVB.COM: U.S. House passes Idaho nuclear lab funding bill
| Boise Idaho News,
10:51 AM MST on Thursday, November 10, 2005
Associated Press
BOISE -- The U.S. House today passed a $30.5 billion dollar
energy and water appropriations bill.
That includes $40 million to begin development of a new
experimental nuclear reactor at the Idaho National Laboratory.
The reactor will produce electricity and hydrogen.
The U.S. Senate is expected to clear the measure today. When it
is signed by President Bush, it will direct at least $80 million
in earmarked federal money to projects at the eastern Idaho
nuclear research compound northwest of Idaho Falls.
Spending on federal nuclear programs at the site is $50 million
more than what the White House sought in its DOE budget request
to Congress earlier this year.
Representative Mike Simpson says it underscores the Idaho
facility's role in creating the next generation of nuclear power
reactors.
*****************************************************************
52 DOE: International Energy Agency Meeting
FR Doc 05-22473
[Federal Register: November 10, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 217)]
[Notices]
[Page 68412-68413]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access
[wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr10no05-53]
AGENCY: Department of Energy.
ACTION: Notice of meetings.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
------
SUMMARY: The Industry Advisory Board (IAB) to the International
Energy
[[Page 68413]]
Agency (IEA) will meet on November 17, 2005, at the headquarters
of the
IEA in Paris, France, in connection with a meeting of the IEA's
Standing Group on Emergency Questions and the Standing Group on
the Oil
Market.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Samuel M. Bradley, Assistant
General
Counsel for International and National Security Programs,
Department of
Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585,
202-586-
6738.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In accordance with section
252(c)(1)(A)(i)
of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (42 U.S.C.
6272(c)(1)(A)(i))
(EPCA), the following notice of meeting is provided:
A meeting of the Industry Advisory Board (IAB) to the
International
Energy Agency (IEA) will be held at the headquarters of the IEA,
9, rue
de la F[eacute]d[eacute]ration, Paris, France, on November 17,
2005,
beginning at 8:30 a.m. The purpose of this notice is to permit
attendance by representatives of U.S. company members of the IAB
at a
meeting of the IEA's Standing Group on Emergency Questions
(SEQ), which
is scheduled to be held at the IEA on November 17, beginning at
9:30
a.m., as well as a joint meeting of the SEQ and the IEA's
Standing
Group on the Oil Market (SOM) beginning in the afternoon,
including a
preparatory encounter among company representatives from 8:30
a.m. to
approximately 9 a.m.. The agenda for the preparatory encounter
is a
review of the agenda of the meetings of the SEQ and of the
SEQ/SOM.
The agenda for the SEQ and SEQ/SOM meetings is under the
control of
the SEQ and of the SOM. It is expected that the SEQ and SOM will
adopt
the following agenda:
1. Adoption of the Agenda
2. Approval of the Summary Record of the 114th Meeting and the
Summary
Record of the Ad Hoc SEQ Meeting
3. Program of Work
--Report on Governing Board Discussions on the Program of
Work
4. Emergency Response Review Program
--Emergency Response Review of Austria
--Emergency Response Review of Denmark
--Emergency Response Review of Sweden
--Questionnaire Responses of:
--Canada
--United States
--Hungary
--Spain
--Updated Emergency Response Review Schedule
5. Report on Current Activities of the IAB
6. Policy and Other Developments in Member Countries
--Experiences of Member Countries with the IEA Collective
Action
7. Other Emergency Response Activities
--Proposed SEQ Working Party on IEA Emergency Reserve
Calculation
Methodology
8. Activities with Non-Member Countries and International
Organizations
--Update on Progress toward IEA Accession
--Poland
--Slovak Republic
--Updates on Planning for 10th International Energy Forum
(Beijing,
April 2006) and the IEF Secretariat
--Russian/Caspian Gas in Europe: Supply Risks
9. Documents for Information
--Emergency Reserve Situation of IEA Candidate Countries on
July 1,
2005
--Monthly Oil Statistics: August 2005
--Update of Emergency Contacts List
10. Report on IEA Brainstorming
11. The Current Oil Market Situation
12. Status of the IEA Collective Action Agreed on September 2,
2005 in
Response to Disrupted Oil Supplies
--Review of Recent IEA Emergency Activities
--Report on IEA Member Countries' Contributions to the IEA
Initial
Response of September 2005
--Review of the Emergency Data Collection Process
13. Other Business
--Dates of Next SEQ and SOM Meetings
As provided in section 252(c)(1)(A)(ii) of the Energy Policy
and
Conservation Act (42 U.S.C. 6272(c)(1)(A)(ii)), the meetings of
the IAB
are open to representatives of members of the IAB and their
counsel;
representatives of members of the IEA's Standing Group on
Emergency
Questions; representatives of the Departments of Energy,
Justice, and
State, the Federal Trade Commission, the General Accounting
Office,
Committees of Congress, the IEA, and the European Commission;
and
invitees of the IAB, the SEQ, or the IEA.
Issued in Washington, DC, November 4, 2005.
Samuel M. Bradley,
Assistant General Counsel for International and National
Security
Programs.
[FR Doc. 05-22473 Filed 11-9-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
*****************************************************************
NOTE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107 this
material is distributed without profit or payment to those who
have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for
non-profit research and educational purposes only. For more
information go to:
*****************************************************************