*****************************************************************
11/22/05 **** RADIATION BULLETIN(RADBULL) **** VOL 13.272
*****************************************************************
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 BBC: Blair outlines his Iran concerns
2 AFP: EU and Iran to meet in December on nuclear issue -
3 AFP: Iran 'not ready' for nuclear fuel - Russia -
4 Japan Times: Neocons absconded with round five
5 US: CONTACT NASA: NO PLUTONIUM LAUNCH
6 AU ABC: US planes to carry nukes during NT exercises: ex-officer.
7 Guardian Unlimited: Thatcher 'threatened to nuke Argentina'
NUCLEAR REACTORS
8 London Times: Nuclear plan could be enriching -
9 RIA Novosti: European Russia to raise nuclear power share of electri
10 RIA Novosti: Kiriyenko to make changes in nuclear industry
11 US: NRC: Sunshine Federal Register Notice
12 BBC: Nuclear power's cost conundrum
13 BBC: Blair says nuclear choice needed
14 Herald: Blair goes for the nuclear option
15 The Herald: A no-brainer for some, but plans would divide country
16 Moneyweb: Pebble Bed Modular Reactor at the Graphite starting-blocks
17 business.iafrica.com: SA inks nuclear reactor deal
18 US: DesMoinesRegister.com: Board to weigh utility's nuclear plant sa
19 AFP: Blair pressed over nuclear power option
20 Slovak news: Time to pay for Bohunice plant
21 US: NRC: Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards; Meeting Notice
22 US: NRC: Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards Subcommittee Meeti
23 US: NRC: Saxton Nuclear Experimental Corporation and GPU Nuclear, In
24 US: NRC: Portland General Electric; Notice of Issuance of Amendment
25 US: Vermont Guardian: Nuclear advisory panel turns thumbs down on up
26 Guardian Unlimited: New nuclear plants to face safety and cost tests
27 Guardian Unlimited: Blair says 'facts have changed' on nuclear power
28 London Times: Who says nuclear power is clean?
29 London Times: Blair says time has come to go nuclear
NUCLEAR SECURITY
NUCLEAR SAFETY
30 Another DU Victim Speaks Out
31 Cyprus Mail: Radioactivity fears over chemical plant
NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE
32 Sydney Morning Herald: NT nuclear dump 'would be safe' -
33 US: Bradenton Herald: Lockheed wants more testing time
34 AU ABC: Doctors speak out against nuclear dump plans
35 US: Deseret News: A 'wild' fix for nuke waste
36 US: KIFI: Hazardous Waste Drum Explodes At INL
37 US: SignOnSanDiego.com: Military -- Toxic woes fester at Camp Pendle
38 Bellona: Russia signed contract on Lepse dismantling
39 AU ABC: Australia's Northern Territory continues fight against nucle
40 NEWS.com.au: Nuke dump safe, says watchdog - NT -
41 US: Foreign Policy: Its Not About the Yellowcake
42 US: Byte and Switch: A Different Take on Nuclear Storage -
43 US: WA Business News: WA "stupid" to prevent uranium mining - Costel
44 NEWS.com.au: Land Council backs NT nuclear dump -
45 AU ABC: Sacred sites propel dump fight, land council says.
46 IEER: Comments on EPA's Proposed Rule for Yucca Mountain
PEACE
47 US: Japan Times: UCLA A-bomb exhibit offers a lesson on horror
US DEPT. OF ENERGY
*****************************************************************
*****************************************************************
FULL NEWS STORIES
*****************************************************************
*****************************************************************
1 BBC: Blair outlines his Iran concerns
Last Updated: Tuesday, 22 November 2005
[Iran's uranium conversion plant at Isfahan]
Blair says Iran has a large part of the world's energy resources
Tony Blair has warned that if Iran develops a nuclear capability
it would pose a "serious threat to world stability and peace".
He also accused Iran of "meddling in Iraq" and supporting
terrorism around the Middle East.
He made his comments during a question and answer session with
the chairmen of Commons select committees.
But the prime minister insisted: "No-one is talking military
action or any of the rest of it."
Three issues of concern
Mr Blair told MPs: "If Iran was to develop nuclear weapons
capability it would pose a very serious threat to world stability
and peace - I don't think there is any doubt about that at all.
"And that is why the remarks of the president of Iran about
Israel recently - they don't exactly auger well for the type of
policy that they will pursue."
There is their support terrorism around the Middle East and there
is their meddling in Iraq Tony Blair
Iran's president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, drew widespread
condemnation after he called for Israel to be wiped off the map.
Mr Blair said there were three issues about Iran that worried
people.
"There's their nuclear weapons capability and refusal to
co-operate with the Atomic Energy Authority," he said.
"There is their support of terrorism around the Middle East and
there is their meddling in Iraq.
"On each of those three issues we have real genuine cause for
concern."
Energy resources
But Mr Blair said there was no talk of taking military action
against Iran, insisting it was "quite a different country from
Iraq in many, many ways".
"It may well be the change in Iran comes from within ultimately,"
he said.
"They are a powerful country with a large part of the world's
energy resources at their disposal."
*****************************************************************
2 AFP: EU and Iran to meet in December on nuclear issue -
Tue Nov 22, 7:52 AM ET
VIENNA (AFP) - Britain, France, Germany and Russia have set a
tentative date in December to meet with Iran" /> Iranto discuss
the Islamic Republic's disputed nuclear program, diplomats told
AFP.
"The date is December 6. There is no agreement yet on the
venue," a European diplomat said Tuesday.
He said the idea would be to "talk about (resuming) talks"
between Iran and EU negotiators Britain, France and Germany on
guaranteeing Tehran will not make nuclear weapons.
The talks broke off in August when Iran resumed nuclear fuel
work it had suspended nine months earlier in order to start the
talks.
New talks would be the next step after the United States and the
so-called EU-3 put off calling this week on the UN nuclear
watchdog to take Iran before the UN Security Council, in order
to give Russia time to get Tehran to agree to a compromise on
its atomic program, diplomats said.
The European diplomat told AFP that it was not yet clear if the
EU-3, Russia and Iran would all sit down together on December 6
or if "they would meet in mixed forms."
The diplomat said there would be "no strings attached" to the
meeting, although Iran would be expected "to be prepared to
discuss seriously" the Russian compromise proposal for Tehran to
agree that its uranium enrichment, which makes what can be
nuclear reactor fuel or bomb material, be carried out in Russia.
Copyright © 2005 Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
3 AFP: Iran 'not ready' for nuclear fuel - Russia -
Tue Nov 22, 1:04 PM ET
MOSCOW (AFP) - A nuclear plant being built by Russian engineers
in Iran" /> Iranis not yet ready to receive its first shipment
of nuclear fuel, a senior Russian official said.
Moscow has previously said that first deliveries of fuel to the
controversial nuclear station would take place around the end of
this year or start of 2006.
"The Bushehr plant is not at present technically ready to
receive nuclear fuel," Alexander Shmygin, the newly-appointed
chief of Russia's atomic energy agency, was quoted by the state
RIA-Novosti news agency as saying.
He said it would be "very difficult" to store the fuel in the
Gulf region until the Bushehr plant was ready to receive it, but
did not elaborate.
"We will ensure the fuel remains secure in a Russian facility,"
he said.
Shmygin's predecessor, Alexander Rumyantsev, has stated on a
number of occasions since signing an agreement in Tehran, under
which Iran agreed to send spent nuclear fuel rods back to
Russia, that the first fuel deliveries for the plant would start
at the end of this year or early in 2006.
There has been no suggestion since then from either Tehran or
Moscow that construction of the controversial power plant was
falling behind schedule or that its startup, planned for
mid-2006, could be delayed.
Shygin's announcement however came after the United States and
western European countries voiced support for a Russian proposal
to complete the final step of enriching uranium for use in the
plant on Russian soil in order to ease international concerns
over Iran's nuclear intentions.
The United States suspects Iran intends to use a civilian
nuclear energy program as cover to develop nuclear weapons, a
charge Tehran adamantly denies.
Iran however has rejected the latest Russian proposal on uranium
enrichment, insisting it has the right to control all aspects of
producing nuclear energy itself. Russia has supported Tehran's
position, and has not until Tuesday suggested the planned fuel
deliveries could be delayed.
A senior Iranian nuclear energy official, Assadollah Sabouri,
said last June that Tehran was expecting the first delivery of
nuclear fuel for the Bushehr plant from Russia within months.
Copyright © 2005 Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
4 Japan Times: Neocons absconded with round five
Wednesday, November 23, 2005
By GLYN FORD Special to The Japan Times
BRUSSELS -- The six-party talks, which initially began in August
2003 to resolve the nuclear issue on the Korean Peninsula,
reconvened in Beijing on Nov. 9, then adjourned three days later
inconclusively. Defeat was snatched from the jaws of victory.
In September, at the end of the fourth round of the talks --
involving China, the United States, North and South Korea, Japan
and Russia -- there appeared to be a breakthrough, as North
Korea agreed to abandon its nuclear development program in
exchange for U.S. promises to rule out preemptive military
action against it or attempts to promote regime change, and to
provide a package of energy assistance and development aid to
kick-start the economy.
The problem now is implementation, as U.S. neocons have once
again played hardball and sabotaged the whole operation. U.S.
financial sanctions and pressure on a Macau bank to end its
dealings with Pyongyang were perceived as "spoiling the
atmosphere" of the talks. Meanwhile, Washington and Pyongyang
sparred over financial penalties and whether to negotiate a
nuclear freeze or focus on full disarmament.
The meeting had been forecast by many as the final round of the
Korean Peninsula nuclear standoff. It failed to resolve even
basic procedural issues, such as setting up working groups to
tackle technical problems pertaining to inspections and other
matters.
Back in 1994, the Framework Agreement between U.S. President
Bill Clinton and North Korean leader Kim Il Sung offered
Pyongyang two proliferation-resistant light-water reactors
(LWRs) by 2003 in exchange for freezing and ultimately
dismantling their Russian-designed graphite-moderated reactors,
capable of producing weapons-grade plutonium.
In the interim North Korea was to get 500,000 tons of heavy
fuel oil (HFO) per year, and the U.S. was to lift a 50-year-old
embargo and begin the normalization of relations. The U.S. never
delivered. The embargo was not lifted; relations were not
normalized. HFO was delivered fitfully, and three months before
the LWRs were due to come on stream -- construction was running
a decade late -- the U.S. conveniently "discovered" that the
North had an illicit highly enriched uranium program.
Although North Korea never had the special materials or the
capability to produce the quantity and quality of electricity
required for a serious program, the allegations served their
purpose. Construction of the LWRs was immediately suspended and
HFO deliveries stopped. The inevitable result was the unfreezing
of North Korea's nuclear program and a dash for nuclear-weapons
development.
In the meantime, the U.S. invasion of Iraq demonstrated that
the danger for a poor country was in not having weapons of mass
destruction -- not the other way around. In Japan, it provided a
useful impetus for reform of its U.S.-imposed "peace"
constitution and for U.S. deployment of its theater
missile-defense system, ostensibly to protect Japan from North
Korea. In actuality, it has threatened to force a nuclear arms
race with China.
North Korea's offensive threat is close to zero. Its annual
military budget is less than 0.4 percent of that of the U.S.,
Japan and South Korea combined. But a nuclear North Korea sets a
dangerous precedent that can only encourage nuclear
proliferation. Global security demands that it step back from
the brink.
Under enormous pressure from friends and foes, North Korea
essentially conceded in August, but now the U.S. wants to renege
on the basic agreement. It's a pincer movement with three prongs:
* There will be no civil nuclear power as expected -- only
electricity fed in from South Korea, where the off-switch will
be firmly in hand.
* The Korean Energy Development Organization (KEDO), which had
been responsible for LWR construction, is being formally
terminated at U.S. insistence. Two KEDO executive board members,
South Korea and the European Union, wanted the organization to
continue just in case there was a need for its expertise. Japan
sits on the U.S. side of the fence.
* The EU has tabled, and Japan has co-signed, a U.N. General
Assembly resolution -- a red flag before the North Korean bull
-- condemning North Korea for its human-rights record. No one
can be under any illusions that, on the basis of international
norms, there are serious human-rights violations in North Korea.
Grave causes for concern include re-education camps, the
treatment of those returning from illegal travel to China and
abductions of 13 Japanese citizens.
Yet the EU, after a visit by the Troika of the President in
Office of the Council -- Swedish Prime Minister Goran Persson,
EU officials Javier Solana and Chris Patten -- had not only
obtained a moratorium on missile testing, but a human rights
dialogue with the North.
Modeled on the EU's human-rights dialogue with China, the EU
was the first and only body to have such a formal mechanism for
discussion. Although the first two meetings went slowly,
perceptible progress had been made on providing information.
Then, without the knowledge of the European Commission let alone
the North Koreans, the French bounced through the Council of
Ministers a condemnatory resolution. As a result, dialogue was
abandoned by the North Koreans.
As the German philosopher Nietzsche once wrote, "Madness is
rare in individuals, but common in parties, groups and
organizations." This year the Catch-22 argument was that we must
have a resolution because there was no dialogue. Forgotten was
the fact that there was no dialogue because we had had a
resolution. Now they are playing into the hands of those
promoting preemptive deterrence.
The neocons are confident that they have painted the North
Koreans into a corner -- no nuclear power, the end of KEDO and a
U.N. human-rights condemnation. If, as a result, a resounding no
emanates from the North in Beijing, then the U.S. can move
regime change back to the top of its agenda.
Yet there are hints that the U.S. just might be suckered. South
Korea's President Roh Moo Hyun wants peaceful coexistence and
development for both the South and the North. Even though the
use of U.S. nuclear technology to satisfy North Korea's demand
for electricity is no longer an option, there may be a third way.
Russia would be delighted to get the business to provide a
proliferation-resistant nuclear reactor. It would also suit
China's strategic concerns. So, if North Korea accepts the
unacceptable in Beijing later this month, then it may well be
that the multilateral talks were a smoke screen for
off-the-record bilateral deals.
Glyn Ford is a member of the European Parliament.
The Japan Times: Nov. 23, 2005
(C) All rights reserved
*****************************************************************
5 CONTACT NASA: NO PLUTONIUM LAUNCH
Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2005 22:37:20 -0600 (CST)
CONTACT NASA: NO PLUTONIUM LAUNCH CANCEL NEW HORIZONS
NASA plans to launch 24 pounds of highly toxic plutonium (pu-238 &
pu-239) on a New Horizons mission to the planet Pluto. The launch
is set to lift-off on/after January 11, 2006 from the Kennedy Space
Center in Florida. The plutonium will be used in a Radioisotope
Thermoelectric Generator (RTG) to convert the heat from the radioactive
decay of the plutonium into on board electricity.
We are urging the public (in the U.S. and worldwide) to contact
NASA, Congress, and send a Letter to the Editor of your local
newspaper stating your opposition to this launch. See contact
information below and also talking points to make. Please help us
spread the word by passing this e-mail on to others in your community.
NASA and Congress must hear that the public does not support launching
more nuclear materials into space.
Write to:
Michael Griffin NASA Administrator 300 E. Street SW Washington DC
20546 (202) 358-0000 mgriffin@mail.hq.nasa.gov
U.S. Congressional Switchboard: (Toll-free number) 1-888-355-3588
Talking Points (Please use your own words when writing your letter)
1) NASA acknowledges in their Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)
for the New Horizons mission that there is a 1 in 300 chance of an
accident resulting in release of the plutonium. In the event of
such an accident the EIS states that the deadly plutonium could be
carried by winds for a 60-mile radius throughout Central Florida.
Clean-up costs for a plutonium accident would range from $241 million
to $1.3 billion per square mile.
2) NASA is moving toward a dramatic escalation in the numbers of
nuclear launches in the coming years. Everything from nuclear
powered bases on the moon to nuclear reactors on rockets to Mars.
The Department of Energy (DoE) is now doing a $300 million laboratory
expansion in Idaho to produce plutonium for future space missions.
3) The Pentagon has long stated that they will require nuclear
reactors to provide power for space-based weapons. NASA says that
each of its space missions will now be dual use, meaning military
and civilian at the same time.
The obvious next question is what is the military application for
nuclear power in space?
4) At a time of major fiscal crisis in the U.S. why is NASA using
public tax dollars to put the lives of the people on Earth at risk?
5) Why does NASA not invest in development of alternative space
power technologies and move away from the use of deadly plutonium?
Thank you for your support.
Global Network Against Weapons & Nuclear Power in Space PO Box 652
Brunswick, ME 04011 (207) 729-0517 (207) 319-2017 (Cell phone)
globalnet@mindspring.com http://www.space4peace.org
http://space4peace.blogspot.com (Our blog)
[demime 1.01d removed an attachment of type image/jpeg which had a
name of FitCheck1.jpg]
*****************************************************************
6 AU ABC: US planes to carry nukes during NT exercises: ex-officer.
22/11/2005. ABC News Online
The former head of the US Army's depleted uranium project says
nuclear weapons will be carried in US training exercises over
the Northern Territory, despite Federal Government guarantees
that they will not.
The joint military announcement was made last week that
Territory facilities will be the training grounds for B-52 and
B-1 bombers and B-2 stealth aircraft.
Dr Doug Rokke says even though Australia does not use nuclear
weapons, US aircraft will have them on board.
"When you look at the extensive list of weapons systems used by
the B-52, the B-1 and the B-2, it's a list of all types of
conventional and nuclear weapons and weapons containing known
uranium components," he said.
Dr Rokke has described the exercises as an environmental
disaster.
He says when the aircraft drop their bombs over the Territory,
they will leave explosive residue behind.
He says an example of such damage is the extensive bombing
range in South Dakota in the United States.
Dr Rokke says that area has turned into an environmental
catastrophe, which the US military refuses to clean up.
"Basically it's just there and continuous explosions happen,
the stuff and the contamination is spread all over a very wide
area, contaminate air water and soil for hundreds if not
thousands of miles around," he said.
The CLP Senator for the Northern Territory, Nigel Scullion,
says Dr Rokke's comments are outrageous.
"Delamere range has only been approved for conventional weapons
and that is those weapons that do not include the use of
depleted uranium or any nuclear devices," he said.
Senator Scullion says he is satisfied increased US bombing
activity in the region will be safe, despite an incident at the
Delamere Air Weapons Range earlier this year.
In August, an American FA-18 Hornet dropped a bomb which
damaged a control building at the range, near Katherine.
The United States will start regular bomber aircraft training
in the Northern Territory in the new year.
Senator Scullion says Territorians have nothing to worry about.
"Yes, something didn't go quite where it was supposed to go,
but it's still within an absolutely huge area and there have
been some changes I understand in regard to that, and they will
be completely implemented before this starts in 2006," he said.
*****************************************************************
7 Guardian Unlimited: Thatcher 'threatened to nuke Argentina'
Jon Henley in Paris
Tuesday November 22, 2005
The Guardian
Margaret Thatcher forced François Mitterrand to give her the
codes to disable Argentina's deadly French-made missiles during
the Falklands war by threatening to launch a nuclear warhead
against Buenos Aires, according to a book.
Rendez-vous - the psychoanalysis of François Mitterrand, by Ali
Magoudi, who met the late French president up to twice a week in
secrecy at his Paris practice from 1982 to 1984, also reveals
that Mr Mitterrand believed he would get his "revenge" by
building a tunnel under the Channel which would forever destroy
Britain's island status.
The book, to be published on Friday, is one of several on
France's first Socialist president to mark the 10th anniversary
of his death on January 8 1996. Despite a now tarnished
reputation, he remains a source of fascination for the French in
general and the left in particular. Rendez-vous provides
revealing insights into the man's mysterious character,
complicated past, paranoia and power complex, but nothing as
titillating as his remarks on the former British prime minister.
"Excuse me. I had a difference to settle with the Iron Lady.
That Thatcher, what an impossible woman!" the president said as
he arrived, more than 45 minutes late, on May 7 1982. "With her
four nuclear submarines in the south Atlantic, she's threatening
to unleash an atomic weapon against Argentina if I don't provide
her with the secret codes that will make the missiles we sold
the Argentinians deaf and blind." He reminded Mr Magoudi that on
May 4 an Exocet missile had struck HMS Sheffield. "To make
matters worse, it was fired from a Super-Etendard jet," he said.
"All the matériel was French!"
In words that the psychoanalyst has sworn to the publisher,
Meren Sell, are genuine, the president continued: "She's livid.
She blames me personally for this new Trafalgar ... I was
obliged to give in. She's got them now, the codes."
Mr Mitterrand - who once described Mrs Thatcher as "the eyes of
Caligula and the mouth of Marilyn Monroe" - went on: "One cannot
win against the insular syndrome of an unbridled Englishwoman.
Provoke a nuclear war for a few islands inhabited by three sheep
as hairy as they are freezing! But it's a good job I gave way.
Otherwise, I assure you, the Lady's metallic finger would have
hit the button."
France, he insisted, would have the last word. "I'll build a
tunnel under the Channel. I'll succeed where Napoleon III
failed. And do you know why she'll accept my tunnel? I'll
flatter her shopkeeper's spirit. I'll tell her it won't cost the
Crown a penny."
[UP]
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2005
*****************************************************************
8 London Times: Nuclear plan could be enriching -
Foreign Editor's Briefing
By Bronwen Maddox
Reining-in Iran's ambitions could also help others to explore
alternative fuels
IN FOUR months of extravagantly bad-tempered diplomacy, Iran's
new President has pulled off one small success. He has
sidestepped a fight with the rest of the world tomorrow over his
country's nuclear plans.
That shows a flicker of an instinct for self-preservation by
President Ahmadinejad — one of the few compliments that it is
possible to pay him since his election in June.
The reprieve, even if temporary, may have a wider benefit, too.
It may sketch out an answer to a problem growing more obvious by
the day: how to prevent the world’s renewed enthusiasm for
nuclear power leading to the spread of nuclear weapons.
Tomorrow’s meeting of the International Atomic Energy Agency
(IAEA), the United Nations’ nuclear watchdog, will not now be a
showdown at which the board of governors will refer Iran to the
UN Security Council. That long-imagined climax, shuffled on from
one quarterly meeting to the next over three years, will be
postponed yet again.
European officials are unsurprisingly keen that this is seen as
progress, not a climbdown. Up to a point. Britain, France and
Germany, the "EU3", who have taken on the burden of trying to
negotiate a solution, have more countries on their side than
ever — and more important ones.
A meeting in London on Friday between the EU3, the European
Commission, the US and Russia was the first to include Chinese
officials. China is important in putting pressure on Iran
because it is a member of the IAEA board, and a permanent member
of the UN Security Council, should the row get that far.
One senior European official said it was reassuring that there
was "a great deal of common ground". All the countries agreed
that there should be a "significant gap in the fuel cycle" —
Iran should not be allowed to master all the techniques for
making reactor fuel, which would also give it the expertise for
making weapons. The plan for the moment, then, is to push
Russia’s proposal of a fortnight ago. Iran would be allowed to
prepare uranium in the form of gas, but enrichment of uranium
into reactor fuel and reprocessing of fuel rods (another route
to a bomb) would be done in Russia.
We’ll see. Iran has avoided rejecting this, a move one European
official called "tactically sensible". But it also wants to
press ahead with its enrichment plant at Natanz.
Both China and Russia have pressed Europe to give the Russian
plan more time. It has little option but to concede. The
drawback is that momentum for a UN referral may be lost.
Tomorrow, then, Europe will press only for a strong pledge of
support from the IAEA board. It wants this to say that Iran will
not be allowed to cross the "red line" of enrichment, and that
its co-operation with the IAEA is inadequate. That is an
understatement. The report by Mohamed ElBaradei, the IAEA
Director-General, will give details of a document found in Iran
on the casting and machining of uranium into "hemispherical
forms".
This describes a bomb by almost any interpretation. Yet,
unfortunately for the European team, the document is not
absolutely firm proof that Iran has been pursuing a weapons
programme contrary to its denials. It does not prove that Iran
has sought weapons — although it points that way.
The IAEA board will also weigh up US intelligence that Iran has
been developing a warhead’ suggestive of a nuclear weapons
programme.
European officials, more cautious in relying on US intelligence
than before the Iraq war, say only that "if this is authentic,
it is extremely worrying".
At worst the Russian proposal has taken the heat off Iran. But
at best it will have pointed the way to a solution for other
countries wanting an alternative to expensive gas and oil.
Of the 30 countries that now have civil nuclear power, about two
thirds import their fuel. The trick will be to persuade those
joining the club to do the same.
The Iran problem is too urgent and intricate to be tackled as
part of this wider question. But if Iran accepts the Russian
plan, it may set the model for others to follow suit.
Copyright 2005 Times Newspapers Ltd.
*****************************************************************
9 RIA Novosti: European Russia to raise nuclear power share of electricity
22/ 11/ 2005
MOSCOW, November 22 (RIA Novosti) - Nuclear power will account
for 40%-50% of the electricity produced in European Russia
compared to the current level of 30%, a senior official of the
Federal Agency for Nuclear Power said Tuesday.
"Today, nuclear power plants meet 30% of overall electricity
demands in European Russia," Alexander Shmygin, head of the
agency's nuclear power engineering, told reporters. "There is
simply no alternative to the development of the nuclear energy
industry in Russia. We plan to increase nuclear power production
to 40%-50% of overall output in the future."
Shmygin said that to cover the energy deficit predicted for
2010, the agency planned to commission unit two of the nuclear
power plant in Volgodonsk, south of European Russia, in 2008,
the second unit at the Kalinin nuclear power plant in the
southeast, and energy unit five at the Balakovo facility.
He said Russia was working to create a new type of reactor, the
BBEP-1500. "We expect the design of the BBEP-1500 reactor, an
evolution of the BBEP-1000 rather than a completely new model,
to be completed in the middle of 2006," Shmygin said.
The new reactor will be put into operation at the
Leningradskaya nuclear power plant in 2012-2013. However, some
countries are still interested in the BBEP-1000 reactors,
Shmygin added.
He said that on December 15 Russia was expected to present the
feasibility study for the project to build a nuclear power plant
in Bulgaria whose construction was launched in 1984 with Russian
help. The tender was held in May 2005.
© 2005 "RIA Novosti"
*****************************************************************
10 RIA Novosti: Kiriyenko to make changes in nuclear industry
22/ 11/ 2005
MAGADAN (Far East), November 22 (RIA Novosti) - Sergei
Kiriyenko, the new head of Russia's Federal Agency for Nuclear
Power, will be responsible for making organizational changes in
the nuclear industry, Vladimir Putin said Tuesday.
The president said: "This may come as a surprise, but Sergei
Kiriyenko has not been brought into the government to become a
nuclear expert. That would not be enough."
According to the president, Russia should remain a leading
nuclear power, but changes need to be made in the industry.
Putin said Kiriyenko, therefore, would have to focus on the
organization of the industry.
Speaking to reporters November 17, Kiriyenko, who was appointed
head of the agency last week after serving as presidential envoy
to the Volga Federal District, said: "The industry has been
appointed the tasks of improving Russia's defense capability and
security, and ensuring non-proliferation arrangements and the
country's energy security."
Given the importance these objectives, the agency will have to
think twice before embarking on changes, Kiriyenko said.
He urged an increase in Russia's generating capacity and a
faster growth of the economy in general.
2005 "RIA Novosti"
*****************************************************************
11 NRC: Sunshine Federal Register Notice
FR Doc 05-23145
[Federal Register: November 22, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 224)]
[Notices] [Page 70640-70641] From the Federal Register Online via
GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr22no05-111]
DATES: Weeks of November 21, 28, December 5, 12, 19, 26, 2005.
PLACE: Commissioner's Conference Room, 11555 Rockville Pike,
Rockville, Maryland.
STATUS: Public and Closed.
MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: Week of November 21, 2005 Monday,
November 21, 2005 9:25 a.m. Affirmation Session (Public
Meeting)(Tentative). a. U.S. Department of Energy (High Level
Waste Repository: Pre- Applications Matters); NRC staff request
for stay of LBP-05-27 (Tentative).
b. Louisiana Energy Services, L.P. (National Enrichment
Facility). Remaining Claims in Petition for Review of LBP-05-13
(Environmental Contentions) (Tentative).
9:30 a.m. Briefing on Status of New Reactor Issues, Part 1
(Public Meeting). (Contact: Laura Dudes, 301-415-0146). This
meeting will be webcast live at the Web address-- (ACRS &
">http://www.nrc.gov> (ACRS & .
1:30 p.m. Briefing on Status of New Reactor Issues, Part 2
(Public Meeting). (Contact: Laura Dudes, 301-415-0146). This
meeting will be webcast live at the Web
address--http://www.nrc.gov .
Week of November 28, 2005--Tentative Tuesday, November 29, 2005
9:30 a.m. Discussion of Management Issues (Closed-Ex. 2).
Wednesday, November 30, 2005 9:30 a.m. Briefing on EEO Program
(Public Meeting). (Contact: Corenthis Kelley, 301-415-7380).
This meeting will be webcast live at the Web
address--http://www.nrc.gov .
Week of December 5, 2005--Tentative Thursday, December 8, 2005 1
p.m. Meeting with the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards
(ACRS). (Contact: John Larkins, 301-415-7360). This meeting will
be webcast live at the Web address--http://www.nrc.gov .
Week of December 12, 2005--Tentative Monday, December 12, 2005 9
a.m. Discussion of Security Issues (Closed-Ex. 1). Wednesday,
December 14, 2005 1:30 p.m. Discussion of Security Issues
(Closed-Ex. 1). Thursday, December 15, 2005 1:30 p.m. Briefing on
Threat Environment Assessment (Closed-Ex. 1).
Week of December 19, 2005--Tentative There are no meetings
scheduled for the Week of December 19, 2005.
Week of December 26, 2005--Tentative There are no meetings
scheduled for the Week of December 26, 2005.
*The schedule for Commission meetings is subject to change on
short notice. To verify the status of meetings call
(recording)--(301) 415- 1292. Contact person for more
information: MIchelle Schroll, (301) 415- 1662.
* * * * * The NRC Commission Meeting Schedule can be found on the
Internet at:
http://www.nrc.gov/what-we-do/policy-making/schedule.html. * * *
* * The NRC provides reasonable accommodation to individuals with
disabilities where appropriate. If you need a reasonable
accommodation to participate in these public meetings, or need
this meeting notice or the transcript or other information from
the public meetings in another format (e.g., braille, large
print), please notify the NRC's Disability Program Coordinator,
August Spector, at 301-415-7080, TDD: 301-415- 2100, or by e-mail
at
[[Page 70641]]
aks@nrc.gov. Determinations on requests for reasonable
accommodation will be made on a case-by-case basis.
* * * * * This notice is distributed by mail to several hundred
subscribers; if you no longer wish to receive it, or would like
to be added to the distribution, please contact the Office of the
Secretary, Washington, DC 20555 (301-415-1969). In addition,
distribution of this meeting notice over the Internet system is
available. If you are interested in receiving this Commission
meeting schedule electronically, please send an electronic
message to dkw@nrc.gov. Dated: November 17, 2005.
R. Michelle Schroll, Office of the Secretary.
[FR Doc. 05-23145 Filed 11-18-05; 10:53 am] BILLING CODE
7590-01-M
*****************************************************************
12 BBC: Nuclear power's cost conundrum
Last Updated: Tuesday, 22 November 2005
By Ben Richardson BBC News business reporter
[Protestor's sign showing the nuclear symbol]
The nuclear question will dominate UK headlines over the next
year
Despite all the arguments surrounding nuclear power, there is one
topic upon which supporters and critics agree - it is extremely
difficult to put an exact price on how much it will all cost.
Critics argue that costs are being hidden as the industry looks
to woo the public with a promise of cheaper, safer and greener
electricity.
Power firms, meanwhile, are reticent about putting their names to
figures as the regulatory and business environment keeps
changing, and they are aware that any jump in costs would reflect
badly on them.
Even academics are having a tricky time crunching the numbers and
coming up with a flat rate of comparison that would allow nuclear
power to be judged solely on its economic merits.
US view
Ernest Moniz is a professor at the Massachusetts Institute of
Technology (MIT) and co-authored a report called the Future of
Nuclear Power.
Written in 2003, the paper helped to set US energy policy and
Professor Moniz says there is no reason why the core findings
about price would need to be changed for today's market.
According to the report, electricity generated by a nuclear plant
in 2003 was significantly more expensive - about 60% more pricey
- than power from traditional gas and coal-driven plants.
[The Sellafield nuclear plant in Cumbria] Nuclear firms want to
be seen as a key part of future power policy
However - and this is a big however - there are number of
additional factors that need to be taken into account.
Since the report was written, the prices of both gas and coal
have surged, making power from those two sources far more
expensive.
Carbon taxes - taxes put on forms of power generation that
produce greenhouse gases - also need to be taken into account.
The amount of time needed to construct a nuclear plant is also a
factor - the shorter the better - as is the financing put in
place to pay for large building costs - the cheaper the better.
Better value?
The upshot of all this tweaking is that in today's market the gap
between the cost of nuclear power and traditional gas and
coal-generated electricity has narrowed.
However, the real size of the gap - if there is one at all - is
proving harder to pin down.
The main way of measuring the cost of output is calculating the
price of a kilowatt hour (kWh) of electricity.
[German police guarding a train of nuclear waste] Dealing with
nuclear waste is an international headache
In a recent report, which has proved controversial, the Royal
Academy of Engineering estimated that nuclear plants generated
power at a cost of 2.26 pence per kWh.
Gas-fuelled power stations produced a kilowatt hour at a cost of
3.64 pence, while coal stations were measured at 3.33 pence.
But even these figures need to be qualified as the Academy did
not take into account capital costs, which include the building
of power plants. These are a major hurdle for the nuclear
industry as plants can carry a price tag of about £2bn each.
Bargain basement
Environmental groups dismiss the majority of figures as too low,
claiming that the nuclear industry has consistently run over
budget on construction and failed to give accurate
decommissioning costs.
Environmental group Friends of the Earth reckons that UK
taxpayers are facing a bill of more than £50bn to clean up the
nuclear material that has already been created.
[Demonstrators protesting against the transportation of nuclear
waste] The topic of nuclear power provokes strong emotions and
opposition
"Adding to that cost would be financial madness, and divert
resources that would be better spent on energy efficiency and
renewables," it argues.
According to the New Economics Foundation, a think-tank based in
London, the industry-estimated costs of shutting down nuclear
power plants and dealing with nuclear waste are only half of what
they should be.
On top of that, critics claim that power companies are only
likely to get the financing they need to build nuclear plants if
they are given government guarantees about the price at which
they can sell their power.
In other words, the UK would have to fence off part of its power
industry to shoehorn in nuclear plants and ensure their survival.
Stance shift
Over the next year the debate over nuclear fuel is set to
dominate headlines as the government reviews its energy policy.
It has neither ruled out nor ruled in building new nuclear plants
to replace those that are due to stop production over the next 15
years.
The problem facing decision makers, the experts say, is that the
only way to accurately work out how much nuclear power really
costs is to build plants, and a lot of them.
And that is not a question of economics, but of policy.
*****************************************************************
13 BBC: Blair says nuclear choice needed
Last Updated: Tuesday, 22 November 2005
[Dungeness nuclear power station]
Can nuclear power help against climate change?
Tony Blair says "controversial and difficult" decisions will have
to be taken over the need for nuclear power to tackle the UK
energy crisis.
The prime minister told the Liaison Committee, made up of the 31
MPs who chair Commons committees, any decision will be taken in
the national interest.
He is said to believe nuclear power can improve the security of
the UK's energy supply and also help on climate change.
A government review of energy options is expected to be announced
next week.
Other subjects covered include: + Mr Blair defended his decision
not to allow the ex-BBC director general Lord Birt, employed as a
"blue skies thinker" in Number 10, to be grilled by MPs. Mr Blair
said he felt Stephen Aldridge, acting head of the Downing Street
Strategy Unit, was "best placed" to answer MPs' questions.
+ Mr Blair was asked if he was "in a hurry" to complete his
health and education reforms before he left office. Mr Blair
defended his plans and said he hoped the "basic elements" of
reform would be in place by the time he stepped down. He did not
regret abolishing grant maintained schools in 1997, which had
"unfair admissions and unfair funding".
+ The government's record on promoting equality between ethnic
communities was as good as any in Europe, said Mr Blair.
+ He accepted that legislation to grant an amnesty to Northern
Ireland terrorists on the run would cause "anger and anguish",
but said it was needed to give momentum to the stalled peace
process.
+ Computer projects in government were "always difficult", he
said, but said the NHS and criminal justice system were areas
where IT "can deliver huge savings".
+ Mr Blair said it was "rubbish" for one of the 7 July London
bombers to suggest that his grievance against the UK was that it
was oppressing Muslims.
+ Mr Blair said terrorism would be defeated if Iraq and
Afghanistan became stable democracies. But he said he had been
"too optimistic" about the eradication of the heroin trade in
Afghanistan. He could not be sure of the exact numbers of
civilians killed in Iraq.
+ Mr Blair said if Iran was to develop a nuclear weapons
capability it would be a "very serious threat to world
stability". He was also concerned about Iran's support for
terrorism in the Middle East and its "meddling in Iraq".
+ Mr Blair said he had made it clear that Guantanamo Bay was "an
anomaly that sooner or later has to be dealt with".
The two and a half hour session in a House of Commons committee
room began with questions about whether he would be prepared to
take unpopular decisions on issues such as climate change and
nuclear power.
Mr Blair replied: "With some of the issues to do with climate
change, and you can see it with the debate about nuclear power,
there are going to be difficult and controversial decisions
government has got to take.
About energy security a supply that will mean issues that are
bound to be extremely controversial Tony Blair
"And in the end it has got to do what it believes to be right in
the long-term interests of the country."
He conceded that there were strongly held positions on issues
such as nuclear power.
"About energy security and supply that will mean issues that are
bound to be extremely controversial," he said.
But he insisted that the reason why people were coming round to
the nuclear option was "because the facts have changed".
*****************************************************************
14 Herald: Blair goes for the nuclear option
Web Issue 2404 November 22 2005
MICHAEL SETTLE, Chief UK political correspondent
Power facts (PDF)
DOWNING Street last night gave a strong hint Tony Blair is
preparing to give approval for a new generation of nuclear power
stations in Britain.
The prospect is certain to provoke hostility from much of the
public and environmental campaigners, but could also mean
another bitter battle with some of his Labour colleagues at
Westminster.
It is suggested that Mr Blair is pushing for quicker planning
procedures so construction can begin on the first of the
stations within the next 10 years. They are expected to be built
on existing sites to reduce public opposition.
But many parts of the Scottish Parliament and Scottish
Executive, which is responsible for granting planning permission
for the building of any new nuclear power stations north of the
border, would be likely to fight against the plans.
Last month, Jack McConnell, the first minister, admitted that,
while it was right to "keep energy options open . . . it's
absolutely proper that we don't consider the establishment of a
new nuclear power station generating in Scotland in advance of
decisions being made that would resolve the issue of nuclear
waste."
Nine nuclear power stations are due to close in the next 10
years, including Hunterston B in Ayrshire in 2011. Scotland's
other major station, at Torness in east Lothian, is due to close
in 2023. The three other plants Hunterston A, Dounreay in
Caithness, and Chapelcross in Dumfries and Galloway have
already been closed.
Yesterday, No 10 said a review of its energy policy was to
begin. It is expected to publish its findings next summer.
Asked about reports that the prime minister had accepted the
need for a new generation of nuclear power stations, his
spokesman said the government would consider "all the options",
but that "a simple fact of life" was that wind power was "not
100% effective".
The government is set to miss its 2010 target of reducing carbon
emissions by 20%. CO2-free nuclear power meets almost a quarter
of Britain's energy needs but that will fall to just 4% by 2010
if reactors are not replaced.
Mr Blair's spokesman was keen to emphasise the two crucial
issues of climate change and security of energy supply. He said
that a new review was needed, despite the fact the government
produced an energy white paper just two years ago, "because
circumstances are constantly changing".
The prime minister is said to have been convinced of the nuclear
argument by advisers.
On Sunday, Sir David King, the government's chief scientific
adviser, said that faced with the reality of global warming, the
equation was simple. "The important thing here is: give the
green light to the private sector and the utilities and give
them nuclear as an option."
Pressure from business leaders is building on the government to
make a quick decision.
Sir Digby Jones, director general of the CBI, said the
government should stop prevaricating, adding that business and
investors needed certainty over energy supply.
The prospect of new nuclear power stations was yesterday hailed
and derided in equal measure.
Brian Wilson, former energy minister, said: "If the guiding
imperative is carbon reduction, then we need both nuclear and
renewables; the two are not in conflict.
"If the imperative is security of supply, then we need to reduce
the overdependence on imported gas.
"Again, you come back to nuclear. We should replace nuclear with
nuclear."
But Michael Meacher, the former environment secretary, said: "We
need nuclear like a hole in the head."
Richard Lochhead, the SNP shadow environment minister, called on
Mr Blair to "come clean" over his nuclear plans.
He claimed that the vast majority of Scots were opposed to the
"dirty, dangerous and expensive source of energy".
Charles Kennedy, Liberal Democrat leader, said earlier this
year: "Granting planning permission for new nuclear power
stations is the responsibility of the Scottish Executive.
"I cannot foresee circumstances in which my colleagues in the
Scottish Parliament would support that."
The Engineering Employers' Federation said the government
should back replacement nuclear builds as it could be the most
competitive form of energy. The GMB union claimed it would
secure Britain's energy supply, and maintain jobs.
However, Tony Juniper, the director of Friends of the Earth,
derided the nuclear power option as "unnecessary, unsafe and
uneconomic".
Copyright © Newsquest (Herald & Times) Limited. All Rights
*****************************************************************
15 The Herald: A no-brainer for some, but plans would divide country
Web Issue 2404 November 22 2005
MICHAEL SETTLE November 22 2005
Analysis
Sir David King, the government's chief scientific adviser, gave
the impression at the weekend that the question of whether
Britain needed new nuclear power stations was a no-brainer.
Pointing out the reality of global warming, he argued the
equation was simple. Britain has pledged to cut its carbon
emissions by 20% come 2010. But it now appears odds-on that it
will miss its target, with some pundits predicting the reduction
could be below 15%.
Sir David pointed out nuclear power was a carbon-free source of
power but that the UK's 12 stations, which currently provide 22%
of the nation's energy needs, will reduce to just three in 15
years' time, producing just 4% of our energy.
No 10 was equally adamant yesterday that renewables like wind
power were "not 100% effective". Tony Blair's spokesman,
questioned over whether the prime minister had become privately
convinced of the nuclear argument, insisted the government
review would look at "all the options". But the body language
seemed clear: the UK needs the nuclear option to help drive down
greenhouse gases and help secure our energy supply.
That is quite a reverse from the energy white paper of 2003,
which said that while the nuclear option could not be ruled out
for the future, there was no clear economic case for it.
It indicated how the issues of climate change and supply
security were changing minds across Europe. Mr Blair has made
much of his commitment on tackling global warming, making it one
of the two key priorities of Britain's presidency of the G8. But
even efforts here to cut emissions are faltering.
With rising energy costs this winter, security of supply is also
vital with business leaders getting jittery. Relying more on gas
and oil imports could leave Britain hostage to fickle foreign
suppliers, rocketing prices and a lack of supply due to
terrorist attacks or environmental disasters.
As many as 28 nations are said to be planning new nuclear power
stations. China alone is preparing to build 20 to meet the vast
energy needs of its booming economy.
A decision to go for new nuclear build will spark a fierce
public debate. The advantages of nuclear power are that it
produces no greenhouse gas emissions, has low fuel costs and is
reliable.
However, its waste is dangerous for thousands of years, plants
take at least five years to build, it has high maintenance and
decommissioning costs and there is the chance of an accident.
A poll during the general election showed 17% of Scots backed
more nuclear power stations; 73% supported more windfarms.
Mr Blair will face hostility from green campaigners and members
of the Labour party at Westminster and possibly even within
government.
Moreover, if the prime minister were to consider building a new
nuclear power station in Scotland, then he would have to take on
not just many parts of the Scottish Parliament but also the
Lib-Lab Scottish Executive, which can block his designs as they
have planning powers. One suspicion is that, privately, Jack
McConnell, the first minister, would be against it.
With his time running out, the prime minister, already battered
and bruised over his anti-terror legislation, looks about to
have yet another bitter battle on his hands.
Copyright © Newsquest (Herald & Times) Limited. All Rights
*****************************************************************
16 Moneyweb: Pebble Bed Modular Reactor at the Graphite starting-blocks
with SGL Carbon of Germany
South Africa's leading source for independent investment
information
Wed, 23 Nov 2005
In Business Today
Posted: Tue, 22 Nov 2005 11:10 | © Moneyweb Holdings Limited,
1997-2005
From PBMR:
In the largest contract signed to date by world first nuclear
technology vendor, PBMR (Pty) Ltd, the company is signalling its
commitment to delivering the demonstration pebble bed modular
reactor to its client, Eskom, by 2010. Construction is
anticipated to start early 2007, and the SGL Carbon contract
paves the way for the procurement of Long-Lead Items associated
with the manufacture of the Core Structure Ceramics for the
Demonstration Power Plant (DPP). This will include the
manufacture of the graphite feedstock material which will be
machined to PBMR specifications and will shape and support the
reactor’s pebble bed core.
“This is a significant moment in the progress of the pebble bed
modular reactor”, said Brent Hegger, Project Director:
Demonstration Power Plant. “It is firstly the largest contract
we have placed to date, it also ranks one of the first contracts
for the procurement of the PBMR hardware range, and if anyone is
missing the point, this is a sure sign that we have every
intention of building the demo plant once all legal and
administrative aspects have been completed”.
PBMR (Pty) Ltd has re-opened its Public Participation Process
(PPP) on its Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) on the
decision of the Cape High Court, and this re-opening also caters
for the increase in capacity of the demonstration power plant
from 110MWe (302MWth) to 165MWe (400MWth). The nuclear vendor
awaits a renewed Record of Decision (RoD) and a licence from the
National Nuclear Regulator (NNR) to begin construction.
PBMR has a long history of involvement with SGL Carbon Group,
and have in the past placed a few smaller contracts. Plans are
underway for the awarding of a further contract in the future
with special emphasis on the manufacturing of the Core Structure
Ceramics for the Demonstration Power Plant.
The Reactor Pressure Vessel of the pebble bed modular reactor
will house the Core Barrel Assembly, a metallic cylinder, which
will consist of an internal graphite boundary, or Core Structure
Ceramics.
Graphite is a major component of the pebble bed modular reactor
functionality and is a central part of the passive decay heat
removal path which is a major reason why the pebble bed modular
reactor is a globally accepted safe design that eliminates core
damage. This means that the core of the pebble bed modular
reactor cannot achieve the status of “core melt”, making this a
Generation IV, or leading technology, nuclear reactor.
© Moneyweb Holdings Limited, 1997-2005 | Terms &Conditions |
*****************************************************************
17 business.iafrica.com: SA inks nuclear reactor deal
Tue, 22 Nov 2005
South African nuclear vendor PBMR (Pty) Ltd has signed a
contract with German company SGL Carbon for the supply of
hardware for the construction of an envisaged demonstration
power plant.
The contract, worth about 20-million (or R154-million), was the
largest hardware order placed by PBMR so far, the company said
in a statement on Tuesday.
"The company is signalling its commitment to delivering the
demonstration pebble bed modular reactor to its client, Eskom,
by 2010."
Construction
Construction on the reactor is to start in early 2007, the
statement read.
The SGL Carbon contract related to the procurement of long-lead
items associated with the manufacture of core structure ceramics
for the 110mW power plant.
"This is a sure sign that we have every intention of building
the demo plant once all legal and administrative aspects have
been completed," PBMR said.
The company has reopened a process of public comment on its
environmental impact assessment for the project. It was awaiting
a renewed go-ahead from the government and a licence from the
National Nuclear Regulator to start construction.
The PBMR (pebble bed modular reactor) project entails the
building of a demonstration reactor near Cape Town, and a pilot
fuel plant near Pretoria. The first commercial PBMR modules were
planned for 2013.
The government has indicated its intent to eventually produce up
to 5000mW of power from pebble bed reactors in South Africa
equating to between 20 and 30 PBMR reactors of 165mW each, the
company said.
PBMR is responsible for design and construction of the project.
Sapa
Copyright © 2002-2005 iafrica.com, a division of
*****************************************************************
18 DesMoinesRegister.com: Board to weigh utility's nuclear plant sale
Alliant Energy says owning Duane Arnold no longer makes sense.
By REGISTER BUSINESS WRITER
November 22, 2005
Today, the Iowa Utilities Board will decide whether the sale of
the state's only nuclear power plant is in Iowa's best interest.
Alliant Energy, majority owner of the Duane Arnold Energy Center
near Palo, says it no longer makes sense for a utility company
to own a single nuclear plant. Alliant wants to sell to FPL
Group, a Juno Beach, Fla., company that owns and operates six
nuclear plants.
John Perkins insisted that the sale would be bad for Alliant
customers. Perkins heads the Office of Consumer Advocate, a
state agency that represents the public in utilities cases.
Perkins said if the sale goes through, rates will rise as
Alliant seeks other, more costly power sources.
Alliant has been supported by a chorus of lawmakers, workers and
some customers urging the utilities board to approve the sale.
But not all customers said they think it's a good idea. The Iowa
Consumers Coalition, representing large business electric
customers, said there are risks in the proposed sale.
No one claims that Duane Arnold poses operational risks. The
plant is run by Nuclear Management Co., which manages four other
Midwestern plants. Tom Aller , Alliant's president of Iowa
operations, and Perkins agreed that the plant and its management
are sound.
Alliant spokesman Ryan Stensland said the company would not
renew the plant's license after it expires in 2014. Without
relicensing, the plant would close.
"We're not going to spend the dollars and continue to expose our
customers to these (financial) risks, particularly when we own
70 percent of one facility," Stensland said.
During the summer, FPL Group won an auction for Alliant's share
in the plant with a $383 million bid and a promise to relicense
the plant. Under the sales agreement, Alliant would continue to
buy power from FPL until 2014, which Stensland said guarantees
customers the power and the rates they now receive.
Consumer advocate Perkins said Alliant would eventually need to
find another power source, and buying power on the open market
or building a plant would be more costly than keeping a plant
the utility already owns.
The Iowa Consumers Coalition took issue with the agreement to
buy power from FPL. In testimony filed with the utilities board,
the coalition's consultant said the agreement leaves FPL free to
seek buyers willing to pay more than Alliant. FPL would have to
refund Alliant's payments, but the utility would be left to find
power at more costly market rates, the coalition said.
The coalition recommends restructuring the sales agreement.
Protections should be required to ensure power, and the contract
should be extended to 2034 - the life of the plant.
Utilities board spokesman Rob Hillesland said changing the Duane
Arnold sales agreement is unlikely because a single change would
influence the rest of the deal.
Alliant insists that customer rates will be protected under the
agreement. Stensland projects $23 million in customer savings
from the agreement and $33 million in net proceeds from the sale
of the plant. That money would go into a fund that could mean
customer refunds or credits, or it could be used to offset
construction costs of a new power plant.
Perkins said the board could penalize Alliant for "imprudent
management." If Alliant builds a plant or buys power on the
market, the utility will have to appear before the utilities
board for a rate case. If new power costs more than it would
have cost to run Duane Arnold, the board could prevent Alliant
from seeking to recover those costs from consumers.
Stensland said Alliant has plans for new power generation, but
they are independent of Duane Arnold. "By 2014, we'll be in the
position to determine what's in the best interest of our
customers," he said.
*****************************************************************
19 AFP: Blair pressed over nuclear power option
Tue Nov 22,12:24 PM ET
LONDON (AFP) - Britain faces "difficult and controversial"
decisions over its future sources of energy, Prime Minister Tony
Blair" /> said amid speculation that he is leaning towards the
nuclear option.
Media reports this week suggested that Blair is prepared to
resurrect the country's nuclear energy programme amid calls from
business leaders to tackle growing concerns about power supplies
in years to come.
In October, Blair himself called for an "open-minded" debate
about nuclear power.
But he sidestepped the issue when pressed by members of the
Commons Liaison Committee, which is made up of chairmen of all
the lower house of parliament's select committees and
scrutinises government policy and legislation.
Blair said the government would face "difficult and
controversial decisions" connected with climate change and the
use of nuclear energy
A decision about the matter would be forthcoming soon, he added,
stressing that government "has got to do what it believes to be
right in the long-term interests of the country."
Britain has a dozen nuclear power stations which were mostly
built in the 1960s and 1970s. They provide about a quarter of
the country's energy needs, compared with 40 percent for natural
gas.
This week, the Confederation of British Industry (CBI) said
energy requirements were top of the business agenda because of
concerns about gas supplies and rising fuel costs.
Reports suggest Blair will use the CBI's annual conference in
December to announce the government's shift in direction plus a
review into the cost of nuclear energy compared with other
renewable power sources.
Support for nuclear energy is mixed and Blair is likely to face
opposition if he backs plans for a new generation of nuclear
reactors.
Proponents argue that reactors emit relatively low levels of
carbon dioxide, thus helping cut greenhouse gas emissions that
lead to global warming.
Others, notably environmentalists, point to the unsolved problem
of disposing of nuclear waste as well as potential disasters
like that at Chernobyl in the former Soviet Union in 1986 or the
threat from terrorist attack.
The Campaign for Nuclear Disarmement (CND) criticised what it
called "the government's attempt to repackage nuclear power as
the clean green solution to climate change".
CND chairwoman Kate Hudson said nuclear power was "dirty and
dangerous," saying it cost more and took longer to construct
than wind power projects as well as highlighting the industry's
link to nuclear weapons.
"We need a safe, genuinely sustainable, global and green
solution to our energy needs," she said in a statement.
"A combination of renewable energy sources and energy efficiency
measures which are safe, effective and proven technologies are
available now. The government must live up to its Kyoto
agreements and invest in sustainable clean solutions to climate
change."
Copyright © 2005 Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
20 Slovak news: Time to pay for Bohunice plant
November 21 - November 27, 2005, Volume 11, Number 45
ELECTRICITY consumers will pay the Sk15 billion (€385 million)
debt in the state fund for the liquidation of nuclear
facilities, which was created between 1972 and 1995, when the
nuclear power plant in Bohunice failed to pay the contributions
for its shutdown, the Pravda daily wrote.
According to the draft law on nuclear account, which should
replace the fund for the liquidation of nuclear facilities, the
debt will be eliminated between 2007 and 2017 through an extra
charge of Sk0.10 per kilowatt-hour for the next 10 to 12 years.
According to Pravda, the price of electricity should thus
increase by around 2.6 percent due to the extra charge.
Italian company Enel, which will soon take a majority stake in
Slovak power producer Slovenské elektrárne (SE), which include
the Bohunice plant, refused to pay the debt.
The new law also proposes to decrease the SE contribution for
the liquidation of nuclear facilities. Currently the payment
represents Sk2.6 billion (€66 million). After 2007, the
operators of nuclear facilities will pay just Sk2 billion (€51
million).
Compiled by Martina Jurinová from press reports
The Slovak Spectator cannot vouch for the accuracy of the
information presented in its Flash News postings.
[11/22/2005 2:04:59 PM]
Copyright © 1998-2003 The Rock spol. s r.o. All rights
*****************************************************************
21 NRC: Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards; Meeting Notice
FR Doc E5-6412
[Federal Register: November 22, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 224)]
[Notices] [Page 70638-70640] From the Federal Register Online via
GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr22no05-109]
In accordance with the purposes of sections 29 and 182b. of the
Atomic Energy Act (42 U.S.C. 2039, 2232b), the Advisory Committee
on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS) will hold a meeting on December
7-10, 2005, 11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland. The date
of this meeting was previously published in the Federal Register
on Wednesday, November 24, 2004 (69 FR 68412).
Wednesday, December 7, 2005, Conference Room T-2B3, Two White
Flint North, Rockville, Maryland 1 p.m.-1:05 p.m.: Opening
Remarks by the ACRS Chairman (Open)--The ACRS Chairman will make
opening remarks regarding the conduct of the meeting.
1:05 p.m.-3 p.m.: Final Review of the Vermont Yankee Extended
Power Uprate Application and the Associated Safety Evaluation
(Open)--The Committee will hear presentations by and hold
discussions with representatives of the Entergy Nuclear
Operations, Inc. and the NRC staff regarding the 20% power uprate
application for the Vermont Yankee Nuclear Plant and the NRC
staff's associated Safety Evaluation.
3:30 p.m.-5:30 p.m.: Draft ACRS report on the NRC Safety Research
Program (Open)--The Committee will discuss the draft ACRS report
to the Commission on the NRC Safety Research Program.
5:45 p.m.-6:45 p.m.: Preparation for Meeting with the NRC
Commissioners (Open)--The Committee will discuss the topics
scheduled for discussion with the NRC Commissioners between 1 and
3 p.m. on Thursday, December 8, 2005.
[[Page 70639]] Thursday, December 8, 2005, Conference Room T-2B3,
Two White Flint North, Rockville, Maryland 8:30 a.m.-8:35 a.m.:
Opening Remarks by the ACRS Chairman (Open)-- The ACRS Chairman
will make opening remarks regarding the conduct of the meeting.
8:35 a.m.-10 a.m.: Early Site Permit Application for the Grand
Gulf Nuclear Station and the Associated Final Safety Evaluation
Report (Open)--The Committee will hear presentations by and hold
discussions with representatives of the System Energy Resources,
Inc. and the NRC staff regarding the early site permit
application for the Grand Gulf Nuclear Station and the associated
final Safety Evaluation Report prepared by the NRC staff.
10:15 a.m.-11:45 a.m.: Draft Final Generic Letter, ``Impact of
Potentially Degraded Hemyc/MT Fire Barrier Materials on
Compliance with Fire Protection Regulations'' (Open )--The
Committee will hear presentations by and hold discussions with
representatives of the NRC staff regarding the draft final
Generic Letter on ``Impact of Potentially Degraded Hemyc/MT Fire
Barrier Materials on Compliance with Fire Protection
Regulations'' and a summary of the NRC staff's resolution of
public comments received on the public comment version of this
Generic Letter.
1 p.m.-3 p.m.: Meeting with the NRC Commissioners, Commissioners'
Conference Room, One White Flint North, Rockville, MD (Open)--The
Committee will meet with the NRC Commissioners to discuss the
following topics: Overview by the ACRS Chairman (License Renewal,
Early Site Permits, and Future ACRS Activities); Issues Related
to New Plant Licensing (including Technology Neutral Framework);
Proposed Alternative Embrittlement Criteria in 10 CFR 50.46; Fire
Protection Matters; and Power Uprate Technical Issues.
3:30 p.m.-5 p.m.: Proposed Program Plan and Advance Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking for Risk-Informing 10 CFR Part 50 (Open)--The
Committee will hear presentations by and hold discussions with
representatives of the NRC staff regarding the proposed Program
Plan and the Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for
Risk-Informing 10 CFR Part 50, and related matters.
5:15 p.m.-7 p.m.: Preparation of ACRS Reports (Open)--The
Committee will discuss proposed ACRS reports on matters
considered during this meeting.
Friday December 9, 2005, Conference Room T-2B3, Two White Flint
North, Rockville, Maryland 8:30 a.m.-8:35 a.m.: Opening Remarks
by the ACRS Chairman (Open)-- The ACRS Chairman will make opening
remarks regarding the conduct of the meeting.
8:35 a.m.-10 a.m.: Staff Activities Associated with Responding to
the Commission's Staff Requirements Memorandum (SRM) Related to
Safety Conscious Work Environment and Safety Culture (Open)--The
Committee will hear presentations by and hold discussions with
representatives of the NRC staff regarding staff activities
associated with responding to the Commission's SRM related to
safety conscious work environment and safety culture, and related
matters.
10:15 a.m.-11:15 a.m.: Future ACRS Activities/Report of the
Planning and Procedures Subcommittee (Open)--The Committee will
discuss the recommendations of the Planning and Procedures
Subcommittee regarding items proposed for consideration by the
full Committee during future meetings. Also, it will hear a
report of the Planning and Procedures Subcommittee on matters
related to the conduct of ACRS business, including anticipated
workload and member assignments.
11:15 a.m.-11:30 a.m.: Reconciliation of ACRS Comments and
Recommendations (Open)--The Committee will discuss the responses
from the NRC Executive Director for Operations to comments and
recommendations included in recent ACRS reports and letters.
11:30 a.m.-12 Noon: Election of ACRS Officers for CY 2006
(Open)-- The Committee will elect Chairman and Vice Chairman for
the ACRS and Member-at-Large for the Planning and Procedures
Subcommittee for CY 2006.
1:30 p.m.-3:30 p.m.: Draft ACRS Report on the NRC Safety Research
Program (Open)--The Committee will discuss the draft ACRS report
to the Commission on the NRC Safety Research Program.
3:45 p.m.-6:45 p.m.: Preparation of ACRS Reports (Open)--The
Committee will discuss proposed ACRS reports.
Saturday, December 10, 2005, Conference Room T-2B3, Two White
Flint North, Rockville, Maryland 8:30 a.m.-12:30 p.m.:
Preparation of ACRS Reports (Open)--The Committee will continue
its discussion of proposed ACRS reports.
12:30 p.m.-p.m.: Miscellaneous (Open)--The Committee will discuss
matters related to the conduct of Committee activities and
matters and specific issues that were not completed during
previous meetings, as time and availability of information
permit.
Procedures for the conduct of and participation in ACRS meetings
were published in the Federal Register on September 29, 2005 (70
FR 56936). In accordance with those procedures, oral or written
views may be presented by members of the public, including
representatives of the nuclear industry. Electronic recordings
will be permitted only during the open portions of the meeting.
Persons desiring to make oral statements should notify the
Cognizant ACRS staff named below five days before the meeting, if
possible, so that appropriate arrangements can be made to allow
necessary time during the meeting for such statements. Use of
still, motion picture, and television cameras during the meeting
may be limited to selected portions of the meeting as determined
by the Chairman. Information regarding the time to be set aside
for this purpose may be obtained by contacting the Cognizant ACRS
staff prior to the meeting. In view of the possibility that the
schedule for ACRS meetings may be adjusted by the Chairman as
necessary to facilitate the conduct of the meeting, persons
planning to attend should check with the Cognizant ACRS staff if
such rescheduling would result in major inconvenience.
Further information regarding topics to be discussed, whether the
meeting has been canceled or rescheduled, as well as the
Chairman's ruling on requests for the opportunity to present oral
statements and the time allotted therefor can be obtained by
contacting Mr. Sam Duraiswamy, Cognizant ACRS staff
(301-415-7364), between 7:30 a.m. and 4:15 p.m., e.t. ACRS
meeting agenda, meeting transcripts, and letter reports are
available through the NRC Public Document Room at pdr@nrc.gov, or
by calling the PDR at 1-800-397-4209, or from the Publicly
Available Records System (PARS) component of NRC's document
system (ADAMS) which is accessible from the NRC Web site at
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html or
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/ (ACRS &
oc-collections/ (ACRS & ACNW Mtg schedules/agendas).
Videoteleconferencing service is available for observing open
sessions of ACRS meetings. Those wishing to use this service for
observing ACRS meetings should contact Mr. Theron Brown, ACRS
Audio Visual Technician (301-415-8066), between 7:30 a.m. and
3:45 p.m., e.t., at least 10 days before the meeting to ensure
the availability of this
[[Page 70640]] service. Individuals or organizations requesting
this service will be responsible for telephone line charges and
for providing the equipment and facilities that they use to
establish the videoteleconferencing link. The availability of
videoteleconferencing services is not guaranteed.
The ACRS meeting dates for Calendar Year 2006 are provided below:
-----------------------------------------------------------------
------- ACRS meeting No. Meeting dates
-----------------------------------------------------------------
------- January 2006 (No Meeting).
529............................. February 9-11, 2006.
530............................. March 9-11, 2006.
531............................. April 6-8, 2006.
532............................. May 4-6, 2006.
533............................. May 31--June 1-2, 2006.
534............................. July 12-14, 2006. August 2006
(No Meeting).
535............................. September 7-9, 2006.
536............................. October 4-6, 2006.
537............................. November 1-3, 2006.
538............................. December 7-9, 2006.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
------- Dated: November 16, 2005.
Andrew L. Bates, Advisory Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. E5-6412 Filed 11-21-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
*****************************************************************
22 NRC: Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards Subcommittee Meeting on
FR Doc E5-6413
[Federal Register: November 22, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 224)]
[Notices] [Page 70640] From the Federal Register Online via GPO
Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr22no05-110]
Planning and Procedures; Notice of Meeting The ACRS Subcommittee
on Planning and Procedures will hold a meeting on December 7,
2005, Room T-2B1, 11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland.
The entire meeting will be open to public attendance, with the
exception of a portion that may be closed pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
552b(c)(2) and (6) to discuss organizational and personnel
matters that relate solely to the internal personnel rules and
practices of the ACRS, and information the release of which would
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
The agenda for the subject meeting shall be as follows:
Wednesday, December 7, 2005, 10 a.m.-11:30 a.m. The Subcommittee
will discuss proposed ACRS activities and related matters. The
Subcommittee will gather information, analyze relevant issues and
facts, and formulate proposed positions and actions, as
appropriate, for deliberation by the full Committee.
Members of the public desiring to provide oral statements and/or
written comments should notify the Designated Federal Official,
Mr. Sam Duraiswamy (telephone: 301-415-7364) between 7:30 a.m.
and 4:15 p.m. (e.t.) five days prior to the meeting, if possible,
so that appropriate arrangements can be made. Electronic
recordings will be permitted only during those portions of the
meeting that are open to the public.
Further information regarding this meeting can be obtained by
contacting the Designated Federal Official between 7:30 a.m. and
4:15 p.m. (e.t.). Persons planning to attend this meeting are
urged to contact the above named individual at least two working
days prior to the meeting to be advised of any potential changes
in the agenda.
Dated: November 15, 2005.
Michael L. Scott, Branch Chief, ACRS/ACNW.
[FR Doc. E5-6413 Filed 11-21-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
*****************************************************************
23 NRC: Saxton Nuclear Experimental Corporation and GPU Nuclear, Inc.;
FR Doc E5-6414
[Federal Register: November 22, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 224)]
[Notices] [Page 70638] From the Federal Register Online via GPO
Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr22no05-108] [[Page 70638]]
Notice of Termination of Saxton Nuclear Experimental Corporation
Facility Amended Facility License No. DPR-4 AGENCY: Nuclear
Regulatory Commission.
ACTION: Notice of Termination of the Saxton Nuclear Experimental
Corporation (SNEC) and GPU Nuclear, Inc., SNEC Facility Amended
Facility License No. DPR-4.
SUMMARY: The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is noticing the
termination of Amended Facility License No. DPR-4 (NRC Docket No.
50- 146) for the SNEC facility near Saxton, Pennsylvania.
Background: The SNEC facility is in Bedford County, Pennsylvania.
The SNEC facility operated from 1962 to 1972. It was mainly used
for research in various aspects of power reactor technology and
to train personnel. The reactor was licensed at 23.5 megawatts of
thermal energy. Electric power was produced by sending steam
produced by operation of the reactor to a nearby coal-fired power
station (because the SNEC facility did not have its own turbine
or generator).
The nuclear steam supply system was a one-loop pressurized water
reactor. After shutdown, the reactor fuel was removed from the
facility and shipped to what is now the Department of Energy
Savannah River Site in South Carolina. Some minor decommissioning
activities were done from 1972 to 1974. The facility was then
placed in a monitored storage condition. Support structures and
buildings were decontaminated and removed between 1987 and 1992.
Full-scale decommissioning activities started in May 1998.
In February 2000 the licensees submitted their license
termination plan (LTP) for the SNEC facility. Under the
provisions of 10 CFR 50.82(a)(10), the NRC approved the LTP by a
license amendment dated March 28, 2003. In accordance with the
approved LTP, the licensees conducted final status surveys (FSSs)
to demonstrate that the facility and site met the criteria in 10
CFR 20.1402 for unrestricted release. The licensees presented the
FSS results to the NRC in FSS reports (FSSRs).
The licensees submitted an application for termination of SNEC
Amended Facility License No. DPR-4 on September 15, 2005. The
application states that GPU Nuclear, Inc., has completed the
remaining radiological decommissioning activities and the final
radiation surveys of the SNEC Facility and the associated PENELEC
site in accordance with an NRC-approved LTP and the final
radiation surveys demonstrate that the facility and site area
meet the criteria in 10 CFR part 20, subpart E, for the
decommissioning and release of the site for unrestricted use.
The NRC did a number of performance-based in-process inspections
of the licensee's FSS program during the decommissioning process.
The purpose of the inspections was to verify that the FSSs were
being done in accordance with the licensees' commitments in the
LTP and to evaluate the quality of the FSSs by reviewing the FSS
procedures, methodology, equipment, surveyor training and
qualifications, document quality control, and survey data. The
NRC also did independent confirmatory surveys to verify the
licensees' FSS results. The confirmatory surveys consisted of
surface scans for beta and gamma radiation, direct measurements
for total beta activity, and smear sampling for determining
removable-radioactivity levels.
The NRC staff reviewed the FSSRs and concludes that (i)
dismantlement and decontamination activities were performed in
accordance with the approved LTP; and (ii) the FSSRs demonstrate
that the facility and site have met the criteria for
decommissioning in 10 CFR part 20, subpart E. NRC is therefore
terminating SNEC Facility Amended Facility License No. DPR-4. FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: See the application for license
termination dated September 15, 2005 (ML052640047) and NRC
Inspection Report Nos. 50-146/2003-201, dated November 12, 2003
(ML033090608), 50- 146/2003-202, dated December 17, 2003
(ML033420687), 50-146/2004-201, dated February 10, 2005
(ML050380407), and 50-146/2005-201, dated October 31, 2005
(ML052730465). They are available for public inspection at the
Commission's Public Document Room (PDR) at One White Flint North,
Public File Area O1F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor),
Rockville, Maryland. Publicly available records will be
accessible electronically from the Agencywide Documents Access
and Management System's (ADAMS's) Public Electronic Reading Room
on the Internet at the NRC Web site,
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html (use the ADAMS ML
numbers given above). Persons who do not have access to ADAMS or
who have trouble accessing the documents in ADAMS should contact
the NRC PDR reference staff by telephone at 1-800-397-4209 or
301-415-4737 or by e-mail to pdr@nrc.gov. Dated at Rockville,
Maryland this 7th day of November 2005.
For The Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Brian E. Thomas, Branch Chief, Research and Test Reactors Branch,
Division of Policy and Rulemaking, Office of Nuclear Reactor
Regulation.
[FR Doc. E5-6414 Filed 11-21-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
*****************************************************************
24 NRC: Portland General Electric; Notice of Issuance of Amendment to
FR Doc E5-6415
[Federal Register: November 22, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 224)]
[Notices] [Page 70637] From the Federal Register Online via GPO
Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr22no05-107]
Materials License SNM-2509 AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
ACTION: Notice of Issuance of Amendment to Materials License
SNM-2509.
Effective Date: December 22, 2005.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Christopher M. Regan, Senior
Project Manager, Spent Fuel Project Office, Office of Nuclear
Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, Washington, DC 20555. Telephone: (301) 415-1179; Fax
number: (301) 415-1179; E-mail: cmr1@nrc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
(NRC or the Commission) has issued Amendment 5 to Materials
License No. SNM- 2509 held by Portland General Electric Company
(PGE) to delete from Technical Specification (TS) section 5.5.2,
``Radioactive Effluent Control Program,'' the sentence from TS
5.5.2.b. that reads, ``The Trojan ISFSI may be included in the
environmental monitoring program for the Trojan Nuclear Plant,''
and TS 5.5.2.c. in its entirety, which requires an annual report
to be submitted pursuant to 10 CFR 72.44(d)(3). Approval of these
changes to the TS in conjunction with an exemption request
approved on November 9, 2005, relieves PGE from the requirement
to submit an annual radioactive effluent report for the Trojan
Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation (ISFSI), located in
Columbia County, Oregon.
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.
This amendment satisfied the criteria specified in 10 CFR
51.22(c)(10)(ii) and 10 CFR 51.22(c)(11) for a categorical
exclusion from the requirements to perform an environmental
assessment or to prepare an environmental impact statement.
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.
Further Information The NRC has prepared a Safety Evaluation
Report (SER) that documents the information that was reviewed and
NRC's conclusion. In accordance with 10 CFR 2.390 of NRC's
``Rules of Practice,'' final NRC records and documents regarding
this proposed action, including the amendment request dated July
6, 2005, and the SER are publically available in the records
component of NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management
System (ADAMS). These documents may be inspected at NRC's Public
Electronic Reading Room at
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. These documents may
also be viewed electronically on the public computers located at
the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR), O1F21, One White Flint
North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 20852. The PDR
reproduction contractor will copy documents for a fee. Persons
who do not have access to ADAMS or who encounter problems in
accessing the documents located in ADAMS, should contact the NRC
PDR Reference staff by telephone at 1-800-397-4209 or (301)
415-4737, or by e-mail to pdr@nrc.gov. Dated at Rockville,
Maryland, this 9th day of November, 2005.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Christopher M. Regan, Senior Project Manager, Licensing Section,
Spent Fuel Project Office, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and
Safeguards.
[FR Doc. E5-6415 Filed 11-21-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
*****************************************************************
25 Vermont Guardian: Nuclear advisory panel turns thumbs down on uprate
By Mary Fratini | Special to the Vermont Guardian
posted November 22, 2005
MONTPELIER In a half-day meeting punctuated by sharp and
sometimes personal disagreements, the Vermont State Nuclear
Advisory Panel passed a resolution Tuesday recommending that the
Public Service Board and Legislature deny Entergys request for a
power uprate at Vermont Yankee altogether, or approve it only
under certain financial protections.
In simple words, Vermont gets a disproportionate share of the
risks of uprate, said Tim Nulty, of Burlington, the VSNAP member
who introduced the resolution. This is not anti-nuclear in any
way, but about protecting Vermonts vital interest in the
continuing reliable operation of this nuclear plant.
Under the current contract with Vermont Yankee through 2012, the
state anticipates an economic benefit of $492 million, primarily
through energy cost savings, according to David Lamont of the
state Department of Public Service (DPS). In 2006, every
kilowatt hour that Vermont Yankee generates is worth 6.78 cents
and we pay only 3.9 cents for it, he said. The net present value
of the contract is $311 million and thats a major benefit to
ratepayers.
Under questioning from Rep. Steve Darrow, D-Putney, however,
Lamont agreed that if Vermont Yankee were to go offline after
the expiration of the ratepayer protection plan in 2007, these
numbers go from positive to negative and we have to pay full
price of the market alternative.
VY spokesman Rob Williams said the reliability question has been
adequately addressed in two years of public hearings before the
Public Service Board. The Public Service Board took the time to
address the question of reliability, and the decision that the
PSB came to was in the best interest of the state of Vermont.
While VSNAP members agreed that the threat of that economic
reversal should Vermont Yankee go offline was important to
consider, they disagreed over the potential impact of uprate on
reliability and the merits of the independent engineering
assessment.
Both Darrow and Russell Kulas cited the Nuclear Regulatory
Commissions 2004 inspection of the plant as insufficient to
support claims of safety or reliability. The most important risk
is that uprate equals relicensing, which equals the production
of more high-level nuclear waste, Darrow said. What I got from
the assessment is that we really need what we asked for, which
is a complete top to bottom physical before they soup it up an
additional 20 percent.
Williams said the uprate is getting a full review before the
NRC, which is expected to make a decision in February.
Public Service Commissioner David OBrien, who chairs VSNAP,
voted against the resolution, saying, This to me dismisses the
assessment as if it had not value and did not contribute to
reliability. All the testimony today is for worst-case scenarios
and yet we have a record of operational integrity [at Vermont
Yankee] with no indication that it wont operate for the next six
years.
If the PSB approves the uprate, the resolution recommends that
it do so only with a contract protecting Vermont ratepayers
against any loss of power production beyond what would have been
the case in the absence of the extended power uprate and any
safety risks that occur from the uprate, even if they fall
within the Nuclear Regulatory Commissions safe ruling.
I was surprised to hear today from an investor-owned utility
that if Vermont Yankee breaks down they will essentially pass
through the extra energy costs, said Sen. Mark MacDonald,
D-Orange, before voting for the resolution. I would be satisfied
with saying the numbers dont add up and they should deny the
uprate, but if this board found an option to mitigate the risks
by getting this company to bond or indemnify ratepayers, then we
will have solved the problem of financial consequences to
Vermonters.
Razelle Hoffman-Contois voted against the resolution,
representing Larry Crist from the Vermont Department of Health,
as did John Sayles, representing Secretary Tom Torti of the
Agency of Natural Resources.
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/VSNAPMeeting.shtml
*****************************************************************
26 Guardian Unlimited: New nuclear plants to face safety and cost tests
· Government says it will set tough conditions
· Minister denies Blair has already given go-ahead
Patrick Wintour, chief political correspondent
Tuesday November 22, 2005
The Guardian
A new generation of nuclear power stations will get the go-ahead
if they can meet a series of tests set by the government, the
trade and industry secretary will tell MPs tomorrow. The tests
will include whether they can be shown to operate without
subsidy, handle waste safely, and not be vulnerable to lethal
terrorist attack.
Appearing before the Commons environmental audit committee, Alan
Johnson will also deny - as the energy minister, Malcolm Wicks,
did yesterday - that the government's energy review is biased
towards the nuclear option.
Mr Johnson, who is determined to maintain the review's
credibility, will insist that the prime minister has not yet made
up his mind to back a nuclear renaissance.
Tony Blair will set out the formal terms of the review in a
speech to the CBI conference next week. Influenced by his chief
scientific adviser, Sir David King, he is well-disposed to
building a new generation of nuclear power stations, and is
likely to favour a speeded-up planning process to ensure the new
plants are ready to come on stream by 2015.
Some government sources think that nuclear power could
competitively supply 40%of the national grid's energy in 10 to
15 years' time - almost double its current contribution.
Mr Wicks insisted yesterday that the review will look not only
at nuclear energy, but will also consider what needs to be done
to speed up the provision of alternative renewable energies,
including the planning process surrounding wind power.
Although an energy white paper was published in 2003, ministers
regard another review as necessary because Britain has recently
become a net importer of gas, climate change science is
developing, problems with renewables have emerged, and the
country is having to review how it will meet its plans to cut
carbon emissions by 20% by 2010.
The "short, sharp" energy review will get an early sight of the
expected recommendations of the Committee on Radioactive Waste
Management, since the recommended form of waste storage will
affect the overall costs of nuclear energy. The committee is not
due to report until July, the likely date for completion of the
energy review.
Mr Blair's adviser, Sir David King, who was accused yesterday by
the former environment minister Michael Meacher of acting as a
pro-nuclear spin doctor, has told the prime minister he believes
nuclear power stations will be able to operate without subsidy
so long as they are given lengthy contracts.
Sir David, a scorned pro-nuclear advocate in the 2003 review,
told the environmental audit select committee last week that he
would be very surprised if the review did not recommend radical
action in the face of evidence that climate change was
proceeding faster than expected.
Explaining the need for urgent action, he said "nuclear was a
year ago 24% on the grid, it is now 21% and by 2020 it will be
down to 4% with Sizewell B the only operating power station.
"So if we do not recommission power stations, as the current old
stock decommissions, we will have an energy gap in terms of zero
carbon producing power stations".
Sir David argued that the new generation of nuclear stations are
"much safer and produce less waste per unit of energy produced",
adding that the industry should not be allowed any subsidy - one
of the most contentious issues in any review. He said:
"Personally I would not advise government to say 'we are going
to fund power stations'.
"Then it would be a utility decision, whether or not it is a
financial prospect to build nuclear power stations, if the green
light is given to them."
Sir David added that he thought nuclear plants would be required
to build in decommissioning costs "to their economic process".
He said this definition would include the costs of waste
management, adding that the "ballpark cost" of such waste
storage could be established from the likely recommendations on
storage.
British Nuclear Fuels has suggested that the problem of
disposing of nuclear waste could be addressed by the industry
setting up a fund to cover the costs of projected long-term
waste.
But it has also called for government "back-stopping" support to
encourage the City to invest, in the face of the perceived risk
of funding the storage of nuclear waste.
Sir David indicated that he believed it was "far the preferable
way forward" to use nuclear stations to process the large
British plutonium stockpile.
FAQ: The technology
Why is nuclear power under consideration again?
The business community has warned of a new energy crisis as
supplies of gas are depleted and the price of oil rises. The CBI
has called for an urgent decision on nuclear energy.
What are its attractions?
It could help cut carbon emissions which damage the environment.
Its advocates also argue that the price of uranium has remained
stable.
What are the drawbacks?
Accidents at Windscale in 1957, Three Mile Island in 1979, and
Chernobyl in 1986 showed that mishaps can be disastrous.
Terrorists could target plants.
Is it safe?
The industry says that new power stations would produce only
10% of the waste generated by existing ones and be 100 times
safer
Are there alternatives?
Wind and wave power are available but cannot meet the UK's
energy needs alone.
[UP]
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2005
*****************************************************************
27 Guardian Unlimited: Blair says 'facts have changed' on nuclear power
Oliver King and Matthew Tempest
Tuesday November 22, 2005
[Tony Blair faces the Commons liaison committee.
Photograph: PA]
Tony Blair faces the Commons liaison committee. Photograph: PA
Nuclear power is once again a serious option to supply a large
part of Britain's energy because "the facts have changed over
the last couple of years", Tony Blair told MPs this morning.
His comments came as the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament
announced it would be opposing a new generation of domestic
nuclear reactors, calling them "dirty and dangerous".
Giving evidence during his twice-yearly appearance before the
Commons liaison committee, the prime minister said Britain faces
"difficult and controversial decisions" on climate change and
energy supply.
Speaking after reports that he is prepared to restart the UK's
nuclear energy programme, Mr Blair said he would do what he
believed was right for the long term.
The liaison committee consists of the chairmen and women of all
the Commons select committees and meets twice a year to ask
questions of the prime minister.
Asked whether he would be prepared to take unpopular decisions
on issues such as climate change and nuclear power, Mr Blair
replied:
"With some of the issues to do with climate change - and you can
see it with the debate about nuclear power - there are going to
be difficult and controversial decisions government has got to
take.
"And in the end it has got to do what it believes to be right in
the long-term interests of the country."
Mr Blair said there were strongly held positions on issues such
as nuclear power, and continued: "About energy security and
supply that will mean issues that are bound to be extremely
controversial."
CND meanwhile issued a report entitled No To A New Generation,
saying that nuclear was not a green technology because of the
carbon costs of extracting uranium.
Kate Hudson, chair of the group, said :"Government spin doctors
and the nuclear industry myth-makers are working over time to
repackage nuclear power as the green solution to climate change.
They want to shape public opinion because they are about to
announce a new build programme of nuclear power stations and
they know that we won't like it. Nuclear power is dirty and
dangerous. It's not the answer to Britain's energy needs and is
not a solution to global warming."
The Liberal Democrat environment spokesman, Norman Baker, called
Mr Blair's comments "irresponsible", and said no independent
government estimates of the costs of new nuclear plants had been
made.
Mr Baker said: "Nuclear fuel has just presented taxpayers with a
£50bn bill to clear up some of the nuclear waste we already
have, and there are vast amounts for which there is no solution
in sight."
"Tony Blair is completely irresponsible to base his decision on
so little evidence, and it is outrageous that he should
establish an energy review which appears to serve no purpose
other than to provide him with some support for his already
formed opinion."
The Lib Dems claim, on the basis of parliamentary questions they
have tabled, that there has been no assessment of the life-cycle
carbon emissions of a nuclear fission plant, no research to
establish the full life-cycle cost of nuclear fission, and that
the government has not made its own estimates of the
construction costs of nuclear power facilities.
Keith Taylor of the Green party said: "The nuclear power
industry has failed us. Instead of providing cheap, clean energy
it has cost the taxpayer millions in subsidies as well as
causing concern over safety, pollution and the threat of a
terrorist attack."
Useful links
British Energy
Department of Trade and Industry
British Nuclear Fuels Ltd
Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament
Greenpeace
HSE nuclear glossary
Come Clean WMD awareness programme
UK atomic energy authority
National Radiological Protection Board
Friends of the Earth
World Nuclear Association
World Nuclear Transport Institute
[UP]
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2005
*****************************************************************
28 London Times: Who says nuclear power is clean?
Opinion - Magnus Linklater
The Times November 23, 2005
Magnus Linklater
Optimistic analysis of future energy policy is based on
hopelessly misleading claims
THERE IS SOMETHING heart-sinkingly familiar about the following
sentence: "Mr Blair . . . believes that all the arguments point
to nuclear power, and has effectively made up his mind, according
to authoritative sources."
We have become all too familiar with Mr Blair's made-up mind - it
spells nothing but trouble. As Sir Christopher Meyer observed in
his memoirs, when it comes to the big issues Mr Blair finds the
details "uncongenial". Yet it is on the detail that the nuclear
case stands or falls. This time we need to know whether he has
understood the arguments rather than simply bought them.
Three massive claims are being made for Britain building a new
generation of nuclear stations: first, it is the only way that
Britain can meet its ambitious targets for reducing carbon
emissions; secondly, it is the only reliable option available if
we are to fill the “energy gap” left by declining sources of
fossil fuels; thirdly, it is the best way of ensuring that our
energy comes from “secure” sources, rather than unstable
oil-rich oligarchies.
These claims are at best specious, at worst untrue. Take carbon
emission. There is a blithe notion that nuclear power is “clean”
— it emits no CO² and therefore does not contribute to global
warming. This argument has been systematically taken apart over
the past five years by two independent experts, Jan Willem Storm
van Leeuwen and Philip Bartlett Smith, one a chemist and energy
specialist, the other a nuclear physicist, who between them have
a lifetime ’s experience in the nuclear industry. What they have
done is look at the entire life cycle of a nuclear power
station, from the mining of the uranium to the storage of the
resulting nuclear waste. Their conclusions make grim reading for
any nuclear advocate.
They say that at the present rate of use, worldwide supplies of
rich uranium ore will soon become exhausted, perhaps within the
next decade. Nuclear power stations of the future will have to
reply on second-grade ore, which requires huge amounts of
conventional energy to refine it. For each tonne of poor-quality
uranium, some 5,000 tonnes of granite that contains it will have
to be mined, milled and then disposed of. This could rise to
10,000 tonnes if the quality deteriorates further. At some
point, and it could happen soon, the nuclear industry will be
emitting as much carbon dioxide from mining and treating its ore
as it saves from the “clean” power it produces thanks to nuclear
fission.
At this stage, according to an article in Prospect magazine by
the energy writer David Fleming, “nuclear power production would
go into energy deficit. It would be putting more energy into the
process than it could extract from it. Its contribution to
meeting the world’s energy needs would become negative.” The
so-called “reliability” of nuclear power, which its proponents
enthuse over, would therefore rest on the growing use of fossil
fuels rather than their replacement.
Worse, the number of nuclear plants needed to meet the world’s
needs would be colossal. At present, about 440 nuclear reactors
supply about 2 per cent of demand. The Massachusetts Institute
of Technology calculates that 1,000 more would be needed to
raise this even to 10 per cent of need. At this point, the
search for new sources of ore would become critical. Where would
they come from? Not friendly Canada, which produces most of it
at present, but places like Kazakhstan, hardly the most stable
of democracies. So much for “secure” sources of energy. We would
find ourselves out of the oil-producing frying pan, right in the
middle of the ore-manufacturing fire.
These arguments have to be met before other, more searching
questions are answered about where we intend to store waste,
what we are going to do to prevent radioactive leaks, and how we
should protect nuclear plants against terrorism. The truth is
that this form of energy is, in the end, no more safe, reliable
or clean than the others. That does not mean turning our backs
on it; it means confronting reality rather than myth. Some good,
however, may come from the debate. The decision to go nuclear
will, ironically, make the case for renewable energy stronger
rather than weaker.
There has been a growing sense that the Government has lost
faith with wind, wave and tidal power, on the grounds that the
public has turned against them and that their efficiency is
doubtful. Wind turbines in particular have been subjected to
sustained local campaigns and derisive columns from the
pro-nuclear lobby. They have one great advantage however — they
are genuinely renewable, and they are reversible. A wind
turbine, unlike a nuclear reactor, can be removed once it has
come to the end of its natural life. A wave machine can simply
be towed away.
Nor, in comparison to nuclear power, are they gravely
inefficient. Of course a wind farm depends on wind, which may or
may not blow, and a wave machine similarly is weather-dependent.
But both need to be part of Britain’s energy jigsaw. It is
absurd, for instance, that the Government is withholding the £50
million investment that is needed to turn wave power into a
commercial proposition. Experiments in the Orkney Islands have
proved so promising that the Portuguese Government has bought
the technology and is hoping to exploit it industrially in its
own waters. Why can’t we do the same?
Tony Blair may have made up his mind on nuclear power, but he
must not close it to other options. Nuclear is not trouble-free,
and the more you look at it, the more enticing the other choices
become.
Copyright 2005 Times Newspapers Ltd.
*****************************************************************
29 London Times: Blair says time has come to go nuclear
By Simon Freeman
Tony Blair today indicated publicly for the first time that he
will support building new nuclear power plants to meet Britain's
future energy needs.
The Prime Minister told MPs that there was fresh impetus to
build a new generation of reactors because "the facts have
changed over the last couple of years".
Under questioning from the Commons liaison committee, Mr Blair
accepted that Britain faced "difficult and controversial
decisions" over climate change and energy supply.
He said that he would not flinch from doing what he believed was
right for the long-term future of the country - a statement
interpreted as meaning that he would back the use of nuclear
power, highly unpopular with sections of his own party.
Asked whether he would be prepared to take hard decisions on
issues such as climate change and nuclear power, he replied:
"With some of the issues to do with climate change, and you can
see it with the debate about nuclear power, there are going to
be difficult and controversial decisions Government has got to
take.
"And in the end it has got to do what it believes to be right in
the long-term interests of the country."
He said there were strongly held positions on issues such as
nuclear power and continued: "About energy security and supply
that will mean issues that are bound to be extremely
controversial."
While nuclear reactors do not directly emit greenhouse gases,
green campaigners have rejected a new generation of the plants
as a viable solution to meeting Britain’s energy needs without
contributing to climate change. They said the Government should
instead concentrate on promoting renewable power and energy
efficiency.
"It is clear that there is a very strong agenda in various forms
of government to bring forward the nuclear option, since the
time of the election," he told the Commons Environmental Audit
Committee, which is conducting an inquiry into nuclear power and
climate change.
Tony Juniper, director of Friends of the Earth, said that Tony
Blair and his advisers were exaggerating the importance of
nuclear power in fighting climate change. "Nuclear power is not
the answer to tackling climate change," he said. "It is
expensive and leaves a legacy that remains dangerous for tens of
thousands of years."
The cross-party panel of 31 MPs questioned Mr Blair on a host of
issues central to his leadership during his twice-yearly
appearance before the House of Commons Liaison Committee. He
made a robust defence of the government's proposed anti-terror
laws, and said that he was optimistic about the future of Iraq
and the Middle East.
"In the long term the prospects are good rather than bad," he
said. "Overall it is a healthy progress because the people have
had a taste of democracy and liked it."
Mr Blair joined in the laughter when he was asked if he had
thought of copying Ariel Sharon and ditching his political party
in order to form a new centrist coalition. He also brushed aside
a question about his diminishing popularity: "Whenever you take
these decisions you cause a certain amount of turbulence and
difficulty, but the important thing, if you know you are doing
the right thing, is to carry on doing it."
[Print this article] [Send to a friend]
[Back to top of page]
[''] ['']
RELATED STORIES
November 22 2005
Plans to go nuclear cut no ice with old enemies
November 21 2005
Are we right to fast-track new nuclear age?
November 21 2005
The nuclear nettle
November 21 2005
Britain is ready to go nuclear
.tdheight { font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica,
sans-serif; color: #FFFFFF; font-size: 10px; font-weight: bold;
text-decoration: none; line-height: 16px;
background-color:#999999}
[''] BREAKING NEWS
[''] Britain from PA ['']
['']
[''] Iraq war 'could last for decades'
['']
[''] ['']
['']
[''] Suicide man 'was Abigail attacker'
['']
[''] ['']
['']
[''] Paralysed victim hails case closure
['']
[''] ['']
['']
[''] Five held over PC's murder released
['']
[''] ['']
['']
[''] Hewitt blamed over flu jab 'crisis'
['']
[''] ['']
['']
SPORTING GREATS
Re-visit some of the most rapturous occasions in
sport, in association with Davidoff Silver
Shadow
 | |
|
|
| FASHION | 
London Fashion Week for exclusive catwalk galleries and news
and highlights from the shows
In association with Avon
MAKE SKILLS WORK
How to bridge the skills gap and
develop your workforce
['']
ADVERTISEMENT
['']
['']
['']
['']
Contact our advertising team for advertising and
sponsorship in Times Online, The Times and The Sunday Times.
Copyright 2005 Times Newspapers Ltd.
This service is provided on Times Newspapers' standard Terms and
Conditions. Please read our Privacy Policy .
To inquire about a licence to reproduce material from The
Times, visit the Syndication website.
*****************************************************************
30 Another DU Victim Speaks Out
Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2005 14:03:22 -0600 (CST)
Forwarded with Compliments of Government of the USA in Exile (GUSAE):
Free Americans Proclaiming Total Emancipation and Working Towards
Democracy. NOTE: Please circulate this utterly. -- kl, pp
From: "C Loverain" Date: November
21, 2005 8:12:12 PM EST Subject: Gerard made me cry...
Reply-To: "C Loverain"
[demime 1.01d removed an attachment of type image/jpeg which had a
name of jt-logo2.jpg] Nov. 20, 2005
BATTLEFIELD RADIATION:
DU Vet: 'My Days Are Numbered'
By ERIC PRIDEAUX Staff Writer
Gerard Matthew has broad shoulders and beefy hands. He's built like
a bear. Yet as sturdy as this 31-year-old may look, he is a very
sick man.
Matthew suffers, for example, from facial swelling, double and
triple vision, muscle weakness, bouts of extreme anger that sometimes
cause him to lash out at his wife, erectile dysfunction and, most
serious of all, a tumor in the pituitary gland at the base of his
brain.
"And these are just the big ones," he told the audience at the
Foreign Correspondents' Club Japan in Tokyo earlier this month.
At home in New York, he said, he's got "a pharmacy" of medication
-- and he worries both for himself and his family that his "days
are numbered."
[demime 1.01d removed an attachment of type image/jpeg which had a
name of fl20051120x1b.jpg] Gerard Matthew hugs his daughter, Victoria.
All the more reason to speak at this media venue now, before things
get worse.
Matthew was a specialist in the U.S. Army National Guard's 719th
Transport Unit, and his job, from April-September 2003, was to drive
trucks collecting war debris from around southern Iraq. He thinks
that Samawah, the city where Japan has some 550 SDF members
participating in the U.S.-led "coalition of the willing," was among
the many locations he passed through.
Matthew believes the dust from spent depleted-uranium (DU) ammunition
in his cargo accumulated in his lungs, irradiating his body and
causing most of the ailments that trouble him today. Urine tests
taken as part of a New York Daily News story investigation in 2004
showed that DU levels in his sample were up to eight times higher
than in control samples from Daily News journalists. Matthew showed
reporters a letter from the Department of the Army that rejected
this claim.
Most pertinent to his audience at the FCCJ: Matthew worries that
radiological contamination may be afflicting Japanese troops posted
to Iraq -- not to mention local Iraqis.
"I came all the way to Japan to convey the message," said Matthew,
who, with his wife Janise was the guest of Tokyo-based activist
group Campaign for Abolition of Depleted Uranium Japan. In other
words, he believes that Japanese troops should be warned: "They may
be susceptible to it."
With Janise, also 31, seated beside him on the dais, the couple
together held up glossy photographs of their 1-year-old daughter
Victoria, who was born without a right hand. It is a birth defect
they both blame on DU.
"Yes, the military has paid for my education," said Matthew. "But
I would give all of that up to have my daughter with five fingers
on her hand."
The Matthew family is caught up in a raging worldwide debate over
DU that extends into areas both scientific and geo-political.
Depleted uranium, an enormously dense and hard biproduct of converting
naturally occurring uranium into fuel for nuclear reactors, is used
by the U.S. military both in supertough armor plating for fighting
vehicles and in "penetrators" -- ammunition fired against armored
vehicles and concrete emplacements that, instead of mushrooming on
impact as regular bullets do, grows sharper as it bores forward and
through.
According to the U.S. Department of Defense, 290.3 metric tons of
DU projectiles were fired by U.S. forces during the 1990-91 Gulf
War. By press time, the department had not responded to repeated
requests for comment on Matthew's case and current use of DU by the
U.S. military.
Whatever the strategic benefits of DU ammunition, critics -- including
many in the scientific community -- claim that particles of it
released upon impact are easily inhaled by humans, either then or
much later, and remain in the body for years, possibly causing
cancers and many other health problems. With local Iraqis in mind
in particular, Matthew said: "We're hurting innocent civilians, and
we don't need to do that."
The United Nations would seem to agree.
A 2002 working paper by the UN Commission on Human Rights itemized
a long list of diseases and birth defects among Gulf War veterans,
Iraqis and the offspring of both -- linking them strongly to the
use of DU.
The same UN working paper concluded that use of DU in warfare
contravenes the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights;
the Charter of the United Nations itself; and, "in certain situations
of armed conflict," the Genocide Convention. The working paper, if
read closely, also suggests violation of the Hague and Geneva
Conventions.
The Pentagon, for its part, says on its Web site that radiation is
not a "primary hazard" with DU "under most battlefield exposure
scenarios."
Citing its own and several high-profile international studies, it
concludes that DU is "40 percent less radioactive than natural
uranium," and is "not considered a serious external radiation
hazard."
That stance is, in large part, supported by the World Health
Organization which, in its 2003 fact sheet No. 257, title "Depleted
Uranium," said that "for the general population, neither civilian
nor military use of DU is likely to produce exposures to DU
significantly above normal background levels of uranium."
Consequently, some tough questions were to be expected at the
Matthews' news conference.
"How can you scientifically establish that the syndrome you claim
has been caused by depleted uranium was caused by depleted uranium?"
asked Naoaki Usui, a freelance reporter who described himself as a
proponent of nuclear energy.
Matthew fixed his eyes squarely on his questioner. "Look at my
daughter, and that should answer your question about the exposure,"
he said. "My daughter is the evidence."
Matthew said that his and Janise's other children from earlier
relationships were born without deformity, while genetic screening
at a New York hospital turned up no predisposition to birth defects
on either side of the family.
That being the case, Matthew said that he and eight other soldiers
with similar symptoms -- all of whom, except Matthew, were stationed
at Samawah -- have each sued the Department of Defense for $5
million. His daughter Victoria, who to date has been denied disability
benefits by the Social Security Administration, is also a coplaintiff
with her father -- claiming an additional $5 million. The cases are
pending.
The plaintiffs are not alone in their battle. For years, U.S. and
British veterans of the first Gulf War have demanded that their
governments grapple more aggressively with the mysterious illnesses
collectively known as Gulf War Syndrome -- symptoms of which Matthew
says match his own.
Movement on this front is afoot: BBC News reported earlier this
month that the Pensions Appeal Tribunal in Britain had ruled that
Daniel Martin, an ex-soldier and Gulf War veteran, could use Gulf
War Syndrome as an umbrella term to cover the diverse health problems
afflicting him. As a result, other British veterans hope this will
improve their access to disablement pensions.
At his FCCJ talk, Matthew said he expected news from his lawyer
upon his return home to the Bronx.
While he was still here, though, there was something else Matthew
wanted to tell the Japanese. Describing his visit to the Hiroshima
Peace Memorial some days earlier, he said: "I felt like I made a
connection . . . because I was exposed to radiation just like they
were. My own government did it to them.
"My government probably would not say sorry," he added. "But I say
sorry."
========================================================================
================================================
http://www.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/makeprfy.pl5?fl20051120x1.htm
*****************************************************************
31 Cyprus Mail: Radioactivity fears over chemical plant
By Jacqueline Theodoulou
WORKERS and residents near the Vasiliko chemical plant have
expressed concern over fears of radioactive waste, saying they
were not fully informed on the seriousness of the matter.
According to recent reports, staff at the nearby EAC power
station asked for a detailed report on the materials used at
chemical plant. Though the authorities did inform them about
traces of ammonia and asbestos found and dealt with, they didn’t
inform them on the large quantities of radioactive waste.
Now, an internal investigation is being carried out to determine
the exact activities of the factory in the past 30 years.
State services, including the Labour Inspection Department of
the Environmental Services, have been carrying out tests since
yesterday. Tests are also expected to be carried out on the
seawater.
The mukhtars of the surrounding areas met yesterday and asked to
be informed in detail on the quantities of radioactive waste and
whether it poses a serious risk to residents’ health.
This is not the first time that the dangers of radioactive
exposure have been highlighted. A specialist had voiced his
concerns on the plant a decade ago as have the Green Party, who
again spoke out yesterday:
“The Green Party is expressing great worry over the ‘discovery’
of radioactive materials during the demolition exercises on the
disused Chemical Industries of Vasiliko.”
“Recent developments have filled us with worry and speculation.
The government must give persuasive answers. We are committing
ourselves to follow the matter closely until we are satisfied
that all possible dangers have been dealt with,” an announcement
from the Green Party read yesterday.
Green Party deputy George Perdikis visited the plant yesterday
to supervise the situation and will be holding a press
conference today in Limassol to talk about his concerns.
Copyright © Cyprus Mail 2005
*****************************************************************
32 Sydney Morning Herald: NT nuclear dump 'would be safe' -
www.smh.com.au
November 22, 2005 - 2:09PM
The head of Australia's nuclear watchdog is confident the
federal government's controversial nuclear waste facility to be
built in the Northern Territory will be safe.
Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency chief
executive Dr John Loy told a Senate inquiry the engineering
know-how exists to construct a safe repository.
The inquiry is examining issues surrounding the government's
selection of one of three sites in the NT to house Australia's
nuclear-waste, which is mainly low-level from medical, research
and industrial uses.
During Tuesday's hearing, Dr Loy was asked if it were possible
to build and engineer a facility to the level of safety required
under strict international standards.
"I think that is the case," he replied.
"You're looking at basically making an argument for the safety
of the material being isolated from the environment for the
requisite period of time.
"You make that on the basis of the material itself, the
containers in which you put it, any additional filling you have
in those containers and then, if you place it in a engineered
barrier, the qualities of that barrier, and then the qualities
of the site itself."
The House of Representatives has given the government the
go-ahead to build a nuclear waste dump in the NT, but the Senate
has yet to approve to the bill.
It is a major step in the long search for a place to secure
Australia's low and intermediate level radioactive waste, which
was started by the Hawke government in 1992.
The NT's Chief Minister Clare Martin also faced the committee
hearing and criticised the commonwealth's process for selecting
the home for the new waste facility.
Ms Martin called on the federal government to return to an
independent, objective process of site selection.
"I have a lot of concerned, confused and upset constituents who
have no clear understanding of what is going on," she said.
"But they do know political expediency when it's landed on them.
"If you had to nominate one single issue where it was absolutely
essential that the public knew what was going on, had confidence
in the process and understood the issues, then dealing with
radioactive waste would have to be at the top of that list."
Ms Martin also stepped up her calls for government senator Nigel
Scullion to cross the floor and vote against government's plan
for the nuclear waste facility in the NT.
"The senator for the Northern Territory Nigel Scullion has
actually a casting vote in the Senate to actually vote this
legislation down and he won't do it," she told reporters.
"So if you are going to talk about the person who is in the
Senate to stand up for the territory, he is doing the total
opposite."
© 2005 AAP
Agreement| Copyright © 2005. The Sydney Morning Herald. ![]() Aspect-Konversia (Rosatom’s daughter company) signed a
contract on implementation of Lepse storage ship dismantling.
Russian company Aspect-Konversia (Rosatom’s daughter company)
signed a contract on implementation of Lepse storage ship
dismantling.
2005-11-21 14:55
The Lepse is a floating storage facility for spent nuclear fuel,
and liquid and solid radioactive wastes from the Russian
icebreaker fleet.
It is expected that the other party of the project, TACIS
program, will sign the program in the nearest future, Interfax
reported with the reference to the sources in the Atomflot
management.
According to the contract, the project’s preliminary stages will
be carried out during 18 months. In particular, it concerns the
development of the best alternative of the facility
dismantlement, working out of the chosen alternative, paper work
for the tender. The Lepse managing committee has been
established and headed by the NEFCO representative Magnus
Rystedt.
The technical support vessel Lepse presents the biggest nuclear
and radiation risk of all retired nuclear service ships in
Russia. In 1988, the vessel was taken out of service, and, in
1990, it was assigned the category of "laid-up vessel." The
Lepse's spent nuclear fuel storage holds (in casks and caissons)
639 spent fuel assemblies (SFAs), and a significant portion of
them is severely damaged. Extraction of the SFAs from storage
holds would present a radiation risk and be a complex technical
operation, the framework for which has still not been worked
out. The ship is presently laid-up at Atomflot, which carries
out service on nuclear powered icebreakers. Atomflot is located
in the Kola Bay, two kilometres from the boarder of Murmansk
city, which has population of 400,000. The ship is operated by
joint stock company Murmansk Shipping Company (MSCo).
Publisher: Bellona Foundation, President: Frederic Hauge
Information: info@bellona.no, Technical contact:
webmaster@bellona.no
Telephone: +47 23 23 46 00 Telefax: +47 22 38 38 62 * P.O.Box
2141 Grunerlokka, 0505 Oslo, Norway
*****************************************************************
39 AU ABC: Australia's Northern Territory continues fight against nuclear dump
In Australia, the Northern Territory government has
accused the Commonwealth of ignoring scientific research in its
deliberations on where to put a national nuclear waste dump.
Our reporter, Sarah Hawke, says a senate committee is examining
laws that would allow the dump to be built in the Northern
Territory.
Northern Territory Chief Minister Clare Martin has told the
committee, sitting in the capital Canberra, the Commonwealth has
based its selection process for the site on politics and has
abandoned previous scientific studies showing the Territory is
not the best location.
"The current proposal would have to be the worst possible way to
select a site," she said.
The Country Liberal Party senator, Nigel Scullion, didn't attend
the hearing but says resistance from the states meant the
Federal government had no choice but to target the Territory.
"[It] certainly could have been done better, but let's face it,
it wasn't the Federal government ambushing it, the Federal
government doesn't believe it should be in the Northern
Territory," he said.
Debate on the bill is expected in the senate next week.
ABC Asia Pacific TV / Radio Australia
*****************************************************************
40 NEWS.com.au: Nuke dump safe, says watchdog - NT -
From: AAP
November 22, 2005
THE head of Australia's nuclear watchdog is confident the
Federal Government's controversial nuclear waste facility to be
built in the Northern Territory will be safe. Australian
Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency chief executive
Dr John Loy today told a Senate inquiry the engineering know-how
exists to construct a safe repository.
The inquiry is examining issues surrounding the Government's
selection of one of three sites in the NT to house Australia's
nuclear-waste, which is mainly low-level from medical, research
and industrial uses.
During today's hearing, Dr Loy was asked if it were possible to
build and engineer a facility to the level of safety required
under strict international standards.
"I think that is the case," he replied.
"You're looking at basically making an argument for the safety
of the material being isolated from the environment for the
requisite period of time.
"You make that on the basis of the material itself, the
containers in which you put it, any additional filling you have
in those containers and then, if you place it in a engineered
barrier, the qualities of that barrier, and then the qualities
of the site itself."
The House of Representatives has given the Government the
go-ahead to build a nuclear waste dump in the NT, but the Senate
has yet to approve to the bill.
It is a major step in the long search for a place to secure
Australia's low and intermediate level radioactive waste, which
was started by the Hawke government in 1992.
The NT's Chief Minister Clare Martin also faced today's
committee hearing and criticised the commonwealth's process for
selecting the home for the new waste facility.
Ms Martin called on the Federal Government to return to an
independent, objective process of site selection.
"I have a lot of concerned, confused and upset constituents who
have no clear understanding of what is going on," she said.
"But they do know political expediency when it's landed on them.
"If you had to nominate one single issue where it was
absolutely essential that the public knew what was going on, had
confidence in the process and understood the issues, then
dealing with radioactive waste would have to be at the top of
that list."
Ms Martin also stepped up her calls for government senator
Nigel Scullion to cross the floor and vote against the
Government's plan for the nuclear waste facility in the NT.
"The senator for the Northern Territory Nigel Scullion has
actually a casting vote in the Senate to actually vote this
legislation down and he won't do it," she said.
"So if you are going to talk about the person who is in the
Senate to stand up for the territory, he is doing the total
opposite."
| Copyright 2005 News Limited. All times AEDT (GMT + 11).
*****************************************************************
41 Foreign Policy: Its Not About the Yellowcake
By Jofi Joseph Page 1 of 1
Posted November 2005
The Bush administrations most critical deception leading up to
the war in Iraq had nothing to do with Valerie Plame or
yellowcake from Niger.
[THE CLAIM IN QUESTION: President Bush told the United Nations
General Assembly in 2002 that &qu]
The claim in question: President Bush told the United Nations
General Assembly in 2002 that "Iraq has made several attempts to
buy high-strength aluminum tubes used to enrich uranium for a
nuclear weapon."
Paul Morse/White House
The ferocious debate over intelligence failures in the lead up
to the Iraq war centers on whether U.S. President George W. Bush
and his senior aides exaggerated, distorted, or unduly
influenced the judgments of the intelligence community. In
particular, critics point to the Presidents 2003 State of the
Union speech, in which he made reference to Iraqs alleged
efforts to acquire uranium yellowcake from Africaa claim that
the CIA dispatched U.S. diplomat Joseph Wilson to investigate.
Given the imbroglio that has resulted, its not surprising that
the African uranium claim has become emblematic of a larger
intelligence debacle. But all the ballyhoo surrounding Wilson
and his wife, Valerie Plame, has obscured a much clearer case of
exaggeration in the run up to the war in Iraq: aluminum tubes.
The Bush administrations most blatant misrepresentation of
intelligence was its claim that Iraqs attempts at purchasing of
thousands of high-strength aluminum tubes was part of an effort
to build nuclear centrifuges to produce highly enriched uranium
for weapons. In the fall of 2002, the aluminum tube claim was
the top administration talking point as President Bush made his
case for war to the U.S. Congress and the United Nations.
Yellowcake wasnt really in the picture until well after Congress
voted to authorize the use of force. Iraq already possessed
considerable amounts of uranium and other materials required to
make nuclear bombs, so an additional purchase from Africa
wouldnt make much of a difference. Without the aluminum tubes,
however, Iraq could not enrich that uranium to weapons-grade
fissile material.
The administration failed to disclose key dissents on this issue
from U.S. government officials with great expertise on uranium
enrichment programs. Both State Department intelligence analysts
and Department of Energy centrifuge experts believed the
aluminum tubes were likely intended for Iraqs conventional
artillery rocket program, not for nuclear centrifuges. The tube
specifications, they argued, deviated significantly from those
required for centrifuge rotors. And if the tubes were for
centrifuge enrichment, why didnt the Iraqis make a more robust
effort to conceal their purchase?
These serious and well-informed doubts were ignored. On
September 8, 2002, Michael R. Gordon and Judith Miller reported
in the New York Times that, [t]he diameter, thickness and other
technical specifications of the aluminum tubes had persuaded
American intelligence experts that they were meant for Iraqs
nuclear program. That same day, senior Administration officials
fanned out on the Sunday talk shows to reinforce the report. On
CNNs Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer, then National Security
Advisor Condoleezza Rice told viewers that the tubes are only
really suited for nuclear weapons programs, centrifuge programs.
When the president addressed the United Nations General Assembly
a few days later, he cited the attempted tube purchases as clear
evidence that Iraq was reconstituting its nuclear program. He
and other senior Administration officials continued to cite the
aluminum tubes at every opportunity before Operation Iraqi
Freedom commenced.
An Iraq equipped (or about to be equipped) with nuclear weapons
was the ultimate trump card needed to convince the American
public that a preventive war was necessary. Pointing to Iraqs
chemical and biological weapons would only partly do the trick.
The United States had provided support to Iraq during its war
with Iran in the 1980s, when it both possessed and used chemical
weapons. After the 1991 Gulf War, Washington had successfully
contained Saddam and his chemical and biological weapons. But
with nuclear weapons, Iraq could defy the United States, break
out of the U.N. sanctions regime, and bully its Persian Gulf
neighbors. The administrations repeated references to contacts
between Saddams regime and al Qaeda leaders became particularly
foreboding in this nuclear context: How could America tolerate
the prospect of Saddam transferring nuclear weapons or know how
to Osama bin Laden?
Husseins supposed efforts at acquiring nuclear weapons
capability provided the ultimate rationale for war. As the U.S.
Senate Select Committee on Intelligence continues the second
phase of its investigation into prewar intelligence, it must
assess how and why the trumped-up intelligence on aluminum tubes
came to form the heart of President Bushs campaign for war.
Jofi Joseph served on the Democratic staff of the U.S. Senate
Committee on Foreign Relations from 2001 to 2004, where he
worked on WMD proliferation issues.
FOREIGN POLICY welcomes letters to the editor.
Readers should address their comments to .
1779 Massachusetts Avenue, NW | Washington, DC 20036 | Phone:
202-939-2230 | Fax: 202-483-4430 is published by the Carnegie
Endowment for International Peace. All contents ©2005 . All
rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
42 Byte and Switch: A Different Take on Nuclear Storage -
November 22, 2005
Since 1943, the major storage problem in Hanford, Wash., has
been what to do with nuclear waste from plutonium reactors
there.
Bechtel National’s IS manager involved with a waste removal
project in Hanford faces a less dangerous yet still daunting
storage problem: how to back up and protect data for the
mission. That data seems to be building up to rival the liquid
sludge on the site.
Hanford was one of the Manhattan Project sites beginning in
1943, and was once home to as many as nine plutonium reactors
until they were shut down in 1989. Nuclear waste from the
reactors was stored in underground tanks, but leakage threatens
to contaminate the Columbia River.
As part of a $6 billion contract from the Department of Energy,
Bechtel is building treatment plants to convert the waste
through vitrification, a technology that splits the components
of nuclear waste, adds glass-making materials, and then heats it
at nearly 2,000 degrees Fahrenheit. That turns the waste into
molten glass, which is poured into stainless steel canisters.
Eventually, the canisters will be transported to a Yucca
Mountain repository in Nevada.
Michael Maier, IS and technology manager for the Waste Treatment
Plant Project, had storage problems that had nothing to do with
steel canisters. His team has to secure the data for the 10-year
project.
“This is a high-pace project that ramps up quickly, with a lot
of data that grows fast,” says Maier, who recently implemented a
BlueArc Titan NAS system and CommVault backup software.
Project data includes CAD drawings and other records pertaining
to the project’s hundreds of contractors and partners. Federal
regulations require the data be kept for the life of the
project. At first, Maier’s team used direct storage with servers
running one application apiece. But with 3,000 employees and 180
servers involved, it soon became apparent that networked storage
was necessary.
“We started in January 2001 and grew to about 13 Tbytes within
three years,” Maier says. “We were backing up 7 Tbytes by June
2003. Now we have about 33 Tbytes and we’re backing up 16
Tbytes.”
In mid-2004, Bechtel submitted a request for proposal (RFP) for
a networked storage system that included hardware and backup
software integrated into one package. Maier says market research
firms pointed him toward Fibre Channel, but his current
infrastructure pointed in another direction.
“We felt the cost of Fibre Channel was too much given the
infrastructure investment we already had with an IP network,” he
says. “We believed IP-based storage would be the best.
“I considered this the linchpin for setting up the architectural
vision and long-term strategy for the life of the project. We
saw the best approach for us was a completely integrated
solution where the backup software complemented storage hardware
and vice versa. We wanted a total cradle-to-grave turnkey
installation and upgrade maintenance process.”
Maier says he sent an RFP to 10 vendors, six responded, and his
group evaluated three systems. He won’t name the other
contenders or the final price, but says the total storage bill
for the project tops $1 million.
The new system had to leverage the existing network
architecture, support IP and Oracle, and provide 99.99 percent
uptime, Maier says.
Two Bechtel groups oversaw the RFP process. The contracts group
looked at prices, while Maier’s group did the technical
evaluation. Overall scores were given by both groups, and the
winning bid consisted of a BlueArc Titan system with CommVault
QiNetixbackup software. In September, the system was implemented
with 70 Tbytes of storage.
Maier says he hasn’t fully configured the system yet. So far
he’s set up online backups and begun migrating data. His team
set up two data centers at the Hanford site connected with
10-Gbit/s Ethernet. “Now we can start looking at building our
failover recovery site,” he says.
Failover is a good idea, considering the site -- and perhaps the
project -- is on shaky ground. Seismic studies show parts of the
plant might not be able to withstand a severe earthquake, so
buildings have been redesigned and the project probably will
probably run past its 2010 deadline. Also, Congress has proposed
slashing the project’s budget, all the more reason to keep the
storage system on a fixed budget.
“We have a 10-year budget, but we manage our money very
prudently,” Maier says. “I don’t want to go back to the
government and ask for more taxpayers’ money.”
— Dave Raffo, Senior Editor, Byte and Switch
Organizations mentioned in this story:
+ Bechtel National
+ BlueArc Corp.
+ CommVault Systems Inc.
+ Department of Energy (DOE)
Copyright © 2004-2005 Light Reading, Inc. - All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
43 WA Business News: WA "stupid" to prevent uranium mining - Costello
www.wabusinessnews.com.au
Wednesday November 23, 2005
by AAP
Latest News
FMG goes to court over Shovelanna iron ore - 23 Nov, 13:36pm
iiNet signs 10,000 subscribers to VoIP service - 23 Nov, 12:54pm
Changes to IR law likely, but essence will remain: Costello - 23
Nov, 12:44pm Telly conference pictures itself in Fremantle - 23
Nov, 12:19pm WA skills vacancies down in November - 23 Nov,
12:13pm C3 looks to Chinese market with Helicon - 23 Nov,
12:08pm Iron ore price may jump 20% - 23 Nov, 11:14am Ripper
calls for flow-through shares - 23 Nov, 10:43am Peet &Co targets
10% lift in profit to $35m in 05-06 - 23 Nov, 10:25am Pilbara
goes loco as ore giants ramp up production - 23 Nov, 09:48am
Western Australia would be stupid to prevent uranium mining and
exports on ideological grounds, federal Treasurer Peter Costello
says.
The WA Labor government has consistently refused to change laws
banning uranium mining in the state, and federal Labor's policy
is for no new uranium mines. Today, Premier Gallop responded to
Mr Costello reiterating his opposition to uranium mining and
raising concerns that it would lead to demands that WA take back
nuclear waste material.
Mr Costello today said he felt federal Labor was beginning to
change its stance on the issue, and if that occurred, WA may be
brought into line.
"I believe that nuclear power will become more and more used
around the world," the treasurer told Southern Cross radio in
Perth.
"This is great news for Australia because we've got the reserves.
"What is stupid is if we had all of these reserves and all of
these markets and for ideology people said `we're not allowed to
sell it to them'.
"Stupid stuff, particularly in a mining state like Western
Australia."
Mr Costello said he could not understand the WA government's
approach to uranium - especially considering Australia only
exported uranium subject to stringent safeguards.
"If Britain or anyone else were to say that they'd take more of
our product, why wouldn't we sell it to them?" he asked.
"We're at the moment selling to countries like Japan, France,
the Chinese are showing that they're interested, and I just
can't understand why you would say we've got the stuff, we're
already exporting it, (but) you're only allowed to export it
from Roxby Downs."
*****************************************************************
44 NEWS.com.au: Land Council backs NT nuclear dump -
By Katharine Murphy
November 23, 2005
THE most powerful indigenous body in the Northern Territory has
backed a controversial bid for a nuclear waste dump on its land,
breaking ranks with the Territory Labor Government and
environmentalists. The backing given by Darwin-based Northern
Land Council chief executive Norman Fry at a Senate inquiry in
Canberra yesterday also put it at odds with its erstwhile ally,
the Alice-Springs-based Central Land Council, which opposes the
proposed dump for low-level waste.
"The full council has taken a decision to look at it and not
turn our backs on it because the issue will not go away," Mr Fry
said.
"We believe the commonwealth Government, regardless of its
political colour, will have to deal with this issue. We thought
it was very responsible of us to be at the table."
[External link] Northern Land Council
[External link] Wikipedia: Nuclear waste
Mr Fry rejected suggestions from Democrats leader Lyn Allison
that the NLC - which has interests in three mines including the
Ranger uranium mine - had been promised economic benefits or
inducements in return for endorsing the dump.
Territory Chief Minister Clare Martin blasted the Government at
the inquiry yesterday, saying it had foisted the proposal on
Territorians without consultation and had abandoned a
science-based selection process for a viable site.
"Fundamentally this bill overrides Northern Territory laws. No
state would ever put up with a bill like this," Ms Martin said.
"I have a lot of concerned, confused and upset constituents who
have no clear understanding of what is going on."
Australian Conservation Foundation spokesman Dave Sweeney raised
concerns about the risks in transporting waste from the Lucas
Heights reactor in Sydney to the Territory.
"There are so many variables in transport. Accidents happen,
mistakes happen," Mr Sweeney told the inquiry, urging the
Government to adopt a rigorous scientific and consultative
process before proceeding.
"So much of this is political. The key science here has been
political science and we need to get away from that," he said.
The inquiry is examining new Howard Government legislation
overriding Territory objections to the construction of a nuclear
waste facility at one of three short-list sites in the Top End.
The federal Government's decision to override Territory law on a
dump comes at a time when it is also pushing for an expansion of
uranium mining - also opposed by the Martin Government - having
earlier this year resumed the Territory's power to approve new
mines.
The Government wants to give local Aborigines a greater say in
mining negotiations, beyond the land councils, which would
include uranium mines.
Mr Fry said he supported the nuclear dump amendments, but would
seek changes to protect sacred sites and to ensure landholders
were protected.
He confirmed the council - which represents traditional owners
in all mining and infrastructure developments - would seek to
negotiate with the commonwealth about any future economic
benefits associated with the facility.
"We are going to sit down and discuss these things," he said.
Speaking outside the inquiry, West Australian Premier Geoff
Gallop said changing his Government's no-uranium-mines policy
would create massive pressure to create a waste dump in the
state.
Rejecting a suggestion that Western Australia should open
uranium mines to supply Britain, Dr Gallop said the ALP had a
principled position that had been taken to two elections.
"It was the British nuclear industry that was pushing hard a
number of years ago to get a nuclear waste dump in this state
and make no mistake that if we enter into this nuclear fuel
cycle, the pressure to establish a nuclear waste dump in our
state will be massive," Dr Gallop said. Search for
*****************************************************************
45 AU ABC: Sacred sites propel dump fight, land council says.
22/11/2005. ABC News Online
The Northern Land Council (NLC) says its approach to the
national nuclear waste dump is more about land rights than what
benefits it might receive from the Federal Government.
The NLC recently called for an amendment to the radioactive
waste management bill allowing land councils to propose a site
for the dump, a move supported by the Commonwealth.
The NLC's Norman Fry told a Senate hearing if one of the three
proposed defence sites in the Northern Territory is not chosen
for the dump, Aboriginal land could be the Commonwealth's next
choice.
"That's why we made sure that if in the event these three sites
nominated not be taken up, then we thought it was very
responsible of us to at the table to make sure that the
environmental and our sacred sites and cultural heritage things
are protected," he said.
"Otherwise that will totally undermine land rights."
The Land Council also told the hearing it had not identified
any sites for a waste facility.
*****************************************************************
46 IEER: Comments on EPA's Proposed Rule for Yucca Mountain
Comments on the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Proposed
Rule for the Public Health and Environmental Radiation Protection
Standards for Yucca Mountain, Nevada Submitted on Behalf of the
Institute for Energy and Environmental Research
Arjun Makhijani Ph.D. and Brice Smith, Ph.D.
November 21, 2005
The following are the comments on the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency's proposed rule for the public health and
environmental radiation protection standards for the high-level
waste repository proposed for construction at Yucca Mountain1,
henceforth referred to as the "proposed rule", on behalf of the
Institute for Energy and Environmental Research (IEER). Based
upon the analysis and comments presented below, it is our
conclusion that the proposed rule should be rejected as
insufficiently protective of the public health. The following
comments contain specific criticisms of the proposed rule issued
by the EPA as well as IEER's recommendations for a more
equitable and scientifically justifiable regulatory standard.
Summary of Main Findings:
It is our conclusion that the proposed rule is the worst
radiation protection rule that has ever been proposed given that
it is the first rule that actually implies a massive increase in
the level of cancer risk. We have identified a number of areas
in which the proposed rule is seriously deficient, including:
A. Relaxation of radiation protection standards for future
generations who will not benefit from nuclear power plants that
produced the waste is contrary to basic ethics, cost-benefit
analysis principles, and internationally accepted radiation
protection guidelines, including for radioactive waste. These
widely accepted guidelines include those by the International
Atomic Energy Agency and the International Commission on
Radiological Protection and radiation protection authorities in
other countries. This has been recognized by scientific bodies,
including the National Academy and in the past by the EPA.
B. Indoor radon is a technological artifact and not part of
natural background. Excluding the indoor radon component, but
retaining all other aspects of the EPA proposed rule, would
lower the limit from 350 mrem to approximately 100 mrem per
year.
C. The Toxic Substances Control Act recognizes that indoor radon
is an artifact of building construction and sets a long-term
goal of reducing radon levels indoors to those experienced
outdoors. Hence, including the present level of indoor radon in
natural background is contrary to the intent of this law.
D. No country has proposed a standard as lax as that proposed by
the EPA. No other standard that has been proposed for times
beyond 10,000 years would allow such lax long term rules.
E. The proposed peak dose limit would pose a lifetime cancer
incidence risk of 1 in 36 for the general population and 1 in 30
for women. EPA has previously stated that even 1 in 250 lifetime
risk is unacceptable from a single facility.
F. The use of the median to set a dose limit from a combined
distribution is inappropriate. The best estimate of the mean
dose (give all uncertainties) would be considerably higher than
the median. The 95th percentile dose of about 2 rem per year
would create a lifetime fatal cancer risk for women of about 1
in 10 and a cancer incidence risk of about 1 in 5. This would
make the proposed standard statistically about like Russian
roulette rather than a radiation protection rule at least for
some people.
G. The proposed standard is not in conformity with Executive
Order 13045 for the protection of children because it fails to
account for the disproportionate risk from radiation for
exposures early in life.
IEER recommends that the EPA issue a final standard for the
Yucca Mountain repository that includes the following elements:
1. The annual dose limit for all pathways should be between 10
and 25 millirem and should remain constant in time over the
period of geologic stability at the site.
2. A separate sub-limit of 4 millirem per year to the most
exposed organ from the drinking water pathway should be included
over the entire period of geologic stability.
3. The radiological impacts on children should be explicitly
considered in the Department of Energy's performance assessments
in order to ensure that they are not disproportionately affected
by the repository.
4. The impacts of future changes in climate should be taken into
account explicitly in the DOE's performance assessments
including the consideration of periodic cycling through
different climate states on the performance of the isolation
system.
5. The standard should recognize that the uncertainties in the
estimated doses will increase with time and that the
uncertainties beyond 10,000 years will become very significant.
In this regard, therefore, we propose that the EPA adopt the
French approach to waste repository standards2 in which the
doses beyond 10,000 years are calculated using scientifically
reasonable, but highly conservative choices for the important
parameter values in order to increase confidence that the
ultimate impacts from the repository will be less than those
predicted.
Section One - Setting the "Acceptable" Level of Risk for Distant
Generations:
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's proposed Yucca
Mountain standard is the worst radiation protection rule that
has ever been proposed by a regulatory body given that it is the
first rule that would codify the acceptability of a massive
increase in the risk of cancer from the exposure to
anthropogenic radiation. It also represents the largest lifetime
cancer risk that has knowingly been proposed for members of the
general public, especially women, by the US government. Over the
last five decades, radiation protection standards for the public
have been progressively tightened because, as more information
has been gained, the risks of exposure to radiation have been
recognized to be higher and higher. This trend continues to this
day. For example, the BEIR VII report from the U.S. National
Academy of Sciences published in 2005 reports cancer incidence
risks per unit of exposure that are more than one-third larger
than the values reported by the EPA in its Federal Guidance
Report 13 published in 1999.3
As summarized by the National Research Council in its 1995
Technical Bases for Yucca Mountain Standards, dose limits for
exposure to radiation from a single source in Nuclear Regulatory
Commission and Environmental Protection Agency regulations are
typically in the range of 15 to 25 millirem per year. This range
corresponds to an excess annual risk of developing a fatal
cancer of approximately 8.6 x 10-6 to 1.4 x 10-5, while the risk
of developing a cancer irrespective of its lethality would be
approximately twice these values. Lower annual dose limits have
been set in certain circumstances (for example a dose limit of
10 millirem per year from airborne radionuclides except radon is
included in the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants and a 4 millirem per year dose limit for beta/gamma
emitters in drinking water is included in the National Primary
Drinking Water Standards). However, higher dose equivalents
corresponding to an annual fatal cancer risk of up to 4 x 10-4
have been included in regulations and recommendations for
exposure to indoor radon levels and for mill tailings.5 The
National Research Council committee also noted that "the risk
equivalent of the dose limits set by authorities outside the
United States is also in the range of 10-5 to 10-6 per year
(except for exposure to radon indoors or releases from mill
tailings)" and that "[t]his range is a reasonable starting point
for EPA's rulemaking."6
The Yucca Mountain standard that EPA is now proposing, however,
includes the following two-tier dose limit
Compliance will be judged against a standard of 150 microsievert
per year (15 millirem per year) committed effective dose
equivalent at times up to 10,000 years after disposal and
against a standard of 3.5 millisievert per year (350 millirem
per year) committed effective dose equivalent at times after
10,000 years and up to 1 million years after disposal.7
The 350 millirem per year dose limit is 14 times higher than the
dose limit contained in NRC regulations governing the disposal
of low-level radioactive waste and more than twenty times higher
than the dose limit previously proposed by the EPA as being
protective of the public health (i.e. 15 millirem per year).
Using the risk factors from the National Academy of Sciences
BEIR VII report, we find that the excess cancer risk for an
individual that would be exposed to 350 millirem per year over a
70 year lifetime would be more than 1 in 36. The risk to women
from this level of exposure would be even greater, approximately
1 in 30. These risks are unacceptably high. As discussed in
section three below, the EPA's choice of the median dose for
determining compliance with the 350 millirem per year dose limit
means that the upper bound doses actually received could be
significantly higher.
In attempting to answer the question of what level of risk is
acceptable, we must bear in mind the following central feature
of the problem; namely that spent nuclear fuel is generated from
nuclear power plants that provide us, the present generation,
with electricity, and therefore we are getting the benefits from
nuclear power, but the costs associated with the impacts of
spent fuel disposal will be borne by generations far into the
future. In fact, the peak impacts are not expected to occur for
tens to hundreds of thousands of years. The implicit ethic in
the EPA's proposed relaxation of the standard from 15 millirem
to 350 millirem per year at 10,000 years is that the present
generation should get all the benefits and pay the least costs,
but generations far into the futures should get none of the
benefits and pay the heaviest costs. This is undemocratic,
unethical, and against any reasonable social norms. It is also
against any reasonable concept of cost-benefit analysis.
It is therefore imperative that whatever the level of radiation
dose is ultimately set that it should not increase over time. At
worst it should stay constant and at best it should get more
stringent. We recognize that making the level of protection
provided to future generations more stringent than currently
accepted radiation protection norms would be a difficult
exercise. Therefore we accept that a standard for radiation
protection for Yucca Mountain from now until the peak dose
should be uniform and should reflect the level of radiation
protection that we expect today. This principle is a generally
accepted tenet of many radiation protection schemes that have
been proposed by both national and international bodies. For
example, in its 1999 Radiation Protection Recommendations as
Applied to the Disposal of Long-lived Solid Radioactive Waste,
the International Commission on Radiological Protection
concluded that
The principal objective of disposal of solid radioactive waste
is the protection of current and future generations from the
radiological consequences of waste produced by the current
generation. However, permanent total isolation is not likely to
be achievable and some fraction of the waste inventory may
migrate to the biosphere, potentially giving rise to exposures
hundreds or thousands of years in the future. Doses to
individuals and populations over such long time-scales can only
be estimated and the reliability of these estimates will
decrease as the time period into the future increases.
Nevertheless, the Commission acknowledges a basic principle,
that individuals and populations in the future should be
afforded at least the same level of protection from actions
taken today as is the current generation.8
The ICRP went on to note that
Nevertheless, the Commission recognises a basic principle that
individuals and populations in the future should be afforded at
least the same level of protection from the action of disposing
of radioactive waste today as is the current generation. This
implies use of the current quantitative dose and risk criteria
derived from considering associated health detriment. Therefore,
protection of future generations should be achieved by applying
these dose or risk criteria to the estimated future doses or
risks in appropriately defined critical groups.9
In its 2005 draft Safety Standard entitled Geological Disposal
of Radioactive Waste, the International Atomic Energy Agency
included the following among their nine "Principles Of
Radioactive Waste Management"
Principle 4: Protection of future generations
Radioactive waste shall be managed in such a way that predicted
impacts on the health of future generations will not be greater
than relevant levels of impact that are acceptable today
Principle 5: Burdens on future generations
Radioactive waste shall be managed in such a way that will not
impose undue burdens on future generations.10
A number of other examples of the acceptance of this principle
can be found. For example, in her presentation to the National
Research Council committee, Margaret Federline [of the U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission] spoke about a "societal pledge to
future generations" that would "provide future societies with
the same protection from radiation we would expect for
ourselves."11 Michael P. Lee and Malcolm R. Knapp of the Office
of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards in the U.S. Nuclear
Regulatory Commission have stated that "[a] basic premise here
[in defining an adequate level of safety] is that the standards
should ensure that future generations are afforded the same
level of protection we are afforded today."12 Sören Norrby, the
director of the Office of Nuclear Waste in the Swedish Nuclear
Power Inspectorate, has stated that
One principle that is generally accepted is that we should offer
the same level of protection to future generations as we require
today. The effects in different time frames must then be
evaluated, and should in principle cover time periods during
which the waste remains hazardous.13
Finally, Allan Duncan, the head of the Radioactive Substances
Function at the U.K. Environment Agency, has noted that
For the purpose of implementing Government policy on radioactive
waste management, and after extensive consultation, the
environment agencies have prepared Guidance on Requirements for
Authorisation of Disposal Facilities on Land for Low and
Intermediate level Radioactive Wastes. Amongst other things this
Guidance sets out principles and requirements for disposal of
low and intermediate level wastes in the first instance but it
has regard to the presence of long-lived radionuclides in the
wastes and so, in due course, will be broadly applicable also to
the disposal of high level wastes.
The essential principles are as follows:
…
Principle No. 2 - Effects in the future
Radioactive wastes shall be managed in such a way that predicted
impacts on the health of future generations will not be greater
than relevant levels of impact that are acceptable today.14
In the past, the EPA has been extremely specific about what it
believes to be the level of risk from exposure to anthropogenic
radiation that is acceptable today. In an April 1997 statement
on the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's standard governing
licensing termination which set a 25 millirem per year dose
limit with the potential for exposures to go up to 100 millirem
per year under certain conditions, Ramona Trovato, the Director
of the EPA's Office of Radiation and Indoor Air, concluded that
"a cancer risk of 1 in 250" would be "simply unacceptably
high."15 The EPA's statement went on to conclude that
This draft rule [from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission] would
not ensure adequate protection of the public health and the
environment. It would not provide the public the level of
protection from residual radioactive materials from NRC
licensees that they are afforded for other environmental
pollutants under EPA's remediation programs, including those
that involve radioactive materials.16
An August 1997 memorandum from Stephen D. Luftig, the Director
of EPA's Office of Emergency and Remedial Response, and Larry
Weinstock, the Acting Director of the EPA's Office of Radiation
and Indoor Air, reiterated these conclusions and included an
analysis which stated that the 25 to 100 mrem per year dose
limit proposed by the NRC was considered to "present risks that
are higher than levels EPA has found to be protective for
carcinogens in general and for radiation, in particular, in
other others contexts."17
In setting previous regulatory standards, the EPA has repeatedly
taken the position that a lifetime incremental risk greater than
1 in 10,000 would be unacceptable. This level of "acceptable"
risk has been codified in the National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants, the National Primary Drinking Water
Standards, and the guidelines for cleanup of sites under the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act.18 In addition, the draft federal radiation
protection guidance proposed by the EPA on December 24, 1994
also specified a goal of limiting the lifetime risk from
exposure to cancer to less than 1 in 10,000.19 Finally, this
level of "acceptable" risk is implicit in the use of the 15
millirem per year dose limit for Yucca Mountain during the first
10,000 years.
This issue was also addressed the National Research Council in
its 1995 analysis of the Yucca Mountain standard. The NRC
committee stated that
Whether posed as "How safe is safe enough" or as "What is an
acceptable level of risk?", the question is not solvable by
science alone. The rulemaking process, directly involving public
comment to which an agency must respond, is an appropriate
method of addressing the question of an appropriate level of
protection. Accordingly, we do not directly recommend a level of
acceptable risk. We do, however, describe the spectrum of
regulations already promulgated that imply a level of risk, all
of which are consistent with recommendations from authoritative
radiation protection bodies.
For example, EPA has already used a risk level of 5 x 10-4
health effects in an average lifetime, or a little less than
10-5 effects per year, assuming an average lifetime of 70 years,
as an acceptable risk limit in its recently published 40 CFR
191. This limit is consistent with other limits established by
other U.S. nuclear regulations, as shown in Table 2-4 [not
shown]. In addition, the risk equivalent of the dose limits set
by authorities outside the United States (shown in Table 2-3)
[not shown] is also in the range of 10-5 to 10-6/yr (expect for
exposure to radon indoors or releases from mill tailings). This
range could therefore be used a reasonable statting point in
EPA's rulemaking.20
The tables cited in the NRC report show that the highest level
of "acceptable" risk relates to the EPA's recommendations for
the indoor radon level which result in an annual risk of 4 x
10-4 (about twice the annual risk of developing a fatal cancer
from exposure to 350 millirem per year). This fact is noted by
the EPA in the proposed Yucca Mountain standard. The proposed
rules states that
The concentration at which EPA recommends action be taken to
mitigate exposures is 4 pCi/l, which translates roughly to 800
mrem/yr. The Agency further recommends that homeowners consider
taking action only if the measured concentration is between 2
and 4 pCi/l (i.e., above 400 mrem/yr).22
However, as the proposed rule goes on to clearly state
It should be understood that this recommendation [regarding the
mitigation of indoor radon] is not based solely on risk, but
considers factors such as the voluntary nature of the exposure,
the application to private property, and the capabilities of
mitigation technology.23
Thus, the recommended action levels for indoor radon, which
takes these multiple factors into consideration, is not a valid
comparison for the determination of what constitutes an
acceptable level of risk being imposed involuntarily on distant
generations that gain no benefit either individually or
societally from the exposures. The far more generally applied
level of "acceptable" risk of 10-5 to 10-6 should serve as the
basis for determining whether future generations are being given
at least the same level of protection as is considered
acceptable for the present generation. This choice is consistent
with the conclusions of both the International Commission on
Radiological Protection and the International Atomic Energy
Agency which have both recommended using a risk equivalent of
10-5 per year as a reference value in setting limits for the
geologic disposal of high-level waste.
As noted above, the level of risk corresponding to the proposed
350 millirem per year dose limit would be far higher than what
the EPA has previously considered to be acceptable in other
contexts involving involuntary risks from exposures to
carcinogens, including radiation. In attempting to address this
conflict the proposed rule notes that
It is clear that we struggled to reconcile the competing claims
of confidence in projections and intergenerational equity. We
sought an approach that would account for what we see as
potentially unmanageable uncertainties, but did not depart from
levels of risk that are considered protective today.24
And later that
We believe the circumstances involved in today's proposal are
significantly different from the situations addressed under
Superfund or any other existing U.S. regulatory program, and
that it should be clear that comparisons between the two are
inappropriate.
…Rather, in establishing a standard to apply to the RMEI over
unprecedented times, we believe it is reasonable to consider
exposures incurred routinely today by people in other locations,
which in our view do not "pose a realistic threat of
irreversible harm or catastrophic consequences" to those
people.26
However, comparisons between these regulatory frameworks are not
only appropriate, but clearly inline with the international
consensus regarding the need to protect future generations to at
least the same level that we protect the present one. While
there is ongoing debate over how to best implement this goal,
there is broad agreement over the need to adequately implement
it. The existence of large uncertainties in repository
performance at long times is not a valid argument for relaxing
the level of protection afforded to future generations. The 1 in
71 lifetime risk of death from cancer (1 in 62 for women) that
would accompany exposure to 350 millirem per year, should
certainly qualify as a "realistic threat of irreversible harm"
under any reasonable interpretation. The rejection by the EPA of
the international consensus regarding the appropriate level of
protection to be afforded future generations (such as by its
assertion that "there is no clear consensus regarding the extent
of the claims held by future generations on the current
generation"27) is a serious problem with the proposed rule. A
dose limit that does not increase with time is a necessary
element of any final standard issued by the EPA.
Section Two - The Inclusion of Radon with "Natural" Background
Radiation:
In the proposed Yucca Mountain standard, the EPA states that
For purposes of this discussion, natural background radiation
consists of external exposures from cosmic and terrestrial
sources, and internal exposures from indoor exposures to
naturally-occurring radon. Altitude and geology are two of the
primary variables accounting for regional variations; however,
there can be tremendous fluctuation even within a city or
county, primarily due to variations in radon emissions.28
The inclusion of indoor radon levels as part of "natural
background radiation" is not scientifically correct and fails to
take into account both the letter and the spirit of current U.S.
law (see below). This inappropriate inclusion of radon has led
the EPA to draw erroneous conclusions regarding the regional
variation in background exposures as part of the proposed rule.
The "average annual effective dose equivalent to individuals in
the U.S. population" as estimated by the National Council on
Radiation Protection and Measurements includes 200 millirem from
radon and its decay products and 100 millirem from other sources
such as cosmic rays and the ingestion of primordial
radionuclides.29 The DOE has estimated that the exposure of
people in the Amargosa Valley is equal to the average exposure
reported by the NCRP, while the EPA has estimated a higher radon
dose of 250 millirem per year.30
The exposure to indoor radon, which accounts for two-thirds of
the average population exposure in the United States, is,
however, a result of human activities and not a result of
natural processes alone. As noted by the National Research
Council in 1999
Many human activities - such as mining and milling of ores,
extraction of petroleum products, use of groundwater for
domestic purposes, and living in houses - alter the natural
background of radiation either by moving naturally occurring
radionuclides from inaccessible locations to locations where
humans are present or by concentrating the radionuclides in the
exposure environment.31
The National Research Council considered indoor radon to be a
"technologically enhanced naturally occurring radionuclide
[TENORM]." The treatment of other TENORM from a radiation
protection standpoint is thus illustrative in the present
context. For example, playground equipment and fences
contaminated with TENORM32 waste from the oil industry
containing radium has been found at a number of locations in
Mississippi and Louisiana. Earlier, a Federal Court held Chevron
Oil liable for damages to workers at a salvage company for
Chevron's failure to conduct adequate inspections of the
equipment and to warn the workers about the possible risks.33
Exposure to these TENORM materials were not considered to be
natural background exposure despite the fact that the
radionuclides involved were all naturally occurring. The EPA has
itself referred to indoor radon as a technologically enhanced
naturally occurring radionuclide and has highlighted the
mechanisms by which the construction of homes and other
buildings cause radon to build up to higher levels than would be
experienced outside.34 Because this exposure to indoor radon is
a result of human activity, it is scientifically incorrect to
combine it with the exposure to unavoidable background sources
such as cosmic rays. Comparing indoor radon to background
radiation is like comparing taking a shower to getting wet from
rain.
Further, the inclusion of doses from indoor radon by the EPA in
the proposed rule ignores the fact that, since 1988, it has been
an explicit long-term goal in U.S. law to reduce exposures to
indoor radon to the level of outdoor radon. Specifically, the
Toxic Substances Control Act states that
The national long-term goal of the United States with respect to
radon levels in buildings is that the air within buildings in
the United States should be as free of radon as the ambient air
outside of buildings.35
It is reasonable to assume that this goal could be met within
the next few hundred years as the building stock in turned over
and that, therefore, long before 10,000 years, the average
population exposure to the US population will have been reduced
to something closer to 100 millirem per year from its current
value of 300 millirem per year. Thus the inclusion of radon
doses in the proposed rule appear to be inconsistent with both
the spirit and the letter of this section of the law.
Following the passage of the section of the Toxic Substances
Control Act in which the "national long-term goal" was set
forth, the NCRP issued a report on radon control technologies in
which they concluded that
The information presented in this report shows that there is a
variety of methods available for the control of radon inside
houses. All systems can be effective when properly installed,
but the best performance is achieved by active soil ventilation
techniques. For new houses being planned or under construction,
the installation of barriers between the soil and the house can
be very effective. Properly done, this approach will solve the
problem for the duration of the use of the house.36
The EPA is aware of this legally mandated goal, and, since 1994,
has published technical advice for how to limit radon levels in
new and existing homes as well as in new schools and other large
buildings.37 In fact, the EPA's 2005 Citizen's Guide To Radon:
The Guide To Protecting Yourself And Your Family From Radon
notes that
Radon reduction systems work and they are not too costly. Some
radon reduction systems can reduce radon levels in your home by
up to 99%. Even very high levels can be reduced to acceptable
levels.38
Already, people living in well-constructed buildings on upper
floors are exposed to indoor radon at a level that is not
significantly different from outdoor levels.
Significantly, the exclusion of indoor radon from the assumed
background radiation level is consistent with the
recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological
Protection. In its 1990 recommendations, the ICRP excluded the
contribution from indoor radon in its choice to use 100 millirem
per year as the typical average "annual effective dose from
natural sources."39 The ICRP was even more explicit in its view
on this matter in its draft 2005 recommendations. In this report
the ICRP stated that
The Commission considers that the annual effective dose from
natural radiation sources, and its variation from place to
place, is of relevance in deciding the levels of maximum
constraints that it now recommends. The existence of the natural
background of radiation does not provide any justification for
additional exposures, but it can be a benchmark for judgement
about their relative importance and the need for action. The
Commission uses the background dose without the radon
contribution because that component is significantly enhanced by
human activities and is thus subject to recommendations from the
Commission for its control at home and at work.40
The Commission went on to caution that "[e]xposures that are
within the natural background range are legitimate matters for
concern, sometimes calling for significant action."41
There is no scientific or legal basis for the EPA to consider
exposures to indoor radon as part of natural background
radiation. The proposed rule has not cited any and has not
addressed legal and scientific view to the contrary. The final
rule should exclude the contribution of indoor radon from its
discussion and use a reasonable value for natural background
radiation of about 100 millirem per year as estimated by the
National Council on Radiological Protection for the U.S.
population and in line with the recommendations of the
International Council on Radiological Protection for a global
average. The use of 100 millirem would also be consistent with
the estimated exposure from non-radon sources for people living
in the Amargosa Valley reported by the DOE. The existence of
this background radiation does not provide a justification for
any increase in the allowable level of exposure for this or
future generations.
Section Three - Statistical Considerations:
The EPA has proposed that the 15 millirem per year dose limit
for the first 10,000 years be measured against the "arithmetic
mean" of the projected doses while the 350 millirem per year
dose limit for the period between 10,000 to 1 million years
would be measured against "the median of the distribution of
projected doses."42 The use of the median dose for times beyond
10,000 years means that half of the calculated doses from the
DOE models would be greater than 350 millirem per year, while
the other half will be less that 350 millirem per year. As the
EPA has noted, the distribution in the projected doses results
from the uncertainties involved in the assumptions in the model
of the system's performance. In light of those uncertainties, it
is quite likely that significant portions of the population at
the time of peak dose could experience doses far higher than 350
millirem per year. In fact, previous assessments of the Yucca
Mountain site conducted by the National Academy of Sciences,
Sandia National Laboratories, and the Electric Power Research
Institute estimated peak doses on the order of several rem to
several tens of rem or more were possible.43
The EPA has justified the use of the median by saying that it
does not want the high values of dose to affect what it calls
the "central tendency" of the distribution. Specifically, it
notes that
In fact, for early occurrences of disruptive events (human
intrusion or igneous intrusion), DOE assessments show that at
some periods of time the arithmetic mean of the projected doses
can exceed the 95th percentile of the distribution of TSPA
[Total System Performance Assessment] results.44
However, what the proposed rule dose not accurately take into
account is that over the time periods of actual interest to the
standard (i.e. less than 10,000 years and between 100,000 and 1
million years) the projected dose distributions are well behaved
with the 95th percentile larger than the mean which is, in turn,
larger than the median of the distribution.45 Specifically, for
times less than 10,000 years the peak 95th percentile dose for
the proposed action is more than seven times higher than the
peak mean dose while for times out to one million years the peak
95th percentile dose is more than four times higher than the
peak mean dose. Reading off the graphs of projected doses in the
DOE Final EIS, we can also estimate that the peak median dose at
long times will be about a factor of three or four less than the
mean.46
The well behaved nature of the distributions of projected doses
over both short and long times is due to the fact that the peak
doses are not dominated by "disruptive events," but by the
natural processes of water infiltration, waste package
corrosion, and radionuclide transport to the biosphere.47 There
is thus no scientific justification for accepting the use of the
mean for times less than 10,000 years as representative while
rejecting the mean dose at very long times. This conclusion is
supported by the ICRP's Radiation Protection Recommendations as
Applied to the Disposal of Long-lived Solid Radioactive Waste,
which states that
As general guidance, the Commission considers that its
recommendations on the estimation of exposures in Publication 43
[Principles of Monitoring for the Radiation Protection of the
Public] apply. The Commission therefore continues to recommend
that exposures should be assessed on the basis of the mean
annual dose in the critical group, i.e. in a group of people
representative of those individuals in the population expected
to receive the highest annual dose, which is a small enough
group to be relatively homogeneous with respect to age, diet,
and those aspects of behaviour that affect the annual doses
received.48
In making use of different statistical measures for the dose
limits, the proposed rule increases the disparity between the
level of protection provided to distant generations compared to
the present generation. Already the 350 millirem per year dose
limit for times greater than 10,000 years is more than 23 times
the 15 millirem per year dose limit for times less than 10,000
years. Taking into account the additional difference introduced
by the choice of statistical measures would make the long-term
dose limit about 70 times or more greater than that which is
considered acceptable today. We recognize that the process of
calculation is probabilistic and, therefore, there cannot be
guarantees for everyone in the literal sense. But, if a
statistical approach is used for the long-term, there is a
strong case to be made that, whatever the value of the standard,
the part of the probability distribution for the dose limit
should not be the median or even the mean, but the 95th or 99th
percentile, so that the vast majority of the population can be
assured of protection. We recognized that the DOE projections of
dose estimates are the result of Monte Carlo realizations and do
not directly represent doses to fractions of the population.
However, if the median of such realization is 350 mrem per year,
the uncertainties in the parameters will create a significant
likelihood that a large portion of the population will be
exposed to more than that, and some exposed to much more. Given
that the uncertainties at the high end of the doses are
significant, the mean exposure could be much higher, perhaps
several times higher, that the median. Hence, while considerably
less than half the exposed population would be expected to be
exposed to levels several times higher than 350 mrem/year, the
risks to them would be very high indeed.
The large uncertainties at the high end can be interpreted as
representing a significant chance that a small proportion of the
population would be exposed to high levels or that there is a
small chance that large numbers of people could be exposed to
them at the time that the highest doses would occur. The
interpretation would depend on the specifics of the scenarios
that are being run. For instance, a 95 percentile value of peak
dose of about 2 rem per year, which can be inferred from
official DOE and contractor estimates,49 could create great risk
a small minority of exposed people. For women exposed to this
level of radiation it would create lifetime fatal cancer risks
would 1 in 10 and incidence risk would be about 1 in 5. This
would make the proposed standard statistically about like
Russian roulette rather than a radiation protection rule at
least for some people. On the other hand, it can be interpreted
as a small chance of creating very large risks for large numbers
of exposed people, which is also unacceptable.
The final standard that is adopted by the EPA should not be set
in a manner that would likely result in a significant portion of
the population getting doses higher than the specified limit,
particularly when the risks from such exposures are as
unacceptably high as those in the rule currently proposed by the
EPA. Proper standards should be set in a manner that reasonably
insures protection of the entire population.
Section Four - The Treatment of Climate Change:
Over the timescales under consideration for geologic disposal
of spent nuclear fuel, the climate at the Yucca Mountain site
will be expected to pass through a number of natural climate
cycles as well as experience the impacts of anthropogenic
climate change due to the buildup of greenhouse gases in the
atmosphere. As described by the Department of Energy in 2002
Estimates of future climatic conditions are based on what is
known about the past, with consideration given to climate
impacts caused by human activities. Calcite in Devils Hole, a
fissure in the ground approximately 40 kilometers (25 miles)
southeast of Yucca Mountain, provides the best-dated record of
climate changes over the past 500,000 years. The record shows
continual variation, often with very rapid jumps, between cold
glacial climates (for the Great Basin, these are called pluvial
periods) and warm interglacial climates similar to the present.
Fluctuations average 100,000 years in length.50
However, despite this record of past climate changes stretching
back half a million years (including evidence for "very rapid
jumps" between different states), the EPA's proposed rule states
that
We are proposing today that DOE, based on past climate
conditions in the Yucca Mountain area, should determine how the
disposal system responds to the effects of increased water flow
through the repository as a result of climate change. We believe
that the nature and extent of climate change can be reasonably
represented by constant conditions taking effect after 10,000
years out to the time of geologic stability. We are proposing to
explicitly require that DOE assume water flow will increase as a
result of climate change. We leave it to NRC as the licensing
authority to specify the values to be used to represent climate
change. However, we expect that a doubling of today's average
annual precipitation beginning at 10,000 years and continuing
through the period of geologic stability would provide a
reasonable scenario, given NAS's statements regarding potential
effects on recharge. NRC could also use the range of projected
precipitation values for different climate states and specify a
reasonable long-term average precipitation based on the duration
of each climate state over the period of geologic stability. We
believe that either approach will allow for a reasonable
estimate of how water will impact the site without subjecting
the assessments to speculative assumptions that may well be
unresolvable, while providing a reasonable indicator of disposal
system compliance.51
This treatment of climate change in the EPA's proposed rule is
scientifically incorrect, will tend to underestimate the impacts
from the disposal of spent fuel in the repository, and does not
appear to be consistent with the recommendations of the 1995
National Research Council review as required by federal law.
In the executive summary to its Technical Bases for Yucca
Mountain Standard, the NRC committee stated that
We further conclude that the probabilities and consequences of
modifications by climate change, seismic activity, and volcanic
eruptions at Yucca Mountain are sufficiently boundable that
these factors can be included in performance assessments that
extend over this time frame [one million years].52
Later in the report, the NRC committee elaborated on the
treatment of climate change that it felt should be included in
the performance assessments and noted that
Recent research has indicated that the past 10,000 years are
probably the only sustained period of stable climate in the past
80,000 years. Based on this record, it seems plausible that the
climate will fluctuate between glacial and interglacial states
during the period suggested for the performance assessment
calculations. Thus, the specified upper boundary, or the
physical top boundary of the modeled system, should be able to
reflect these variations (especially in terms of ground water
recharge).53
Thus, the use of a constant value as proposed by the EPA would
not be consistent with the NRC committee recommendations that
the "probabilities and consequences" of future climates changes
are sufficiently well understood to allow the "variations" in
water infiltration to be taken into account. In fact, the DOE
performance assessments as presented in the Final Environmental
Impact Statement for a Geologic Repository for the Disposal of
Spent Nuclear Fuel and High-Level Radioactive Waste at Yucca
Mountain, Nye County, Nevada published in 2002 already
explicitly took into account the variation in future climate
changes in its prediction of doses out to one million years.54
Beyond the issue of whether the proposed rule is consistent with
the recommendations of the National Research Council as
required, the use of a constant or average infiltration rate for
the period from 10,000 to one million years is not
scientifically valid and would not accurately represent the
impacts of climate change on the performance of the repository.
The response of the geologic system to increases in available
water is not a simple linear one in which increased infiltration
rates lead to a proportional increase in water flux through the
repository. As summarized by Jane Long of the University of
Nevada, Reno and Rod Ewing of the University of Michigan in 2004
At present, there is no accepted conceptual model that explains
the travel times and can consequently be used to infer the flux.
If climate change were to produce a larger influx of water,
saturation in the mountain could increase. Permeability under
any proposed model increases nonlinearly with saturation. Small
increases in percolation flux could significantly increase fluid
flow through the repository horizon. This nonlinear response is
one of the greatest challenges in predicting the behavior of
hydrologic systems over long periods.55
This issue of a non-linear response for the transport of water
through the unsaturated zone at Yucca Mountain is well
recognized and has been discussed by independent scientific
bodies for at least a decade. In 1995 the National Research
Council noted that
Change to a cooler, wetter climate at Yucca Mountain would
likely result in greater fluxes of water through the unsaturated
zone, which could affect rates of radionuclide release from
waste-forms and transport to the water table. Little effort has
been put into quantifying the magnitude of this response, but a
doubling of the effective wetness, defined as the ratio of
precipitation to potential evapotranspiration, might cause a
significant increase in recharge. An increase in recharge could
raise the water table, increasing saturated zone fluxes.56
In a subsequent review, another National Research Council
committee concluded that
Models of varying complexity have been developed for
preferential flow, but their adequacy for field-scale
application requires further testing…. This issue is of
particular concern in the fractured vadose zone because of the
inherently nonlinear nature of processes involved. As flow
conditions change, different flow and transport mechanisms, not
represented in the model, may become important, leading to large
errors in predictions.57
Similar concerns were raised by the Nuclear Waste Technical
Review Board, a scientific advisory body created as part of the
1987 amendment to the Nuclear Waste Policy Act whose members are
nominated by the National Academy of Sciences and appointed by
the President. In their 1997 report to Congress, the Board noted
that
With increased precipitation and, therefore, increased net
infiltration, the fraction of the total flux seeping into the
drifts could increase nonlinearly. Thus, a future change to
higher-precipitation conditions could cause a more than
proportional increase in seepage into drifts and adversely
affect repository performance.58
The issue of climate changes is of significant importance to the
predicted long-term performance of the repository. The Total
System Performance Assessment presented by the Department of
Energy in its 2002 Final EIS for Yucca Mountain included a
consideration of the transitions between future climate states,
and found that the resulting dose predictions were also cyclical
and that "[t]he multiple peaks occurring 200,000 years or more
after repository closure are driven by transitions between
climate states." For a sense of the scale of these cyclical
changes, the difference between the highest peak dose and the
lowest value before the next peak in the DOE predictions was
roughly a factor of ten (see the figure below).
Figure 5-4. Mean and 95th-percentile (based on 200 simulations
of the total system performance, each using random samples of
uncertain parameters) annual individual dose at the RMEI
location during 1 million years after repository closure for the
nominal scenario under the high-temperature repository operating
mode.
(Figure taken from the Final Environmental Impact Statement for
a Geologic Repository for the Disposal of Spent Nuclear Fuel and
High-Level Radioactive Waste at Yucca Mountain, Nye County,
Nevada [DOE FEIS 2002 p. 5-26])
Not unexpectedly, the DOE found that "[t]he peak annual
individual dose usually coincided with the occurrence of a
wetter climate period."60 The use of a constant climate state
over the period beyond 10,000 years as proposed by the EPA would
washout the important impacts brought about by the changes
between climate states and would tend to underestimate the
actual peak dose that would be expected from the repository.
This underestimation would, along with the use of the median
dose, lead to even larger risks for distant generations being
possible under the proposed rule. This would further aggravate
the issues of intergeneration equity discussed in section one.
The final rule issued by the EPA should require the DOE to
explicitly consider the long-term fluctuations in climate and to
use conservative assumptions about the timing and duration of
wetter climate states given the non-linear response of the
transport models and the large influence of climate on the
long-term performance of the Yucca Mountain repository.
Section Five - The Continued Relaxation of Radiation Protection
Standards at Yucca Mountain:
The relaxation of all radiation protection norms to well above
anything now permitted, as proposed by the EPA for the period
beyond 10,000 years, would be the third time that very major
changes have been made to regulations in order to make it more
possible to license a repository at Yucca Mountain once analyses
came to light that indicated that such a repository could not be
licensed under the then existing rules. This count does not
include the wholesale abandonment of research on all other
potential repositories locations in 1987 to focus solely on
Yucca Mountain.
The first time that existing standards and regulations were
abandoned to accommodate the development of the Yucca Mountain
repository was in relation to the EPA's carbon-14 emissions
rules for high level waste disposal.61 The EPA standard,
originally promulgated in the 1980s, was to apply to all high
level waste repositories, and included limits on carbon-14
emissions, among other radionuclides. Following the promulgation
of this rule, a scientist at Lawrence Livermore National
Laboratory realized that because Yucca Mountain was an
unsaturated repository in porous rock that it might not be able
to meet the carbon-14 emission standard.62 The EPA constituted a
subcommittee of its Radiation Advisory Committee to review the
matter. One of the present authors, Dr. Arjun Makhijani, was on
that subcommittee which reached a consensus conclusion that
[I]t is not possible on the basis of presently available
information to predict with reasonable confidence whether
releases from an unsaturated repository would be less than or
greater than the Table 1 (40 CFR 191) release limits. (The Table
1 Release limit is one-tenth of the inventory.)63
Instead of maintaining the rule for all repositories and trying
to find a better site, Congress decreed that there should be a
new rule for Yucca Mountain alone.64 We call this the "Double
Standard" standard.
The second time that radiation protection rules were relaxed was
when the NRC abandoned its rules for the performance of the
engineered barriers and the geologic setting in which they were
to be placed.65 Under the original rules the engineered barriers
were to play an important role in preventing the release of
significant amount of radionuclides, only for the first one
thousand years. Beyond that period the geologic setting was to
play the central role in preventing the radionuclides from
reaching the human environment in significant quantities. In
1999 the Department of Energy presented five graphs to the
Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board in order to illustrate the
role of each element in the isolation system and its importance
in determining the ultimate doses received by the public.66 (See
Attachment 1) From the information presented in these graphs, it
was clear that the only element in the isolation system which
plays a central role in meeting the proposed standard of 15 mrem
within the first 10,000 years is the engineered waste canisters.
The geologic setting of Yucca Mountain is shown to be
practically useless in containing the radionuclides either
before or after 10,000 years. Under the original Nuclear
Regulatory Commission rule, Yucca Mountain could not have been
licensed just as it would likely not have been licensed under
the earlier EPA rule covering carbon-14 emissions. Again,
instead of abandoning Yucca Mountain and finding a new
repository location that could meet the then existing
requirements, the NRC relaxed its regulations to what we now
have which is to require the DOE to show only a "total system
performance assessment." In this method of performance
assessment, the performance of the repository can depend on just
one element of the isolation system even if every other element
is essentially non-performing. That is the case for Yucca
Mountain as can be seen from the DOE's own figures from their
1999 presentation.
Hence a very critical system, estimated to cost between $60 and
$100 billion is being built without any significant backup
protection for the environment as part of its design. This is
contrary to common sense and elementary engineering principles
for complex, important systems which generally seek to rely on
the principle of defense-in-depth. The proposed exposure limit
of 350 millirem per year for times beyond 10,000 years, which is
well beyond any established radiation norm, is therefore the
third time that standards would be greatly relaxed in order to
try and accommodate the licensing of a repository at Yucca
Mountain. If a repository at Yucca Mountain, or any other site,
cannot meet scientifically reasonable and socially acceptable
performance criteria than it should be abandoned in favor of a
more suitable site. The continued relaxation of regulatory
requirements does not serve the public interest and should have
no part in the final rule as adopted by the EPA.
Section Six - The Risks to Children:
Our final comment on the proposed rule relates to the following
claim made by the EPA in its discussions of the standard's
compliance with relevant Executive Orders:
This proposed rule is not subject to Executive Order 13045
[Protection of Children from Environmental Health &Safety Risks]
because it is not economically significant as defined in
Executive Order 12866, and because the Agency does not have
reason to believe the environmental health risks or safety risks
addressed by this action present a disproportionate risk to
children. The public is invited to submit or identify
peer-reviewed studies and data, of which EPA may not be aware,
that assessed results of early life exposure to radiation.67
It stretches credulity to believe that the EPA is unaware of the
international scientific consensus that children, and
particularly female children, are at significantly greater risk
from radiation exposure compared to adults. Following the 1986
Chernobyl disaster there was finally a widespread recognition
within the radiation protection community of the need to
accurately determine the doses that are received by children
from internally deposited radionuclides. The efforts undertaken
in the wake of this accident were integrated with ongoing
efforts of the International Commission on Radiological
Protection leading to the development of age specific dose
conversion factors for ingestion and inhalation.68 These dose
models were published between 1989 and 1996 as a series of five
ICRP reports that reveled that, for many radionuclides, children
can receive higher doses than adults for the same level of
ingestion or inhalation.69 These dose models have been adopted
by the European Union's European Basic Safety Standards and the
International Atomic Energy Agency's International Basic Safety
Standards.
Following the publication of these ICRP reports, the EPA's 1999
Federal Guidance Report 13 included a discussion of the
heightened cancer risk from radiation with decreasing age at
exposure.70 The CD supplement to Federal Guidance Report 13
issued by the EPA in 2002 included an extensive database of both
dose and risk coefficients for ingestion and inhalation showing
a heightened risk to children from exposure to many
radionuclides.71 Finally, the BEIR VII Committee has published
the most up to date review of the available scientific
information, and has made specific recommendations regarding age
specific risk coefficients for exposure to low-level radiation.
The figure below shows the rapid rise in risk with decreasing
age at exposure as estimated by the U.S. National Academy of
Science.72
To illustrate the conclusions of the BEIR VII committee in
another way, we note that the risk of developing cancer for a
child between 0 and 10 years old is more than two-and-a-half
times the risk to a 25 year old adult from the same level of
exposure. Finally, the disparity between the risk to men and
women also grows more significant at younger ages as can be seen
quite easily from the above figure.
The final rule should explicitly acknowledge the firmly grounded
scientific consensus that children are, in fact,
disproportionately at risk from exposure to radiation and
reevaluate its compliance with Executive Order 13045 which
states that
A growing body of scientific knowledge demonstrates that
children may suffer disproportionately from environmental health
risks and safety risks. These risks arise because: children's
neurological, immunological, digestive, and other bodily systems
are still developing; children eat more food, drink more fluids,
and breathe more air in proportion to their body weight than
adults; children's size and weight may diminish their protection
from standard safety features; and children's behavior patterns
may make them more susceptible to accidents because they are
less able to protect themselves. Therefore, to the extent
permitted by law and appropriate, and consistent with the
agency's mission, each Federal agency:
(a) shall make it a high priority to identify and assess
environmental health risks and safety risks that may
disproportionately affect children;
and
(b) shall ensure that its policies, programs, activities, and
standards address disproportionate risks to children that result
from environmental health risks or safety risks.73
Section Seven - IEER's Proposal for a Final Rule:
The Institute for Energy and Environmental Research recommends
that the final rule as adopted by the EPA should include, at a
minimum, the following elements:
1. The annual dose limit for all pathways should be between 10
and 25 millirem and should remain constant in time over the
period of geologic stability at the site. This would be
consistent with an implementation of the international consensus
that future generations should be protected to at least the same
level as is considered acceptable today.
2. A separate sub-limit of 4 millirem per year to the most
exposed organ from the drinking water pathway should be included
over the entire period of geologic stability. This would be
consistent with the previously expressed EPA views that
groundwater must be "protected as a natural resource" from
radiological impacts and that "protecting ground water used as
drinking water is a human health issue."74
3. The radiological impacts on children should be explicitly
considered in the Department of Energy's performance assessments
in order to ensure that they are not disproportionately affected
by the repository. This would be consistent with the intent of
Executive Order 13045 to protect the health of children
regardless of whether or not the Yucca Mountain repository is
considered "economically significant as defined in Executive
Order 12866."
4. The impacts of future changes in climate should be taken
into account explicitly in the DOE's performance assessments
including the consideration of periodic cycling through
different climate states. This would be consistent with the 1995
recommendations of the National Research Council as required by
law.
5. The standard should recognize that the uncertainties in the
estimated doses will increase with time and that the
uncertainties beyond 10,000 years will become very significant.
In this regard, therefore, we propose that the EPA adopt the
French approach to waste repository standards75 in which the
doses beyond 10,000 years are calculated using scientifically
reasonable, but highly conservative choices for the important
parameter values in order to increase confidence that the
ultimate impacts from the repository will be less than those
predicted.
In contrast to the EPA proposed rule, the rule that we propose
is in conformity with the NAS 1995 report, with international
radiation protection guidelines, with cost-benefit principles,
intergenerational equity, and the history and science of
radiation protection. It also addresses the issue that
uncertainties grow over the long term making a statistical
approach more in the long-term more difficult and questionable.
By adopting an approach of choosing fixed but conservative
parameter values, a statistical approach is avoided, making the
long-term result more robust than is obtained by the method
suggested by the EPA.
Attachment 1. Department of Energy Graphs as Presented to the
Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board in 1999
Graph A: Neutralize Waste Package
Graph B: Neutralize Spent Fuel Cladding
Graph C: Neutralize Overlying Flow Barriers
Graph D: Neutralize Unsaturated Zone Transport Barrier
Graph E: Neutralize Saturated Zone Transport Barrier
Source for all graphs: U.S. DOE Office of Civilian Radioactive
Wate Management, "NWTRB Repository Panel meeting: Postclosure
Defense in Depth in the Design Selection Process," presentation
for the Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board Panel for the
Repository, January 25, 1999.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Endnotes:
1. EPA 2005
2. Règle Nº III.2.f
3. NAS/NRC 2005 p. 28 and EPA 1999 p. 182
4. Despite the higher cancer incidence risk estimates contained
in the BEIR VII report, its average fatal cancer risk estimate
is approximately equal to that used in the EPA Federal Guidance
Report 13 due to the BEIR VII committee's assumptions regarding
improved survival rates for cancer. (NAS/NRC 2005 p. 28 and EPA
1999 p. 179) From a public health perspective the correct value
to consider is the risk of developing cancer not just the risk
of dying from cancer.
5. NAS/NRC 1995 p. 50
6. NAS/NRC 1995 p. 5
7. EPA 2005 p. 49014
8. ICRP 81 p. 13 (emphasis added)
9. ICRP 81 p. 23
10. IAEA 2005 p. 43 (emphasis added)
11. NAS/NRC 1995 p. 56
12. NEA 1997 p. 48
13. NEA 1997 p. 22 (emphasis added)
14. NEA 1997 p. 61 (emphasis in the original)
15. Trovato 1997 p. 4
16. Trovato 1997 p. 11-12 (emphasis in the original)
17. Luftig and Weinstock 1997 Attachment B p. 7
18. Fed Reg April 21, 2000 p. 21580, Fed Reg December 7, 2000 p.
76710 and 76716, Fed Reg March 8, 1990 p. 8716, Fed Reg December
15, 1989 p. 51655 to 51657, 51670, 51677, and 51688, and 40 CFR
300 2005 p. 70
19. Trovato 1997 p. 5 and Fed Reg December 23, 1994
20. NAS/NRC 1995 p. 49
21. NAS/NRC 1995 p. 5, 43-46, and 50 and NAS/NRC 2005 p. 28
22. EPA 2005 p. 49038
23. EPA 2005 p. 49038
24. ICRP 81 p. 23 and IAEA 2005 p. 11
25. EPA 2005 p. 49032
26. EPA 2005 p. 49038
27. EPA 2005 p. 49036
28. EPA 2005 p. 49037 (emphasis added)
29. NCRP 93 p. 59-60
30. EPA 2005 p. 49037
31. NAS/NRC 1999 p. 1 (emphasis added)
32. NAS/NRC 1999 p. 1-3 and 19-22
33. EPA 2000 p. 37
34. EPA 2000 p. 35-40, EPA 2001 p. 14-16, and EPA 2003 p. 2
35. 15 USC 2661
36. NCRP 103 p. 60
37. See for example EPA 1994, EPA 2001, and EPA 2003
38. EPA 2005b p. 3
39. ICRP 60 p. 45
40. ICRP 2005 p. 41
41. ICRP 2005 p. 42
42. EPA 2005 p. 49041 to 49046
43. SDA 1995 p. 9
44. EPA 2005 p. 49043 to 49044
45. DOE FEIS 2002b p. I-77 to I-78
46. DOE FEIS 2002b p. I-48 to I-49 and I-77 to I-78
47. DOE FEIS 2002 p. 5-19 to 5-20 and 5-23
48. ICRP 81 p. 14 (emphasis added)
49. A number of official dose calculations are reproduced in SDA
1995, p. 9. See, for instance, the 1994 Sandia probabilistic
results for peak dose.
50. DOE FEIS 2002 p. 5-12 (emphasis added)
51. EPA 2005 p. 49060 (emphasis added)
52. NAS/NRC 1995 p. 9
53. NAS/NRC 1995 p. 78
54. DOE FEIS 2002 p. 5-23 to 5-27
55. Long and Ewing 2004 p. 376-377 (emphasis added)
56. NAS/NRC 1995 p. 91
57. NAS/NRC 2000 p. 39-40
58. NWTRB 1998 p. 38
59. DOE FEIS 2002 p. 5-25
60. DOE FEIS 2002 p. 5-26
61. 40 CFR 191
62. Van Konynenburg 1991
63. EPA 1993 p.2
64. 42 USC 10141
65. 10 CFR 60, 1984
66. DOE 1999, and reproduced from Science for Democratic Action
v.7, no.3, May 1999, pages 12-13.
67. EPA 2005 p. 49062
68. ICRP 2005 and NCRP 128 p. 3 and 9
69. ICRP 56, ICRP 67, ICRP 69, ICRP 71, and ICRP 72
70. EPA 1999 p. 174-178
71. EPA 2002
72. NAS/NRC 2005 p. 550
73. Executive Order 1997 p. 19885
74. Trovato 1997 p. 8-9
75. Règle Nº III.2
-----------------------------------------------------------------
References
15 USC 2661
United States Code. Title 15--Commerce and Trade. Chapter
53--Toxic Substances Control. Subchapter III--Indoor Radon
Abatement. Sec. 2661 National Goal. 2000. On the Web at
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/uscode/index.html.
10 CFR 60, 1984
United States. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Code of Federal
Regulations. Title 10 Energy. Part 60 Disposal of High-Level
Radioacitve Wastes in Geologic Repositories. As of January 1,
1984.
40 CFR 191
United States. Environmental Protection Agency. Code of Federal
Regulations. Title 40: Protection of Environment. Part 191
Environmental radiation protection standards for management and
disposal of spent nuclear fuel. (7-1-05 Edition). On the Web at
http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_05/40cfr191_05.html.
40 CFR 300 2005
United States. Environmental Protection Agency. Code of Federal
Regulations. Title 40 Protection of Environment. Part 300
National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency
Plan. (7-1-05 Edition). On the Web at
http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_05/40cfr300_05.html.
42 USC 10131
United States Code. Title 42--The Public Health and Welfare.
Chapter 108--Nuclear Waste Policy. Subchapter I--Disposal ad
Storage of High-Level Radioactive Waste, Spent Nuclear Fuel, and
Low-Level Radioactive Waste. Part A--Repositories for Disposal
of High-Level Radioactive Waste and Spent Nuclear Fuel. Sec.
10131. Findings and Purposes. (2000 suppl. 2). On the Web at
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/uscode/index.html.
42 USC 10141
United States Code. Title 42--The Public Health And Welfare
Chapter 108--Nuclear Waste Policy Subchapter I--Disposal And
Storage Of High-Level Radioactive Waste, Spent Nuclear Fuel, And
Low-Level Radioactive Waste Part A--Repositories for Disposal of
High-Level Radioactive Waste and Spent Nuclear Fuel. Sec. 10141.
Certain standards and criteria. On the Web at
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/uscode/index.html.
DOE 1999
U.S. Department of Energy. Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste
Management. NWTRB Repository Panel meeting: Postclosure Defense
in Depth in the Design Selection Process." Presented to the
Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board Panel for the Repository.
Presented by Dennis C. Richardson. January 25, 1999. Power Point
presentation. .
DOE FEIS 2002
United States. Department of Energy. Final Environmental Impact
Statement for a Geologic Repository for the Disposal of Spent
Nuclear Fuel and High-Level Radioactive Waste at Yucca Mountain,
Nye County, Nevada. Volume I, Impact Analyses, Chapters 1
through 15. DOE/EIS-0250. [Washington, DC]: DOE, Office of
Civilian Radioactive Waste Management, February 2002. On the Web
at http://www.eh.doe.gov/nepa/eis/eis0250/eis0250index.html.
DOE FEIS 2002b
United States. Department of Energy. Final Environmental Impact
Statement for a Geologic Repository for the Disposal of Spent
Nuclear Fuel and High-Level Radioactive Waste at Yucca Mountain,
Nye County, Nevada. Volume II, Appendixes A through O.
DOE/EIS-0250. [Washington, DC]: DOE, Office of Civilian
Radioactive Waste Management, February 2002. On the Web at
http://www.eh.doe.gov/nepa/eis/eis0250/eis0250index.html.
EPA 1993
Raymond C. Loehr, Oddvar F. Nygaard, and James E. Watson.
"Science Advisory Board Review of the Release of Carbon-14 in
Gaseous Form from High-Level Waste Disposal."
EPA-SAB-RAC-93-010. Letter to Carol. M. Browner, Administrator,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, April 29, 1993,
transmitting the full report: EPA-SAB-RAC-93-010.
EPA 1994
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "Radon Prevention in the
Design and Construction of Schools and Other Large Buildings",
EPA 625/R-92/016, Third Printing with Addendum, June 1994. On
the Web at
http://www.epa.gov/ORD/NRMRL/pubs/625r92016/625r92016.pdf.
EPA 1999
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "Cancer Risk Coefficients
for Environmental Exposure to Radionuclides", Federal Guidance
Report No. 13, September 1999 (EPA 402-R-99-001)
EPA 2000
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Radiation Protection at
EPA: the First 30 Years. EPA-402-B-00-001. Washington, DC: EPA,
Office of Radiation and Indoor Air, August 2000. On the Web at
http://www.epa.gov/radiation/docs/402-b-00-001.pdf.
EPA 2001
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "Building Radon Out: A
Step-by-Step Guide on How to Build Radon-Resistant Homes", EPA
402-K-01-002, April 2001. On the Web at
http://www.epa.gov/radon/images/buildradonout.pdf.
EPA 2002
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "Cancer Risk Coefficients
for Environmental Exposure to Radionuclides: CD Supplement",
Federal Guidance Report No. 13, 2002 (EPA-402-C-R-99-001, Rev.
1)
EPA 2003
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "Consumer's Guide To Radon
Reduction: How to fix your home", EPA 402-K-03-002, Revised
February 2003. On the Web at
http://www.epa.gov/radon/images/consguid.pdf.
EPA 2005
United States. Environmental Protection Agency. "40 CFR Part
197: Public Health and Environmental Radiation Protection
Standards for Yucca Mountain, Nevada: Proposed Rule." Federal
Register, v.70, no.161, August 22, 2005, pages 49014-49065. On
the Web at
http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/01jan20051800/edocket.acc
ess.gpo.gov/2005/pdf/05-16193.pdf.
EPA 2005b
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "A Citizen's Guide To
Radon: The Guide To Protecting Yourself And Your Family From
Radon", EPA 402-K02-006, Revised September 2005
Executive Order 1997
William J. Clinton, "Executive Order 13045 - Protection of
Children From Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks",
Federal Register, April 23, 1997
Fed Reg April 21, 2000
United States. Environmental Protection Agency. "40 CFR Parts
141 and 142. National Primary Drinking Water Regulations;
Radionuclides; Notice of Data Availability; Notice of data
availability for proposed rules with request for comments."
Federal Register, v.65, no.78, April 21, 2000, pages
21575-21628.On the Web at
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=2000_re
gister&docid=00-9654-filed.pdf.
Fed Reg December 15, 1989
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "40 CFR Part 61, National
Emissions Standards Hazardous Air Pollutants; Radionuclides.
Final Rule and Notice of Consideration," Federal Register, v.54,
no.240, December 15, 1989, pages 51654+.
Fed Reg December 23, 1994
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. "Federal Radiation
Protection Guidance for Exposure of the General Public. Proposed
recommendations, request for written comments, and notice of
public hearings." Federal Register, [v.59, no.246], December 23,
1994, [pages 66414-66428]. On the Web at
http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA-AIR/1994/December/Day-23/pr-240.h
tml.
Fed Reg December 7, 2000
United States. Environmental Protection Agency. "40 CFR Parts 9,
141 and 142. National Primary Drinking Water Regulations;
Radionuclides; Final Rule." Federal Register, v.65, no.236,
December 7, 2000, pages 76708-76753. On the Web at
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=2000_re
gister&docid=00-30421-filed.pdf.
Fed Reg March 8, 1990
United States. Environmental Protection Agency. "40 CFR Part
300, National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency
Plan; Final Rule." Federal Register, v.55, no.46, March 8, 1990,
pages 8666+.
IAEA 2005
International Atomic Energy Agency. Geological Disposal of
Radioactive Waste. Jointly sponsored with the Nuclear Energy
Agency of the OECD. IAEA safety standards series. Draft safety
requirements no. WS-R-4. DS154. [Vienna] IAEA, 2005-04-28. On
the Web at
http://www-ns.iaea.org/downloads/standards/drafts/ds154.pdf.
ICRP 2005
International Commission on Radiological Protection. 2005
Recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological
Protection. Draft for consultation. On the Web at
http://www.umweltministerium.de/files/pdfs/allgemein/application/
pdf/icrp_empfehlung.pdf.
ICRP 56
International Commission on Radiological Protection.
Age-dependent Doses to member of the Public from Intake of
Radionuclides: Part 1. Annals of the ICRP, v. 20 no. 2. ICRP
publication 56. Pergamon Press, Oxford: ICRP, 1989.
ICRP 60
International Commission on Radiological Protection. 1990
Recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological
Protection. Annals of the ICRP, v. 21 no. 1-3. ICRP publication
60. Pergamon Press, Oxford: ICRP, 1990.
ICRP 67
International Commission on Radiological Protection.
Age-dependent Doses to member of the Public from Intake of
Radionuclides: Part 2 Ingestion Dose Coefficients. Annals of the
ICRP, v. 23 no. 3/4. ICRP publication 67. Pergamon Press,
Oxford: ICRP, 1993.
ICRP 69
International Commission on Radiological Protection.
Age-dependent Doses to member of the Public from Intake of
Radionuclides: Part 3 Ingestion Dose Coefficients. Annals of the
ICRP, v. 25 no. 1. ICRP publication 69. Pergamon Press, Oxford:
ICRP, 1995.
ICRP 71
International Commission on Radiological Protection.
Age-dependent Doses to member of the Public from Intake of
Radionuclides: Part 4 Inhalation Dose Coefficients. Annals of
the ICRP, v. 25 no. 3-4. ICRP publication 71. Pergamon Press,
Oxford: ICRP, 1995.
ICRP 72
International Commission on Radiological Protection.
Age-dependent Doses to member of the Public from Intake of
Radionuclides: Part 5 Compilation of Ingestion and Inhalation
Dose Coefficients. Annals of the ICRP, v. 26 no. 1. ICRP
publication 72. Pergamon Press, Oxford: ICRP, 1996.
ICRP 77
International Commission on Radiological Protection.
Radiological protection policy for the disposal of radioactive
waste. Annals of the ICRP, v. 27 supplement. ICRP publication
77. Kidlington, Oxford; Tarrytown, NY: Pergamon, 1997.
ICRP 81
International Commission on Radiological Protection. Radiation
protection recommendations as applied to the disposal of
long-lived solid radioactive waste. Annals of the ICRP, v. 28,
no. 4. ICRP publication 81. Kidlington, Oxford; Tarrytown, NY:
Pergamon, 1998.
Long and Ewing 2004
Jane C.S. Long, Rodney C. Ewing. "Yucca Mountain: Earth-Science
Issues at a Geologic Repository for High-Level Nuclear Waste."
Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences 32:363-401, 2004.
On the Web at
http://www.state.nv.us/nucwaste/news2004/pdf/annurev.earth.32.092
203.122444.pdf.
Luftig and Weinstock 1997
Stephen D. Luftig and Larry Weinstock. "Establishment of Cleanup
Levels for CERCLA sites with Radioactive Contamination." OSWER
no. 9200.4-18. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Memorandum,
Aug 22 1997. With Attachments. On the Web at
http://www.epa.gov/radiation/docs/cleanup/rad_arar.pdf.
NAS/NRC 1995
National Research Council. Committee on the Technical Bases for
Yucca Mountain Standards. Technical Bases for Yucca Mountain
Standards. Committee on the Technical Bases for Yucca Mountain
Standards, Board on Radioactive Waste Management, Commission on
Geosciences, Environment, and Resources, National Research
Council. Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1995.
NAS/NRC 1999
National Research Council. Evaluation of Guidelines for
Exposures to Technologically Enhanced Naturally Occurring
Radioactive Materials. Committee on Evaluation of EPA Guidelines
for Exposures to Technologically Enhanced Naturally Occurring
Radioactive Materials, Board on Radiation Effects Research,
Commission on Life Sciences, National Research Council.
Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1999. On the Web at
http://books.nap.edu/catalog/6360.html.
NAS/NRC 2000
National Research Council. Conceptual Models of Flow and
Transport in the Fractured Vadose Zone. Panel on Conceptual
Models of Flow and Transport in the Fractured Vadose Zone, US
National Committee for Rock Mechanics, Board on Earth Sciences
and Resources, National Research Council. National Academy
Press, Washington, DC, 2000.
NAS/NRC 2005
Richard R. Monson (Chair) et al. Health Risks from Exposure to
Low Levels of Ionizing Radiation: BEIR VII - Phase 2. Committee
to Assess Health Risks from Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing
Radiation, Board on Radiation Effects Research, National
Research Council of the National Academies. Washington, DC:
National Academies Press, 2005. Prepublication copy, June 2005.
NCRP 103
National Council on Radiation Protection. Control of Radon in
Houses. NCRP Report No. 103. Recommendations of the National
Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements. Bethesda, MD:
NCRP, issued September 1, 1989.
NCRP 128
National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements.
Radionuclide Exposure of the Embryo Fetus. NCRP Report 128,
issued September 25, 1998
NCRP 93
National Council on Radiation Protection. Ionizing Radiation
Exposure of the Population in the United States. NCRP Report No.
93. Recommendations of the National Council on Radiation
Protection and Measurements. Bethesda, MD: NCRP, issued
September 1, 1987.
NEA 1997
Joint CNRA/CRPPH/RWMC Workshop. Regulating The Long-Term. Safety
of Radioactive Waste Disposal Proceedings of an NEA
International Workshop … Cordoba, Spain, 20-23 January 1997.
Paris: Nuclear Energy Agency, Organisation for Economic
Co-operation and Development. On the Web at
http://193.51.64.1/html/rwm/reports/1997/cordoba.pdf.
NWTRB 1998
U.S. Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board. 1997 Findings and
Recommendations: Report to the U.S. Congress and the Secretary
of Energy. Arlington, VA: NWTRB, April 1998.
Règle Nº III.2.f
Règle Nº III.2.f (10 juin 1991) Règles fondamentales de sûreté
relatives aux installations nucléaires de base autres que
reacteurs Tome III: production, contrôle et traitement des
effluents et déchets. Chapitre 2: Déchets solides. [France]
SDA 1995
Science for Democratic Action, "Yucca Mountain Exposure
Scenarios", Volume 4, Number 4, Fall 1995
Trovato 1997
Ramona Trovato (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Office of
Radiation and Indoor Air. Office Director.) "Statement on the
Nuclear Regulatory Commission's Rule on Radiological Criteria
for License Termination." April 21, 1997. On the Web at
http://www.epa.gov/radiation/docs/cleanup/epa4nrc.pdf. [Given at
a hearing at the NRC, Rockville MD.]
US Court 2004
United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia
Circuit, No. 01-1258, Nuclear Energy Institute, Inc. v.
Environmental Protection Agency. Argued January 14, 2004,
Decided July 9, 2004. On the Web at
http://www.epa.gov/radiation/docs/yucca/dc_circuit_ruling.pdf.
Van Konynenberg 1991
R.A. Van Konynenburg (Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory)
"Gaseous Release of Carbon-14: Why the High Level Waste
Regulations Should Be Changed," High Level Radioactive Waste
Management, Proceedings of the Second Annual International
Conference, Las Vegas, Nevada, April 28-May 3, 1991, La Grange
Park, IL: American Nuclear Society, Inc. UCRL-JC--104763
Also see:
+ EPA Yucca Mountain Standards page- contains information and
instructions on submitting comments
Also available on this site:
+ EPA's Proposed Rule on Repository for High-Level Radioactive
Waste Would Seriously Undermine Public Health, IEER press
release, August 9, 2005
+ Energy Dept. "Rushing Ahead with a Defective Yucca Mountain
Design," Says Former U.S. Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board
Member, IEER press release, June 14, 2004
+ Atomic Myths, Radioactive Realities: Why Nuclear Power Is a
Poor Way to Meet Energy Needs, Article by Arjun Makhijani in
Journal of Land, Resources, &Environmental Law, 2004
+ Yucca Mountain: An Example Not to Follow, Presentation to a
Greenpeace Briefing, December 2, 2003
+ "If not Yucca Mountain, then what?", IEER fact sheet, December
2001
+ EPA's Rule on Repository for High-level Radioactive Waste
Seriously Undermines Safe Drinking Water Standards, IEER press
release, 6 June 2001
+ Letter from IEER to the Nuclear Waste Technical Review
Board
re: suitability of proposed Yucca Mountain repository,
May 25, 2001
+ IEER Comments on the Draft EPA Standards for a Yucca Mountain
High-Level Radioactive Waste Repository, November 23, 1999
+ Some Evidence of Yucca Mountain's Unsuitability as a
Repository, from SDA vol. 7 no. 3, May 1999
+ Fluid inclusion studies of samples from the Exploratory Study
Facility, Yucca Mountain, Nevada, report prepared for IEER by
Yuri V. Dublyansky, Ph.D., December 1998 Institute
for
Energy and Environmental ResearchComments to ieer at ieer.org
Takoma Park, Maryland, USA
November 21, 2005
*****************************************************************
47 Japan Times: UCLA A-bomb exhibit offers a lesson on horror
Wednesday, November 23, 2005
By MANDY WILLINGHAM
LOS ANGELES (Kyodo) For most students at the University of
California at Los Angeles, exposure to the human element of
nuclear warfare has been limited to discussions in history
classes or textbook entries on World War II.
"It's so little -- what we get in our textbooks, you know the
bombs dropped and how they worked, but you don't really know
what happened on the ground," said Navdeep Tumbler, a biology
and French student.
The 21-year-old is also a member of UCLA's Cultural affairs
commission, which last Thursday helped present the opening
reception of the "Hiroshima-Nagasaki A-Bomb Exhibition" at
UCLA's Kerckhoff Art Gallery.
Organized by renowned artist and writer Fumiko Kometani, the
nine-day exhibit marks the 60th anniversary of the 1945 bombings
of Hiroshima and Nagasaki with a series of dramatic photographs,
science diagrams and artwork.
"I never knew (the bombings) were so intense. There's not a lot
out there to teach you about them," said Ada Nwokafor, 21, who
is majoring in biology.
Like others who viewed the exhibit, Nwokafor was shocked by the
graphic photographs of victims killed or severely injured by the
atomic blasts and radiation.
"It's just horrifying to look at the pictures of the people,"
she said quietly.
Sami Maalouf, a doctoral student of environmental engineering,
also attended the opening reception.
"It saddens me to see that war goes on and there's no easy way
out," Maalouf said.
The 37-year-old from Lebanon was moved by the event and
stressed the importance of many people, not just students,
viewing the photographs.
"We should all see the photos more often to know how fragile we
are," he said.
For many attending the reception, the poetic testimony given by
Hiroshima survivor Kazu Sueshi inspired respect and admiration,
along with thoughts on current wars and conflicts.
"When she gave her account about what happened when the bomb
went off, I started thinking about what's happening right now in
the Middle East, and how lucky I am here," said Jimmy La, 21, a
student of art history.
Sueshi, 78, was a student at a girls' school in Hiroshima when
the city was bombed.
She described surviving the devastating impact, which severely
burned her father and injured her brother, and then witnessing
the bomb's frightening aftermath: mass injuries and death,
radioactive fallout, homelessness and hunger.
"We will not repeat the same mistake again. No more Hiroshima.
No more Nagasaki," said Sueshi, leading the students and other
reception attendees in a vow to prevent nuclear warfare.
UCLA theater student and cultural affairs commission member
Nicole Granby, 20, expressed the importance of hearing Sueshi's
message and the continued relevance of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
"This is something that happened years ago, but yet it could
still happen tomorrow," she said.
The Japan Times: Nov. 23, 2005
(C) All rights reserved
*****************************************************************
NOTE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107 this
material is distributed without profit or payment to those who
have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for
non-profit research and educational purposes only. For more
information go to:
*****************************************************************
| |
Learn and discover how to appreciate wine
In association with Sunday Times Wine Club
AD FEATURE
Save time, save money, file your VAT returns online
In association with Business Link
SPECIAL
French Film Café
Join the debate at our French Film Cafe
In association with Carte Noire
['']
MANAGEMENT ISSUES
Visit Canada in autumn
In association with Air Canada
[''] ['']
POWER 100
Discover a variety of enjoyable road journeys across the UK
and organise your trips with our new route planner