*****************************************************************
10/17/05 **** RADIATION BULLETIN(RADBULL) **** VOL 13.241
*****************************************************************
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 Why Nuclear Power is NOT "Carbon Free"
2 Plamegate: WHO FORGED THE NIGER DOCUMENTS?
3 [NYTr] Britain must not rush to misjudge Iran
4 IPS-English POLITICS-IRAN: Rafsanjani Offers Hope On Nuclear,
5 Xinhua: Iran prepared for nuclear talks
6 IranMania.com: EU prepared to improve nuclear offer to Iran
7 IranMania.com: US admits Iran's nuclear right: Asefi
8 United Press International: Blair, Rice discuss Iran's nuclear plans
9 Korea: Digital Chosunilbo: Top U.S. Nuclear Negotiator Offers Timeli
10 Japan Times: Japan, China gear up for next six-party talks
11 US: Gainesville Times: Nuclear activist to speak at college -
12 [NYTr] Revealed: Blair's nuclear bombshell
13 Independent: Revealed: Blair's nuclear bombshell
14 AFP: Venezuela is trying to get nuclear technology - report
NUCLEAR REACTORS
15 US: Purdue refutes report on college reactors
16 US: License transfer delay sought
17 Why Nuclear Power is NOT "Carbon Free"
18 US: NRC: NRC Names Hunegs Senior Resident Inspector at FitzPatrick;
19 US: CNET: Are college nuclear reactors safe?
20 BBC ON THIS DAY: | 17 | 1956: Queen switches on nuclear power
21 BBC: Analysis: Is nuclear power the
22 US: Las Vegas SUN: Nuclear irony finds French power company ads in N
23 US: NRC: Entergy Operations, Inc., Waterford Steam Electric Station,
24 US: NRC: Nuclear Management Company, LLC, Palisades Plant; Exemption
25 US: NRC: Nuclear Management Company, Palisades Plant; Notice of
26 CBC Ottawa: $4.25 billion to restart 2 nuclear reactors
27 CBC New Brunswick: Liberals support second nuclear reactor
NUCLEAR SECURITY
NUCLEAR SAFETY
28 [du-list] Nuclear Half-life Modification Technology
29 US: NRC: NRC Cites Pennsylvania Hospital for Violation of Requiremen
30 Independent: Are we ready for the biggest risks facing Britain?
31 Scotsman.com News: Workers at centre of nuclear scare
32 NEWS.com.au: Leak affects reactor worker - NSW/ACT -
33 AU ABC: Reactor worker in radiation scare.
34 SMH: Radiation leak blamed for reactor worker alert -
NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE
35 AU ABC: Howard's job to find suitable dump site - Labor
36 US: BBC: China seeking to mine uranium
37 BBC: Fresh safety alert at Dounreay
38 Rebel Yell: Former congresswoman reads memoir excerpts
39 US: AU ABC: Australian government 'no objections' to China uranium m
40 NRC: ASLB to Hold Evidentiary Hearing on Proposed N.M. Enrichment Fa
41 US: KUTV: Appeal of Envirocare Expansion To Go Before State
42 Nevada Observer: Why Should We Care About Yucca? Are There Serious S
43 US: AU ABC: China wants Australia's uranium
44 US: AU ABC: Uranium sales receive bipartisan support
45 UK: News & Star: SELLAFIELD PLANS ‘IN TERROR CAR’
46 US: AFP: Australia mulls Chinese request to explore for uranium - Ya
47 AU ABC: Martin vows to target senators in fight against nuclear dump
48 AU ABC: Senators reject NT call to stop nuclear dump
PEACE
49 [NukeNet] Re Hiroshima/Nagasaki Ending WW II?: Downer on WMD
US DEPT. OF ENERGY
50 DenverPost.com: What you don't see at Rocky Flats
*****************************************************************
*****************************************************************
FULL NEWS STORIES
*****************************************************************
*****************************************************************
1 Why Nuclear Power is NOT "Carbon Free"
Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2005 17:23:01 -0500 (CDT)
X-Fingerprint: owner-imap@chumbly.math.missouri.edu-127.127
Letter: Radical Action on Global Warming
By Dr DAVID LOWRY
Sir: In his otherwise healthily sceptical commentary ('Energy review's
nuclear option,' 13 October) Jeremy Warner repeats the misleading
suggestion that nuclear power is a 'carbon-free' form of
electricitygeneration.
Production of nuclear electricity is not carbon free, because the
production of the fuel for these reactors is significantly energy
intensive. While it is true most nuclear reactors do not emit CO2 gas
at the point of generation, reactors are a relatively small part of
the nuclear fuel cycle which emits very large amounts of CO2. These
arise from the so-called 'front-end' of the fuel cycle: uranium
mining, ore milling, uranium conversion, fuel enrichment and
fabrication of the fuel rods. Additionally, nuclear waste management
at the 'back-end' is already energy hungry in radioactive waste
treatment, conditioning, transportation and perhaps final disposal in
some future repository.
Thus it is essential to compare nuclear's energy's greenhouse gas
emissions using a level playing field across the full fuel cycle,
called life-cycle analyses (LCAs) of both internal and external costs
to asses the true impacts of their entire processes. Before starting
down the nuclear route, promoted by Tony Blair at Labour's conference
in Brighton, ministers need to commission an updated comparative LCA
of energy options, including nuclear.
This is something Sir Nicholas Stern ('Blair appoints Treasury
mandarin as climate tsar', 13 October) should embark upon immediately.
DR DAVID LOWRY
STONELEIGH, SURREY
Source: Independent, The; London (UK)
http://www.rednova.com/news/science/272529/letter_radical_action_on_global_warming/index.html?source=r_science
= = = =
STILL FEELING LIKE THE MAINSTREAM U.S. CORPORATE MEDIA
IS GIVING A FULL HONEST PICTURE OF WHAT'S GOING ON?
= = = =
Daily online radio show, news reporting: www.DemocracyNow.org
More news: UseNet's misc.activism.progressive (moderated)
= = = =
Sorry, we cannot read/reply to most usenet posts but welcome email
FOR MORE INFORMATION: http://EconomicDemocracy.org/wtc/ (peace)
http://economicdemocracy.org/eco/climate-summary.html (Climate)
And http://EconomicDemocracy.org/ (general)
** ANTI-SPAM NOTE: For EMAIL "info" and "map" DON'T work. Email to
** m-a-i-l-m-a-i-l (without the dashes)at economicdemocracy.org instead
*****************************************************************
2 Plamegate: WHO FORGED THE NIGER DOCUMENTS?
Date: Sun, 16 Oct 2005 11:56:03 -0500 (CDT)
X-Fingerprint: owner-imap@chumbly.math.missouri.edu-127.127
As quoted in the Wikipedia entry for Yellowcake forgery:
In an interview on July 26, 2005, Cannistraro's business partner
and columnist for the "American Conservative" magazine, former CIA
counter terrorism officer Philip Giraldi, confirmed to Scott Horton
that the forgeries were produced by "a couple of former CIA
officers who are familiar with that part of the world who are
associated with a certain well-known neoconservative who has close
connections with Italy." When Horton said that must be Ledeen, he
confirmed it, and added that the ex-CIA officers, "also had some
equity interests, shall we say, with the operation. A lot of these
people are in consulting positions, and they get various, shall we
say, emoluments in overseas accounts, and that kind of thing." [9]
In a second interview with Horton, Giraldi elaborated to say that
Ledeen and his former CIA friends worked with Ahmad Chalabi and the
Iraqi National Congress. "These people did it probably for a couple
of reasons, but one of the reasons was that these people were
involved, through the neoconservatives, with the Iraqi National
Congress and Chalabi and had a financial interest in cranking up
the pressure against Saddam Hussein and potentially going to war
with him." [10]
Or is it a crime to lie a country into war?
Short mp3 of the relevant Giraldi quotes here.
http://www.antiwar.com/blog/index.php?id=P2419
*****************************************************************
3 [NYTr] Britain must not rush to misjudge Iran
Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2005 15:01:08 -0500 (CDT)
Via NY Transfer News Collective * All the News that Doesn't Fit
The Independent - 17 October 2005
http://comment.independent.co.uk/commentators/article320122.ece
Britain must not rush to misjudge Iran
The refusal to give the elected leader a chance says much about the
malignity of Iran's detractors
by Andrew Phillips
The relationship between the United States and Iran has long been
poisonous (the US economic boycott is in its 25th year), but it now
further threatens the wider peace. White House rhetoric may have
throttled back from implicit threats of military intervention (probably
due to overstretch and their own bodybag sensitivity) but that may not
last. George Bush's new United Nations envoy, gunslinging John Bolton,
displayed in his BBC Newsnight interview on Friday an unnerving
oversimplification in his assessments and inveighed, with no apparent
irony, against Iran's "intimidation of its region".
The truth is that, mainly because of oil and its strategic situation,
Iran has long been a pawn on the British, and now the American,
geopolitical chessboard.
Accordingly, in 1953 the CIA and MI5 organised the overthrow of the
popular and progressive Dr Mohammed Mossadeq, who had nationalised his
country's oil, and was considered a disposable impediment. Mossadeq's
removal held back evolutionary reform and indirectly led to the 1979
revolution which overthrew the Shah.
The violent fundamentalism which ensued, together with hostage-taking,
encouraged the Americans and British to take a second cynical decision,
namely to support Saddam Hussein in his invasion of Iran in 1980, and to
supply him with arms, including gas. By 1988 the Iranians had suffered
human losses comparable with ours in the First World War.
I vividly remember, having accepted late-night hospitality from an
Isfahani family, being gently questioned the next morning by a son of
the family, maimed in that war, as to why we had supported their
murderous invader. As a student visitor in 1961, I also remember my
brushes with Savak, the Shah's brutal and omnipresent security police.
The notion that the bad human rights failings of Iran are of post-1979
creation is misguided, as is nostalgia for the "good old days" of the
dashing, autocratic Shah and his Westernised cronies. It seemed
inconceivable that, armed to the hilt by the West, he could stumble, let
alone fall.
But Western intelligence has consistently misread lower-class opinion in
class-ridden Iran. Most of the north Tehran ilite fled in the aftermath
of the revolution, though many, including friends of mine, have since
returned. But the Persian diaspora, particularly in the US, still exerts
a disproportionate influence and extremists support various dissident
groups which peddle a one-eyed picture of Iran.
In the summer, the resounding victory of Dr Mahmut Ahmadinejad, the
first non-clerical President of Iran, came as another shock. Predictably
there was an instant attempt to write him off, with claims
(unsubstantiated) of revolutionary crimes. And, despite a voter turn-out
well in excess of our own, the legitimacy of the result has been
questioned by, inter alia, US Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice.
It could be that, in time, the devout and conservative Dr Ahmadinejad
will fulfil some of the dire predictions made about him, but the refusal
to give this relatively unknown elected leader a chance says much about
the ingrained malignity of Iran's detractors.
That is ironical. He is a self-made man with a good doctorate in
engineering, who lives in modest circumstances and has a reputation for
incorruptibility. The fact, too, that he fought a secular campaign,
concentrating on living standards, jobs and social equity, should give
pause to those anxious to consign him to George Bush's Axis of Evil or,
indeed, to cast him, as a newspaper article written by a leading
academic did, as the new Stalin. Since his election, it has been largely
"business as usual", with his incomplete cabinet comprising a coalition
of interests and experience. Despite burgeoning links to the East,
Tehran still welcomes trade with Europe and the UK.
The dominant public impression of Iran is of a monolithic, repressive,
extreme society. If one is judging by the highest Western standards,
there is some truth in that - yet it is very far from the whole picture,
as well as devoid of historical, religious or regional context.
Iranians, in turn, may retort that the worst of the West is scarcely a
pretty picture. Those who have never been there (and few have) can
scarcely imagine how cultured, talented, and vibrant a people they are.
Over 15 per cent of them go to universities, more than half being women.
They are also disputatious and passionate, which does not make for
political, or religious, tranquillity. Their Byzantine constitution
intentionally makes change very difficult.
In the bazaars of south Tehran, you can bet they will be judging
"coalition" performance in Iraq with bemusement and contempt. Devourers,
as they are, of a surprisingly diverse press, they will balance charges
of Iranian interference and insurgency in Iraq against the deaths of
thousands of fellow Shias, and will ask by what morality the Great
Insurgents, righteously loosing off their terrorising arsenals, dare to
criticise them.
With nuclear arms on their eastern flank (Pakistan), US bases on their
western and northern flanks, and nuclear arms to the south-west (Israel,
which is not even party to the Non Proliferation Treaty), the same sense
of Western hypocrisy will no doubt pervade discussion of their own
nuclear predicament. Can one wonder at their insecurity?
But Iran is its own worst enemy. Its refusal even to recognise Israel is
futile and counter-productive to its influence and credibility, as were
its long years of covert nuclear research. Then there is the tortuous
nuclear stand-off with Britain, Germany and France, though the wrongs
there are not all on their side, as the conciliatory stance of the IAEA
chief, Dr ElBaradei, intimates.
The thousands visiting the exhibition at the British Museum - "The
Forgotten Empire", about Persian world dominance between 550 BC and 330
BC - will come away stunned and may find it difficult to correlate with
what they read of Iran today. Yet it is still the same proud,
independent country, which will not bow the knee to anyone.
It is also in the midst of a rapid, painful and very particular
evolution. A land where, contrary to what one is led to believe,
democracy and freedom of expression have made big strides since the
1980s; where there is a real (though far from perfect) parliamentary
system where, for example, the new President is far from controlling the
Majlis (legislature); and where women flourish in all walks of life (one
has just been made a vice-president) albeit that they go swathed in
black in public. Although a country of, by our traditions, cruel Sharia
law, it is nonetheless a place full of humour, spirituality and
aesthetic depth. Where in the West does one find the main thoroughfares
and squares named after poets?
The British government has hitherto pursued a strong policy of
engagement, admirably at odds with the White House, a stance one hopes
Tony Blair maintained in talks with Condoleezza Rice yesterday. Despite
the nuclear difficulties, we must not rush to judgement on the new
regime. Much hangs on it.
[The writer is a Liberal Democrat Member of the House of Lords ]
*
================================================================
.NY Transfer News Collective * A Service of Blythe Systems
. Since 1985 - Information for the Rest of Us .
.339 Lafayette St., New York, NY 10012 http://www.blythe.org
.List Archives: https://olm.blythe-systems.com/pipermail/nytr/
.Subscribe: https://olm.blythe-systems.com/mailman/listinfo/nytr
================================================================
*****************************************************************
4 IPS-English POLITICS-IRAN: Rafsanjani Offers Hope On Nuclear,
Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2005 14:39:07 -0700
ROMAIPS AP CR DV IF IP=20
POLITICS-IRAN: Rafsanjani Offers Hope On Nuclear, Oil Issues
Analysis by Saloumeh Peyman=20
TEHRAN , Oct 17 (IPS) - The fact that it was former president Hashemi Ra=
fsanjani who announced Iran's readiness to talk on the ''country's nuclea=
r dossier without any pre-condition'' rather than his hardline successor,=
Mahmud Ahmadinejad, offers a glimmer of hope for reconciliation with the=
West on the key nuclear and oil issues.
When Rafsanjani, who now wears the hat of chairman of the shadowy but pow=
erful State Expedience Council (SEC), announced on Saturday that ''Tehran=
is ready to begin dialogues for transparency on the nuclear dossier,'' =
it was a sign that the reformists were once again calling the shots in Ir=
an despite their shock defeat in the June presidential elections. =20
It is another matter that foreign ministry spokesman Hamid Reza Asefi sai=
d on Sunday that Tehran would not comply with a demand by the Internation=
al Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) that it stop uranium conversion at its Isf=
ahan facility and fall in line with a key European Union condition for re=
sumption of talks. =20
Asefi told reporters that the freeze on uranium conversion was made volun=
tarily and that Iran reserved the right to make fuel for its reactors as =
signatory to the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).=20
Talks between Iran and the EU-3 (Britain, France and Germany) broke down =
in August, when Iran rejected a deal that offered trade and other incenti=
ves for a full cessation of fuel cycle work, the focus of fears that Iran=
could acquire nuclear weapons.
But the unexpected intervention by Rafsanjani, regarded as a pro-Western =
politician who also has the ear of the 'Supreme Leader' Ayatollah Ali Kh=
amenei, is a sign that the days ahead may see a softening of Tehran's app=
roach and a dilution of President Ahmadinejad's authority. =20
Much would depend on what exactly are the powers of the SEC to which Rafs=
anjani was appointed on October 3, and who in turn, appointed another for=
mer pro-West president, Mohammad Khatami to the body's decision-making Hi=
gh Council.=20
After his election in 1997, Khatami had begun a process of reform and rec=
onciliation aimed undoing the isolation of Iran after the 1979 ouster of =
the Shah of Iran and the installation of an Islamic republic.
Curiously enough, the powers of the SEC were recently expanded with Spea=
ker Gholamali Haddad-Adel mounting a defence of it in parliament saying i=
t was in the interests of greater discipline.=20
According to Haddad-Adel all macro-level policies could only be made afte=
r consultations with the SEC which is also now charged with supervising t=
he execution of those polices.=20
In other words, say critics, this was virtually amounted to the creation=
of parallel authority. =20
For his part, Rafsanjani has tried to play down his role and said the SEC=
does not have any contact with the executive. ''The SEC used to have a =
supervisory role but now this role is with the Supreme Leader and we repo=
rt any wrong doing to him,'' he said at a recent public function.=20
According to the secretary of the SEC, Mohsen Rezaee, Ayatollah Khamenei=
had in fact delegated some of his own powers to the SEC and that it woul=
d from now on supervise the affairs of the judiciary, executive and the l=
egislature. =20
The new development has prompted cynical analysts to say that ''money and=
the members of the Iranian elite Hashemi Rafsanjani himself will now hav=
e the final say in Iran's day to day socio-economic and political lives=94=
=2E
For those who overwhelmingly voted for Ahmadinejad, the empowering of Has=
hemi Rafsanjani after the humiliating defeat at the hustings, is a blow =
but there has been no backlash so far except some murmuring in parliamen=
t and rumours across the country.
The acid test for the SEC is how much of a say it would have in the appoi=
ntment of ministers to the key portfolios of oil, education cooperatives=
and social security and welfare -- vacancies that Ahmadinejad has not =
been able to fill in so far. =20
Ahmadinejad who claimed that his electoral victory was nothing short of a=
''second revolution'' after the creation of the Islamic Republic in 1979=
has railed at 'gangs' with vested interests preventing from appointing =
an oil minister and many said the reference was to Rafsanjani and his yet=
powerful networks within and outside the country.
''We are a newly-founded private engineering and consulting company seeki=
ng oil fields development projects in which the government is the major=
client. As far as we are concerned, the lack of appointments means that =
it will be difficult to decide on tenders'' told IPS Ahmad Tofanian , a=
n engineer told IPS.=20
Ahmadinejad has packed most of the other key jobs with hardliners includi=
ng the governor-generals who administer provinces but many believe that =
these Osulgaraian (adherents of Islamic values) could end spoiling relati=
ons with countries that border the provinces they administer. =20
For now the concern is mainly the effect that the Osulgaraian are having =
on on the economic front and also on the diplomatic front where their lac=
k of experience in handling international affairs is beginning to show up=
.=20
''All this has a great impact on economy of the country and slowed down=
particularly stock market and private sector as everything in limbo'', =
said Hasan Shbazian , an accountant in a civil engineering company.
''A few weeks before the new government took over the Tehran Stock Market=
(TSM) had begun to drop and since Ahmadinejad formed his (incomplete) ca=
binet the indices have kept on nosediving'', a stockbroker said.=20
Iran, the stockbroker continued, has been kept afloat so far by ''the mag=
ic of petro-dollars and with oil selling at over 50 dollars a barrel the =
government run companies have continued to do well since they are operati=
ng within an oil-exporting economy.''=20
Hussain Kadkhodaee , economist and expert on Tehran Stock Market shares t=
he cynical view regarding the role of petroleum. ''About 70 percent of t=
he Iranian Stock Market is in the control of the state-run companies , g=
overnmental investment firms, particularly those affiliated to the state-=
run banks,'' he pointed out.=20
Masoud Nili an economist close to the defeated reformists wrote in an e=
ditorial in the 'Shargh' daily on Sept.24: '' =E0 the oil revenue is goin=
g to reach around 50 billion dollars by the end of this year ( Iranian c=
alendar , ending March 21st 2006) but it may not bring fortune''.=20
The new government, while trying to ''bring the fruits of surging oil =
price to the table'' of ordinary Iranians, had better brace for fighting =
with the highly probable gallant inflation, Nili opined. =20
It is in this context that Ali Khamenei may have decided that it is best =
to temper Ahmadinejad's zeal with the practicality of Rafsanjani and also=
give him a hand to steer Iran through its present crisis with the West o=
ver the nuclear recycling issue. (END/IPS/AP/IP/IF/DV/CR/SP/RDR/05)=20
=20
=3D 10171205 ORP002
NNNN
*****************************************************************
5 Xinhua: Iran prepared for nuclear talks
www.xinhuanet.com
www.chinaview.cn 2005-10-17 10:26:38
BEIJING, Oct. 17 -- Iran has signaled that it is prepared to
return to nuclear negotiations with Britain, France and Germany.
Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Hamid Reza Asefi says
that if the Europeans are serious in continuing negotiations,
the talks will be resumed.
"Confidence building is a two-way road. Europe is waiting
for good news of restarting talks with Iran. If the Europeans
are serious in continuing negotiations we would have no problem
resuming the talks."
But he denounced the the US and EU threat to refer its
nuclear issue to the United Nations Security Council, saying the
threat should not be used as a means of pressure against Iran.
Earlier, the US has just failed to persude Russia to agree
on referring the Iranian nuclear issue to the security.
The International Atomic Energy Agency has called on Iran to
halt uranium conversion work, and the EU has set this as a
condition for resuming negotiations.
(Source: CRIENGLISH.com)
Copyright 2003 Xinhua News Agency. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
6 IranMania.com: EU prepared to improve nuclear offer to Iran
Monday, October 17, 2005 - 2005 IranMania.com
LONDON, October 17 (IranMania) -Britain's Ambassador to Tehran
has indicated that the European Union is prepared to break the
deadlock over Iran's nuclear program by advancing its original
offer made under the terms of the Paris Agreement.
"We think that the proposal that EU put forward can be certainly
improved and the proposal of (the Iranian President) his
Excellency Mr Ahmadinejad made in New York can clearly go on to
the table," Richard Dalton said.
The ambassador disclosed the offer during an exclusive interview
with IRNA during a visit to London, in which he said that
Britain's objective was to return to negotiations with Iran on
the nuclear issue.
"The important thing is to recreate the trust that have so badly
damaged during this summer," he said.
Dalton did not specify what proposals may be made to help
restart negotiations, but the Iranian president last month
offered partnerships with other countries in the implementation
of his country's enrichment program to allay concerns.
In a speech to the UN General Assembly, Ahmadinejad also said
Iran was ready for constructive interaction and a just dialogue
in good faith, while reiterating that nuclear weapons were
prohibited in accordance with religious principles,
The UK ambassador put into context the nuclear dispute and
charges and counter-charges regarding bombing attacks in
southern Iran and southern Iraq, saying that there had been many
areas of disagreement in the diplomatic relations between the
two countries.
"I do not think the recent difficulties in the atmosphere
between Britain and Iran tragically. I think we can recover from
that but it will require hard work on both sides and I believe
it also requires some change of attitude," he said.
Dalton said the job of diplomats when there are difficulties is
a "to work even harder to find common areas of understanding and
to seek to convince the other side of our point of view."
Apart from the EU improving its offer, which Iran rejected as
derisory, he suggested that there could also be a change in
Tehran attitudes that "could unlock a much more productive
relationship with Europe than Iran enjoys at present."
The proposals on the nuclear portfolio "would have facilitated
many areas of cooperation that either do not exist or are far
from achieving their full potential at present," the envoy said.
1999-2005 IranMania.com. Terms & Conditions.
*****************************************************************
7 IranMania.com: US admits Iran's nuclear right: Asefi
Monday, October 17, 2005 - 2005 IranMania.com
[Archived Picture - The United States has admitted that Iran has
the right to use peaceful nuclear technology, Foreign Ministry
Spokesman Hamid-Reza Asefi said here Sunday.]
LONDON, October 17 (IranMania) -The United States has admitted
that Iran has the right to use peaceful nuclear technology,
Foreign Ministry Spokesman Hamid-Reza Asefi said here Sunday.
Talking to domestic and foreign reporters at his weekly press
conference, Asefi was commenting on the recent remarks made by
the US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice on Iran.
"Remark by Ms Rice on Iran's right to have nuclear technology is
something and confidence-building is something else. It is clear
the United States has acknowledged that Iran has such rights."
He rejected using unfamiliar and inventive literature saying,
"Admission of Iran's rights to use nuclear technology is hidden
in remarks made by Ms Rice and people like her."
Asefi added, "On building the confidence deemed by Ms Rice, it
should be said that confidence will be made through
implementation of the (nuclear Additional) Protocol and
regulations.
"When we talk about confidence, such a confidence should be
built on the basis of commitment to laws and regulations.
"The Europeans should take into consideration that confidence
building is a two-way road. It is the Europeans who damaged such
a confidence by refraining from fulfilling their commitments.
" Referring to the visit to Iran of deputy chief of the
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and IAEA inspectors,
Asefi said, "The presence in Iran of this delegation is a clear
instance of Iran's cooperation with the agency. Good progress
was made during the visit."
Asked about the resumption of Iran's nuclear talks with Europe
and other states and involvement of South Africa in the
negotiations, the spokesman said nuclear talks are currently
underway at different levels in Tehran and in European and
non-European states.
"Representatives of Iran's Foreign Ministry and Supreme National
Security Council are active," he said
In response to a question on suspension of nuclear activities at
Isfahan's Uranium Conversion Facility (as a precondition) to
resume talks, he said, "With respect to Isfahan, suspension was
carried out voluntarily, and we will not go back to the past.
"It was the Europeans who canceled the Paris Agreement through
their unilateral and inexact interpretation," he said.
*****************************************************************
8 United Press International: Blair, Rice discuss Iran's nuclear plans
10/16/2005 10:10:00 PM -0400
Newstrack: Suspected Taliban gunmen killed a
LONDON, Oct. 16 (UPI) -- British Prime Minister Tony Blair and
U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice say they are determined
to deal with Iran's nuclear ambitions.
The pair met Sunday in Britain, affirming "their shared concern
about the need for Iran to meet its international obligations,"
a Blair spokesman told the London Times Online.
Almost two years of talks between Iran and the European Union
broke down in August when Tehran broke U.N. seals at the Isfahan
plant, where uranium is converted into a gas that can be used to
make nuclear reactor fuel or bomb warheads.
Iran said Sunday it wanted to return to negotiations but gave no
ground on the EU's demand that it halt all nuclear fuel
processing before talks can resume.
Washington and the EU are trying to persuade the governing board
of the International Atomic Energy Agency to refer Iran to the
U.N. Security Council next month for violating international
nuclear obligations -- a move that could trigger sanctions
against the country.
*****************************************************************
9 Korea: Digital Chosunilbo: Top U.S. Nuclear Negotiator Offers Timeline for N.K.
Dismantlement
Home> National/Politics Updated Oct.15,2005 16:05 KST
Next week, the countries participating in the six-way nuclear
dismantlement talks will begin discussing the timing and issues
to be tackled during the fifth round of the multilateral talks.
The U.S. government reportedly plans to offer a clear timeline
for North Korea's nuclear dismantlement and international
inspections.
The U.S. government intends to present a tough timetable when
the six-country nuclear talks resume in Beijing in November for
North Korea to dismantle its nuclear programs and restart
inspections, the New York Times reported citing Bush
administration officials. The most recent round of talks with
North Korea ended in mid-September with an agreement in
principle that the North would give up its nuclear programs in
return for a range of incentives. But there remains a wide gulf
on the timing, and what type of inspections North Korea might
accept the U.S. newspaper reported. In addition, a disagreement
also exists over North Korea's demand for a light water nuclear
reactor.
The Bush administration is supporting a visit to North Korea by
New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson to reinforce Washington's
message since early 2003: that economic incentives will come
after North Korea dismantles its nuclear programs. The Bush
administration has made an Air Force plane available for the
trip. He will visit Pyongyang for four days beginning on Monday
and will then travel to South Korea and Japan. The New York
Times says U.S. officials see the advantage of having their
message repeated to North Korea by an official outside of
President Bush's political camp. The governor has also been
widely mentioned as a possible candidate for the Democratic
presidential nomination in 2008.
Governor Richardson was the UN ambassador during the Clinton
administration who has long maintained contacts with North
Korea.
Arirang News
*****************************************************************
10 Japan Times: Japan, China gear up for next six-party talks
Tuesday, October 18, 2005
BEIJING (Kyodo) Japanese and Chinese chief delegates to the
six-party talks on North Korea's nuclear program have agreed to
cooperate closely in the next round, which is expected early
next month, according to Japanese officials.
"The agreement in the last round of talks describes the final
goal (of denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula), and its
implementation is important," chief Japanese delegate Kenichiro
Sasae told reporters after meeting his Chinese counterpart, Wu
Dawei.
"I told him that related countries should make efforts to
implement the agreement swiftly, and that it is especially
important for Japan and China to cooperate," Sasae said,
referring to a joint statement issued at the conclusion of the
fourth round of six-party talks in September.
North Korea agreed to abandon its entire nuclear program,
rejoin the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty and allow nuclear
inspections in exchange for energy assistance, security
guarantees and economic cooperation.
Sasae, who is also director general of the Foreign Ministry's
Asian and Oceanian Affairs Bureau, described his talks with Wu
on Sunday as "preliminary exchanges of views" on the next round.
He said they did not discuss a specific schedule for the next
round, which the six parties have agreed to hold in early
November.
Sasae also said Wu, China's vice foreign minister, told him
that Beijing has learned through a recent visit to North Korea
by Vice Premier Wu Yi that Pyongyang also wants to achieve
results through the six-party process.
"We have heard that North Korea has a very positive attitude
toward the idea that it is necessary for the six parties to
achieve results," he said.
The Japan Times: Oct. 18, 2005
(C) All rights reserved
*****************************************************************
11 Gainesville Times: Nuclear activist to speak at college -
gainesvilletimes.com
Monday, October 17, 2005
By DEBBIE GILBERT The Times
[Photo]
Helen Caldicott
If you're going
+ What: Award-winning activist Helen Caldicott discusses nuclear
and environmental issues
+ When: 11 a.m. Tuesday
+ Where: Gainesville State College, Continuing Education
Building
+ Admission: free
+ Contact: (770) 718-3795
A world-renowned activist is coming to Gainesville State College
on Tuesday to talk about the dangers of nuclear weapons.
Pediatrician and author Helen Caldicott, founder of Physicians
for Social Responsibility and the Nuclear Policy Research
Institute, will speak in the college's Continuing Education
auditorium at 11 a.m.
Her visit is sponsored by a new club at the school, Students for
a Progressive Society.
"We wanted to kick off the creation of this group by having a
speaker who could discuss the important political dilemmas of
our time," said John O'Sullivan, a social sciences professor and
one of the club's two faculty advisers along with history
professor Elizabeth Hancock. "There are issues that many people
feel aren't being addressed by either political party."
Nuclear proliferation fits into that category. Since the Cold
War ended, it's something few Americans think about.
But the issue was back in the news last week, when the 2005
Nobel Peace Prize was awarded to the International Atomic Energy
Agency and its director, Mohamed ElBaradei.
The Nobel committee cited the winners "for their efforts to
prevent nuclear energy from being used for military purposes."
Twenty years ago, an umbrella group created by Caldicott,
International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War, won
the Nobel Peace Prize for similar reasons.
Since then, Caldicott has continued to keep nuclear and
environmental issues in the public eye, lecturing all over the
world and publishing five books.
The Smithsonian Institution named her one of the most
influential women of the 20th century.
Caldicott also has been the focus of several films, including
"If You Love This Planet," which won an Academy Award for Best
Documentary in 1982.
"I'm delighted we were able to get her," O'Sullivan said. "She
lives in Australia and only comes to the United States every few
years."
During her brief stay in Georgia, Caldicott will also speak at
the Carter Center in Atlanta and tour the Savannah River nuclear
site near Augusta.
Environmentalist Joanne Steele of Sautee said she has a number
of concerns about the Savannah nuclear plant. "There are reports
of leaking storage tanks, and there was a rule change last year
to lower the hazard level of the stored nuclear waste, so they
don't have to meet as stringent requirements for handling it,"
she said.
"We're also worried about efforts to ramp up production,
apparently to turn old nuclear weapons into fuel."
Steele has read Caldicott's most recent book, "The New Nuclear
Danger," which points out how vulnerable the nuclear industry is
to terrorists.
She also has attended a Caldicott lecture before and hopes to go
again Tuesday. "She's a very entertaining speaker, and she
really knows her stuff," Steele said. "Maybe she'll help put
these issues back on the radar screen."
O'Sullivan said Caldicott will speak for about 50 minutes and
then allow 30 to 40 minutes for questions.
"I can't predict exactly what she'll talk about, but she will
have just returned from the Savannah River site, so I imagine
that is going to be a prominent topic," he said.
E-mail: dgilbert@gainesvilletimes.com
Originally published Monday, October 17, 2005
Copyright 2004 The Times. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
12 [NYTr] Revealed: Blair's nuclear bombshell
Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2005 15:01:26 -0500 (CDT)
Via NY Transfer News Collective * All the News that Doesn't Fit
The Independent - 17 October 2005
http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/article320124.ece
Revealed: Blair's nuclear bombshell
By Andy McSmith
Tony Blair is facing a political backlash over his decision to order a
new generation of nuclear weapons to replace the ageing Trident fleet at
a cost of billions of pounds.
Rebel Labour MPs will meet tomorrow to coordinate their fight against
his plans, which seem set to provoke one of the biggest shows of
opposition to Mr Blair from inside his own party since the start of the
Iraq war.
Opposition to an updated version of Trident goes far beyond MPs who
object to nuclear weapons on principle. It includes senior figures in
the military, who question whether this is the best way to spend a tight
military budget.
A senior defence department source told The Independent that there was
"a serious debate" going on "at all levels" over the long-term role of
the armed forces and whether a nuclear deterrent was still needed. The
Chancellor, Gordon Brown, is believed to have privately queried the huge
cost.
An indication of the sums involved was revealed last week when the
Defence Secretary, John Reid, released updated figures showing that
Britain's nuclear bomb factory at Aldermaston has been given a #2bn
budget for the next three years.
The cost of running the Atomic Weapons Establishment has averaged #300m
a year, at current prices, since 2000. Next year's costs will jump to
#507m, rising still higher to about #1.5bn over the next two years.
Officially, the task of Aldermaston's scientists is to ensure that the
Trident fleet is kept in working order. Their real task, according to
military sources, is to make sure that the scientific know-how is in
place to create a whole new generation of nuclear weapons as soon as a
political decision has been made.
The Independent revealed in May that Mr Blair had decided to go ahead
with a replacement for Trident, at a total cost likely to exceed #10bn,
but that he was delaying the announcement until after the general
election.
In June, the Prime Minister announced that he wanted to "listen" to the
views of MPs before making a final decision. However, both he and Mr
Reid have pointedly avoiding saying that MPs will be given an
opportunity to vote on the nuclear issue.
The "listening exercise" promised by Mr Blair began at the end of last
week when Mr Reid's parliamentary private secretary, Siobhain McDonagh,
sent an e-mail to all Labour MPs inviting anyone concerned about nuclear
weapons to meet the Defence Secretary in groups of six at a time.
Although Trident's life could be extended for another 20 years, a
decision on whether to replace it has to be made much sooner, because of
the long "lead-in" time needed to develop and test new weapons.
Mr Blair is thought to be determined to have the matter settled before
he leaves 10 Downing Street. He believes that Britain owes it to the US
to remain a member of the nuclear club.
Yesterday, Mr Blair and the Foreign Secretary, Jack Straw, held talks at
Chequers with the US Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice, about the
worsening relations with Iran. The US government, backed by Britain, is
intent on preventing Iran from developing nuclear weapons. Critics say
Britain's case is weakened if Mr Blair insists on rebuilding Britain's
nuclear arsenal.
Three Labour MPs - Gordon Prentice, Paul Flynn and John Austin - have
drawn up a resolution questioning the cost of Trident, and have demanded
a vote on it at one of the meetings which Labour MPs hold every Monday.
Mr Flynn, a member of the Defence Committee of the Western European
Union, said: "We haven't got any enemies that we could possibly want to
aim nuclear weapons at now. The case that John Reid has given for these
weapons is that we might possibly have the right sort of enemy in 15
years time, which doesn't seem like a good reason for spending billions
of pounds. Our future role is going to be as peacekeepers, in which we
perform better than anyone else.'"
Last week, Mr Prentice met the chairman of the parliamentary party, Ann
Clwyd, who urged him to drop the idea of forcing a vote, fearing that it
would give an impression of a divided Labour Party. She also warned them
that they would probably be defeated, and that even if they won, they
would not alter government policy.
"We said we were prepared to be reasonable. If she didn't want a vote in
the Parliamentary Labour Party, then John Reid should come to come to
the Commons so that we could have a vote there," Mr Prentice said.
If they are not promised a Commons vote, the rebels have marked 31
October as they day they will force a vote among MPs.
Peter Kilfoyle, a former defence minister, said: "This is at a time when
they are going to cut down on both the navy and the air force. It
requires a whole review of the nuclear stock and what it is for, when
even the Americans are developing different types of nuclear weapons.
"But there is also the politics and the macho posturing, and the issue
of jobs, which we will hear a lot about."
Asked about the reason for the doubling of Aldermaston's budget, a
Ministry of Defence spokesman said: "The planned expenditure is aimed at
maintaining key capabilities at the Atomic Weapons Establishment [AWE]
to ensure that we can safely support the Trident warhead throughout its
planned in-service life. In the absence of the ability to undertake live
nuclear testing, given that the UK has signed and ratified the
Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, it is necessary to invest in the
facilities at AWE which will provide continuing assurance that the
existing Trident warhead stockpile is reliable and safe."
*
================================================================
.NY Transfer News Collective * A Service of Blythe Systems
. Since 1985 - Information for the Rest of Us .
.339 Lafayette St., New York, NY 10012 http://www.blythe.org
.List Archives: https://olm.blythe-systems.com/pipermail/nytr/
.Subscribe: https://olm.blythe-systems.com/mailman/listinfo/nytr
================================================================
*****************************************************************
13 Independent: Revealed: Blair's nuclear bombshell
By Andy McSmith
Published: 17 October 2005
Tony Blair is facing a political backlash over his decision to
order a new generation of nuclear weapons to replace the ageing
Trident fleet at a cost of billions of pounds.
Rebel Labour MPs will meet tomorrow to coordinate their fight
against his plans, which seem set to provoke one of the biggest
shows of opposition to Mr Blair from inside his own party since
the start of the Iraq war.
Opposition to an updated version of Trident goes far beyond MPs
who object to nuclear weapons on principle. It includes senior
figures in the military, who question whether this is the best
way to spend a tight military budget.
A senior defence department source told The Independent that
there was "a serious debate" going on "at all levels" over the
long-term role of the armed forces and whether a nuclear
deterrent was still needed. The Chancellor, Gordon Brown, is
believed to have privately queried the huge cost.
An indication of the sums involved was revealed last week when
the Defence Secretary, John Reid, released updated figures
showing that Britain's nuclear bomb factory at Aldermaston has
been given a 2bn budget for the next three years.
The cost of running the Atomic Weapons Establishment has
averaged 300m a year, at current prices, since 2000. Next
year's costs will jump to 507m, rising still higher to about
1.5bn over the next two years.
Officially, the task of Aldermaston's scientists is to ensure
that the Trident fleet is kept in working order. Their real
task, according to military sources, is to make sure that the
scientific know-how is in place to create a whole new generation
of nuclear weapons as soon as a political decision has been
made.
The Independent revealed in May that Mr Blair had decided to go
ahead with a replacement for Trident, at a total cost likely to
exceed 10bn, but that he was delaying the announcement until
after the general election.
In June, the Prime Minister announced that he wanted to "listen"
to the views of MPs before making a final decision. However,
both he and Mr Reid have pointedly avoiding saying that MPs will
be given an opportunity to vote on the nuclear issue.
The "listening exercise" promised by Mr Blair began at the end
of last week when Mr Reid's parliamentary private secretary,
Siobhain McDonagh, sent an e-mail to all Labour MPs inviting
anyone concerned about nuclear weapons to meet the Defence
Secretary in groups of six at a time.
Although Trident's life could be extended for another 20 years,
a decision on whether to replace it has to be made much sooner,
because of the long "lead-in" time needed to develop and test
new weapons.
Mr Blair is thought to be determined to have the matter settled
before he leaves 10 Downing Street. He believes that Britain
owes it to the US to remain a member of the nuclear club.
Yesterday, Mr Blair and the Foreign Secretary, Jack Straw, held
talks at Chequers with the US Secretary of State, Condoleezza
Rice, about the worsening relations with Iran. The US
government, backed by Britain, is intent on preventing Iran from
developing nuclear weapons. Critics say Britain's case is
weakened if Mr Blair insists on rebuilding Britain's nuclear
arsenal.
Three Labour MPs - Gordon Prentice, Paul Flynn and John Austin -
have drawn up a resolution questioning the cost of Trident, and
have demanded a vote on it at one of the meetings which Labour
MPs hold every Monday. Mr Flynn, a member of the Defence
Committee of the Western European Union, said: "We haven't got
any enemies that we could possibly want to aim nuclear weapons
at now. The case that John Reid has given for these weapons is
that we might possibly have the right sort of enemy in 15 years
time, which doesn't seem like a good reason for spending
billions of pounds. Our future role is going to be as
peacekeepers, in which we perform better than anyone else.'"
Last week, Mr Prentice met the chairman of the parliamentary
party, Ann Clwyd, who urged him to drop the idea of forcing a
vote, fearing that it would give an impression of a divided
Labour Party. She also warned them that they would probably be
defeated, and that even if they won, they would not alter
government policy.
"We said we were prepared to be reasonable. If she didn't want a
vote in the Parliamentary Labour Party, then John Reid should
come to come to the Commons so that we could have a vote there,"
Mr Prentice said.
If they are not promised a Commons vote, the rebels have marked
31 October as they day they will force a vote among MPs.
Peter Kilfoyle, a former defence minister, said: "This is at a
time when they are going to cut down on both the navy and the
air force. It requires a whole review of the nuclear stock and
what it is for, when even the Americans are developing different
types of nuclear weapons.
"But there is also the politics and the macho posturing, and the
issue of jobs, which we will hear a lot about."
Asked about the reason for the doubling of Aldermaston's budget,
a Ministry of Defence spokesman said: "The planned expenditure
is aimed at maintaining key capabilities at the Atomic Weapons
Establishment [AWE] to ensure that we can safely support the
Trident warhead throughout its planned in-service life. In the
absence of the ability to undertake live nuclear testing, given
that the UK has signed and ratified the Comprehensive Test Ban
Treaty, it is necessary to invest in the facilities at AWE which
will provide continuing assurance that the existing Trident
warhead stockpile is reliable and safe."
2005 Independent News & Media (UK) Ltd.
*****************************************************************
14 AFP: Venezuela is trying to get nuclear technology - report
Mon Oct 17, 9:32 AM ET
WASHINGTON (AFP) - The Venezuelan government has approached
several countries with a view to obtaining nuclear technology,
the Washington Times reported, saying some US officials were
worried President Hugo Chavez might be embarking on a nuclear
weapons programme.
Overtures have been made to Iran" /> Iran, according to a Bush
administration official monitoring Latin America, the paper
said.
Washington insists Iran is pursuing a covert nuclear weapons
program, a charge Tehran denies, saying its nuclear program is
entirely peaceful.
"We are keeping an eye on Venezuela," the report quotes an
unnamed senior official as saying. "My sense is that Venezuela
has not been as successful with its nuclear entreaties with
other countries as it would have liked."
The administration official said there is no clear evidence that
Chavez wants to develop nuclear weapons, The Times said.
But, the source said, there is consistent intelligence reporting
that his government has discussed obtaining technology from
other countries, the paper pointed out.
Chavez, a populist who has ratcheted up his anti-American
rhetoric, is in the middle of a military buildup that some
analysts in the Bush administration fear is a precursor to
eroding democracy, according to the report.
"Chavez would like to have everything. He has the money to do
it," the paper quotes another official as saying. "He wants new
fighter jets. He wants to put a satellite in space."
The most troubling for the Bush administration are Chavez's
close ties with Iran, The Times noted. He visited Tehran last
year and held a series of meetings with the ruling mullahs. He
then publicly supported Iran's quest for a huge nuclear
industry.
"They are quite kissy-kissy with Iran," the paper quotes an
unnamed official as saying. "There is a lot of back and forth.
Iranians show up at Venezuelan things. They are both pariah
states that hang out together."
[The Venezuelan government has approached several countries with
a view to obtaining nuclear technology, the Washington Times
reported, saying some US officials were worried President Hugo
Chavez might be embarking on a nuclear weapons program(AFP/Giulio
Napolitano)] AFP Photo: The Venezuelan government has approached
several countries with a view to obtaining nuclear technology,
the...
Copyright 2005 Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
15 Purdue refutes report on college reactors
Date: Sun, 16 Oct 2005 14:10:54 -0500 (CDT)
X-Fingerprint: owner-imap@chumbly.math.missouri.edu-127.127
http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/view.php?StoryID=20051014-095855-1792r
NewsTrack
Purdue refutes report on college reactors
WEST LAFAYETTE, Ind., Oct. 14 (UPI) -- Purdue
University officials refuted allegations in an ABC-TV
News report concerning the safety of nuclear reactors
on U.S. college campuses.
In a report broadcast Wednesday, ABC -- in conjunction
with students -- said the students could enter 25
research nuclear reactors, even with large backpacks
or bags.
ABC said none of the college reactors had metal
detectors, just two appeared to have armed guards and
many colleges permitted vehicles in close proximity to
reactors.
While the reactor building at Purdue is open for
students for classes and research, two sets of locked
doors protect the reactor room, and admittance is only
allowed by appointment and under the supervision of a
staff member, Purdue University in West Lafayette,
Ind., said in a statement.
"There are much easier ways to procure radioactive
materials, such as uranium. There are even household
products that could be purchased that would provide an
equivalent amount," said Lefteri Tsoukalas, head of
the Purdue School of Nuclear Engineering. "Medical
facilities or even delivery vehicles also are more
vulnerable and easier targets."
The corner gas station presents more of a threat to
safety than this reactor ever could, said Tsoukalas.
) Copyright 2005 United Press International, Inc.
//////\\\\\\
"The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy: that is the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness."
-- John Kenneth Galbraith
__________________________________
Yahoo! Music Unlimited
Access over 1 million songs. Try it free.
http://music.yahoo.com/unlimited/
*****************************************************************
16 License transfer delay sought
Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2005 14:58:22 -0700
License transfer delay sought
TMI, Peach Bottom plants are out of compliance, group says
Saturday, October 08, 2005
BY GARRY LENTON
Of The Patriot-News
The nuclear watchdog group Three Mile Island Alert is asking federal
regulators to delay transferring operating licenses for the Three Mile
Island and Peach Bottom nuclear plants to a new company -- Exelon Electric
and Gas -- until questions about emergency planning around the sites are
resolved.
TMIA and a New Cumberland man, Larry Christian, have alleged that emergency
plans mandated for all of the state's nuclear power stations fail to protect
pre-school children in day-care centers or nursery schools.
The two petitioned the NRC to add regulations requiring the protections. The
petition is awaiting a ruling by the agency.
Advertisement
The allegation drew support last week from a senior nuclear engineer within
the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
The engineer, who helped write the requirements, urged the NRC to require
state officials to correct the problem or risk shut down of the plants.
The complaint alleges that state and local officials never pre-arranged
transportation and destination areas for children in day care. State
officials have denied the allegation.
TMIA, in a request filed with the NRC yesterday, argued that the licenses
granted by the agency to operate the two plants are out of compliance and
should not be transferred.
If the NRC agrees, it could delay a merger between Exelon Nuclear, a
Chicago-based energy company that owns 10 nuclear plants, and New
Jersey-based Public Service Enterprise Group.
As part of the merger, licenses for TMI and Peach Bottom will have to be
changed to the new company, Exelon Electric and Gas.
"Everything has now changed because the current license is out of
compliance," said Eric Epstein of the watchdog group Three Mile Island
Alert. "You cannot transfer an out-of-compliance license to any entity."
Peach Bottom is owned and operated by Exelon Nuclear. TMI is operated by
AmerGen, a subsidiary of Exelon.
Even if the license is transferred, management of the plants will remain the
same.
NRC spokeswoman Diane Screnci said the agency received TMIA's request and
was reviewing it.
AmerGen spokesman Ralph DeSantis said there is no reason for the NRC to
delay the license transfers.
"It's an administrative thing," he said.
He noted that the merger of the two companies has already been approved by
the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.
GARRY LENTON: 255-8264 or glenton@patriot-news.com
MORE SEARCHES
*****************************************************************
17 Why Nuclear Power is NOT "Carbon Free"
Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2005 17:23:00 -0500 (CDT)
Letter: Radical Action on Global Warming
By Dr DAVID LOWRY
Sir: In his otherwise healthily sceptical commentary ('Energy review's
nuclear option,' 13 October) Jeremy Warner repeats the misleading
suggestion that nuclear power is a 'carbon-free' form of
electricitygeneration.
Production of nuclear electricity is not carbon free, because the
production of the fuel for these reactors is significantly energy
intensive. While it is true most nuclear reactors do not emit CO2 gas
at the point of generation, reactors are a relatively small part of
the nuclear fuel cycle which emits very large amounts of CO2. These
arise from the so-called 'front-end' of the fuel cycle: uranium
mining, ore milling, uranium conversion, fuel enrichment and
fabrication of the fuel rods. Additionally, nuclear waste management
at the 'back-end' is already energy hungry in radioactive waste
treatment, conditioning, transportation and perhaps final disposal in
some future repository.
Thus it is essential to compare nuclear's energy's greenhouse gas
emissions using a level playing field across the full fuel cycle,
called life-cycle analyses (LCAs) of both internal and external costs
to asses the true impacts of their entire processes. Before starting
down the nuclear route, promoted by Tony Blair at Labour's conference
in Brighton, ministers need to commission an updated comparative LCA
of energy options, including nuclear.
This is something Sir Nicholas Stern ('Blair appoints Treasury
mandarin as climate tsar', 13 October) should embark upon immediately.
DR DAVID LOWRY
STONELEIGH, SURREY
Source: Independent, The; London (UK)
http://www.rednova.com/news/science/272529/letter_radical_action_on_global_warming/index.html?source=r_science
= = = =
STILL FEELING LIKE THE MAINSTREAM U.S. CORPORATE MEDIA
IS GIVING A FULL HONEST PICTURE OF WHAT'S GOING ON?
= = = =
Daily online radio show, news reporting: www.DemocracyNow.org
More news: UseNet's misc.activism.progressive (moderated)
= = = =
Sorry, we cannot read/reply to most usenet posts but welcome email
FOR MORE INFORMATION: http://EconomicDemocracy.org/wtc/ (peace)
http://economicdemocracy.org/eco/climate-summary.html (Climate)
And http://EconomicDemocracy.org/ (general)
** ANTI-SPAM NOTE: For EMAIL "info" and "map" DON'T work. Email to
** m-a-i-l-m-a-i-l (without the dashes)at economicdemocracy.org instead
*****************************************************************
18 NRC: NRC Names Hunegs Senior Resident Inspector at FitzPatrick; Names Cline Senior
Resident Inspector at Nine Mile Point
News Release - Region I - 2005-05 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
Office of Public Affairs, Region I No. I-05-051
October 14, 2005 CONTACT: Diane Screnci (610) 337-5330 Neil
A. Sheehan (610) 337-5331 E-mail:
Pa., have assigned Gordon Hunegs as the senior resident
inspector at the James A. FitzPatrick nuclear power plant; and
assigned Leonard Cline as the senior resident inspector at the
Nine Mile Point nuclear plant. Both plants are in Scriba, N.Y.
Each U.S. commercial nuclear power plant has at least two NRC
resident inspectors. They serve as the agency's eyes and ears at
the facility, conducting regular inspections and monitoring
plant operations. The resident inspectors can be assigned to any
one site for a total of about seven years.
Both Hunegs and Cline have the experience and commitment to
safety that will help the NRC ensure that Nine Mile Point and
FitzPatrick conduct operations with the highest safety standards
to protect the public health and safety," said NRC Region I
Administrator Samuel J. Collins.
Hunegs joined the NRCs Region II office in Atlanta in 1986 as a
project engineer. He has been assigned as a resident inspector
at Indian Point 3 in Buchanan, N.Y., and as a senior resident
inspector at Indian Point 2 and FitzPatrick. Most recently, he
was senior resident inspector at Nine Mile Point. Hunegs served
in the United States Navy for seven years. He is a graduate of
the United States Naval Academy in Annapolis, Md.
Cline joined the NRC in 1999 as a reactor engineer in the Region
I office in King of Prussia. He was then assigned as a reactor
inspector in the performance evaluation branch in the Regions
Division of Reactor Safety. He was a resident inspector at the
Calvert Cliffs site in Lusby, Md. Prior to his assignment to
Nine Mile Point, Cline was the senior resident inspector at
FitzPatrick. Before joining the NRC, he was an officer in the
United States Navy, where he completed the Navys nuclear
training program. He earned a Bachelors degree in civil
engineering from Pennsylvania State University.
Hunegs joins Resident Inspector Douglas Dempsey at FitzPatrick.
They can be reached at 315/342-4907.
Cline joins Resident Inspectors Brian Fuller and Ed Knutson at
Nine Mile Point. They can be reached at 315/342-4041.
Last revised Friday, October 14, 2005
*****************************************************************
19 CNET: Are college nuclear reactors safe?
| News.blog | CNET News.com
A News.com report on advances in science.
October 17, 2005 12:15 PM PDT
ABC News has published a story that questions the safety of
nuclear reactors on campuses, and it's one that some
universities are disputing.
The media giant sent journalism student interns on tours of
twenty university research reactors last summer. The students
did not identify themselves as working for ABC or state the
intent of their visits. According to ABC News, none of the
college reactors had metal detectors, and only two appear to
have armed guards.
At MIT, an ABC News producer drove a rental truck and got fifty
feet away from an MIT reactor and obtained an operating
schedule. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission will now investigate
security at five of the campuses, ABC said.
Although not believed to be one of the schools the NRC will
investigate, MIT disputed ABC's take. Obtaining the schedule did
not compromise security. The truck also didn't enter the secure
perimeter.
"MIT's nuclear reactor is safe and secure," said Professor Alice
Gast, associate provost and vice president for research at MIT
in a prepared statement. "We have a responsibility to the people
of Cambridge and to the MIT community, and we would not operate
the reactor if we believed that it posed a threat to their
well-being."
*****************************************************************
20 BBC ON THIS DAY: | 17 | 1956: Queen switches on nuclear power
1956: Queen switches on nuclear power The Queen has
opened the world's first full-scale nuclear power station, at
Calder Hall in Cumberland.
A crowd of several thousand people gathered to watch the opening
ceremony, which was also attended by scientists and statesmen
from almost 40 different countries.
The Lord Privy Seal, Richard Butler, described the event as
"epoch-making".
He added, "It may be that after 1965 every new power station
being built will be an atomic power station."
This new power, which has proved itself to be such a
terrifying weapon of destruction, is harnessed for the first
time for the common good of our community.
The Queen
Sir Edwin Plowden, chairman of the Atomic Energy
Authority, also stressed the ground-breaking nature of the new
power station.
"Nothing that comes after will be able to detract from the
importance of this first great step forward," he said.
Her Majesty the Queen gave her speech in the shadow of the
massive chimneys of the Windscale plant, where explosives were
made for Britain's first atomic bomb, and she gave a timely
reminder of the more sinister origins of the technology.
"This new power, which has proved itself to be such a terrifying
weapon of destruction," she said, "is harnessed for the first
time for the common good of our community."
At 1216 GMT, she pulled the lever which would direct electricity
from the power station into the National Grid for the first
time.
A large clock on the wall of the power station registered the
first kilowatts of energy to be produced.
The town of Workington, 15 miles (24 km) up the Cumberland coast
from Calder Hall, became the first town in the world to receive
light, heat and power from nuclear energy.
Within four hours, the first nuclear-powered electricity was
reaching London.
The government expects to save about 40 million tons of coal by
investing in the new technology, and it is planning to supply
about 10% of the country's electricity needs from nuclear power
within less than 10 years.
Calder Hall is known as a gas-cooled, graphite-moderated
reactor, and uses the nuclear reaction in uranium rods to
generate power.
Two other nuclear power stations are already under construction
- one alongside the existing Calder Hall plant, to be known as
Calder Hall B, and the other at Chapel Cross in Scotland.
In Context
A further nine nuclear power stations were built across Britain
over the next 10 years. The technology came to supply about a
quarter of Britain's electricity needs.
At its peak, Calder Hall generated four times as much
electricity as it did in 1956, although by modern standards its
size - 196 megawatts - is considered small.
Calder Hall closed in 2003, after more than 40 years providing
electricity, but three years earlier than planned.
The initial optimism over nuclear power began to falter just a
year after Calder Hall was opened, when a fire broke out in the
nearby nuclear complex then known as Windscale, but now called
Sellafield.
Environmental campaigners also began to highlight the problems
of disposing of nuclear waste.
Then came the fire at Three Mile Island in the USA in 1979,
followed by the Chernobyl nuclear disaster in 1986, and public
confidence in nuclear power was badly shaken.
The government's Energy White Paper, published in 2003,
described nuclear power as economically "unattractive", and
concentrated instead on the potential for renewable energy and
energy efficiency.
A programme is now under way to shut down many of the oldest
nuclear power stations, and by 2023, only 4% of Britain's
electricity will come from nuclear power.
But in 2005 the Labour Government put the issue of nuclear power
back on the agenda, calling for a public debate about its
future, because of concern over the shortage of fossil fuels.
*****************************************************************
21 BBC: Analysis: Is nuclear power the
Last Updated: Monday, 17 October 2005
With Prime Minister Tony Blair calling for an "open-minded"
debate on the future of nuclear power in the UK, the BBC's Alex
Kirby explores the pros and cons of atomic energy.
[Sizewell B, PA]
Sizewell B, the UK's newest reactor, was built in the 1980s
Nuclear power looks as if it should be the answer to all our
energy conundrums, and perhaps even to climate change.
It provides a steady stream of energy, and does not depend on
hydrocarbon supplies from unstable regimes.
It is the nearest thing we have to a non-polluting energy source,
apart from natural renewables.
But it still engenders massive distrust, so much that many people
say it can never be part of the way to avoid a disastrously
warming world.
Nuclear energy has always had its proponents, their ranks swollen
now by people who dislike the technology but believe it may be
essential.
They point out that a reactor emits virtually no carbon dioxide
(CO2), the main greenhouse gas released from human activities
(though of course building the power station produces a lot of
CO2).
UK'S ENERGY PRESSURES
Supplies of chea domestic gas are running low Oil and gas prices
have risen dramatically Government aims to reduce greenhouse gas
emissions by 20% of 1990 levels by 2010 Nuclear generates 20% of
the UK's electricity All but one of UK's nuclear power stations
are set to close by 2023 and no more are planned
They say nuclear power is safe, and that the 1957 Windscale fire
in the UK, Three Mile Island in the US in 1979, and even
Chernobyl have killed massively fewer people than the oil and
coal industries.
Beyond that, they say modern reactors are inherently far safer
than those built 20 or 30 years ago, reducing a small risk still
further.
Supporters say uranium prices have remained steady for decades,
meaning nuclear energy is far more secure than fossil fuels can
ever be.
And they argue that modern nuclear power systems are far more
economic than the older versions, and are therefore a good
investment.
And yet their opponents insist that, if nuclear power really is
the answer, then we must be asking the wrong question.
Terror fears
There is an inevitable link between civil and military atoms,
they retort. If we say we need them to stave off climate change,
then so can countries like Iran and North Korea - and there is no
impermeable barrier between electricity and bombs.
NUCLEAR: BACK ON THE AGENDA In his 2005 part
conference speech, Prime Minister Tony Blair promised an energy
review in 2006 He said "assessment of all options, including
civil nuclear power" was necessary Trade Secretary Alan Johnson
has said a decision on new nuclear power stations must be made
"pretty soon" The Nuclear Decommissioning Authority (NDA) was set
up in April 2005 to take responsibility for all UK
decommissioning The Committee on Radioactive Waste Management
(CoRWM), set up to recommend options for waste disposal, is due
to report in 2006
They say nuclear energy is economic only under a very
restricted analysis - by the time you have factored in the costs
of construction, insurance, waste disposal and decommissioning,
you need huge subsidies.
And, opponents ask, what happens to the waste? The only answer we
have come up with so far entails storing the most radioactive
waste under guard for millennia, until it has decayed to safe
levels.
Certainly nuclear power would provide energy to a centralised
supply system. But it would do nothing directly to reduce CO2
from transport, unless it made the advent of the hydrogen economy
likelier.
Also, given the long planning and construction lead times, it
would be a good decade or so before we saw any new power
stations, even if we decided to go ahead today.
I once heard from a British environment secretary, Chris (now
Lord) Patten, a telling definition of the problem. "Nuclear
power? To most people, it's witchcraft," he told his hearers.
[Worker puts together nuclear fuel assembly
Have Your Say:
Are more reactors needed?
Most of us worry far more about something that we see as
very unlikely but grotesquely horrible than we do about what we
perceive as far likelier but much more mundane.
We have a horror of dying in an air crash, but not of driving to
the airport along far more dangerous roads.
We fear radioactive death, but cock an insouciant snook at the
risk of dying painfully from the effects of smoking, or obesity,
or alcohol.
To that degree, our distrust of nuclear energy may be partly
irrational. In other ways, though, it makes very good sense.
Consumer demand
Getting rid of civil reactors would not remove the risk of a
nuclear war breaking out, but it would reduce it.
Beyond that, in the past, the nuclear industry (at least in the
UK) has at times been cavalier with the truth.
One Conservative Minister said 15 years ago: "It is depressing to
stand up in the House of Commons and broadcast explicit
assurances from our nuclear 'experts' one day, only to find them
discredited the next."
[Greenpeace activists on the reactor dome of the Dutch power
plant in Borssele, Getty Images ]
Many environmental groups remain hotly opposed to nuclear power
A veteran of the nuclear industry wrote this: "What the industry
needs to regain the support of the British public is... something
akin to a Truth and Reconciliation Commission.
"It needs to be admitted that governments and industry lied to
the public about the links with the military programme" (Nuclear
Europe Worldscan, 1998).
The signs are that the captains of today's industry are different
and far more open. But the distrust persists.
Two sets of figures crystallise the dilemma. The UK's nuclear
power stations produce about 20% of the country's electricity,
and by 2023 all are due to have closed. But by 2030 it is
estimated world CO2 emissions will be 62% higher than today, as
global demand for energy grows.
By mid-century we could be on the verge of producing power from
nuclear fusion, a radically different technology.
Getting from here to there is the tricky bit. We are
understandably terrified of nuclear meltdown, but far fewer of us
yet fear the prospect of planetary overheating as we should.
*****************************************************************
22 Las Vegas SUN: Nuclear irony finds French power company ads in Nevada
Today: October 17, 2005 at 7:9:53 PDT
By Benjamin Grove
SUN WASHINGTON BUREAU
WASHINGTON -- A French nuclear power company's flashy new
advertising campaign promoting new U.S. nuclear power plants has
popped up, strangely, in Nevada.
Nevermind that the state would not likely be home to any of
Areva's "cleaner, safer, more efficient" power plants of the
future and all that bountiful new electricity. But Nevada could
be home to the waste.
The Paris-based company Areva, which recently formed a
partnership with the firm Constellation Energy with the goal of
building a new generation of U.S. plants, launched the $6.5
million advertising campaign in June. National television
commercials, newspaper and news magazine advertisements are
scheduled to run through November.
The 30-second television commercial zips the viewer along on an
animated tour of how nuclear plants work, beginning with the
mining of uranium ore for the reactor core fuel rods and ending
with a shiny new nuclear plant, set by a blue stream, powering
the skyscrapers of a modern city.
Of course, in Nevada, people know that the nuclear power
generation cycle doesn't end quite there. It ends with highly
radioactive waste coming out of those nuclear reactors. And for
now, the nation's plan to deal with the deadly material is to
dump it at Yucca Mountain -- 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas --
for permanent burial.
An Areva spokeswoman acknowledged that there was an irony to
her company's commercials airing in Nevada.
"I can see where you are coming from," Areva spokeswoman Penny
Phelps said said with a laugh, "but we couldn't cut out the
airwaves to omit Nevada."
All contents copyright 2005 Las Vegas SUN, Inc.
*****************************************************************
23 NRC: Entergy Operations, Inc., Waterford Steam Electric Station, Unit
FR Doc E5-5688
[Federal Register: October 17, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 199)]
[Notices] [Page 60374-60375] From the Federal Register Online via
GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr17oc05-119] [[Page
60374]]
3; Notice of Consideration of Approval of Transfer of Facility
Operating License and Materials License and Conforming Amendment
and Opportunity for a Hearing The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (NRC or the Commission) is considering issuance of an
order under section 50.80 of Title 10 of the Code of Federal
Regulations (10 CFR), approving the transfer of control of
Facility Operating License and Materials License No. NPF-38 for
Waterford Steam Electric Station, Unit 3 (Waterford 3). The
transfer is associated with the restructuring of Entergy
Louisiana, Inc.
(ELI), from a Louisiana corporation to a Texas limited liability
company, Entergy Louisiana, LLC (ELL). Entergy Operations Inc.
(EOI), the current operators of Waterford 3, will continue to
operate the plant. The Commission is further considering amending
the license for administrative purposes to reflect the proposed
transfer, including removing references to ELI in the license.
ELI is the owner of Waterford 3, which is operated by EOI.
Both ELI and EOI are direct subsidiaries of Entergy Corporation.
ELI is currently a Louisiana corporation. Under the proposed
restructuring, ELI will become a Texas corporation (``Holdings'')
and will form ELL, which will be a Texas limited liability
company. Holdings will remain a subsidiary of Entergy Corporation
which will own all the common membership interests in ELL. All of
the common stock and preferred stock of ELI will continue to be
outstanding and to be owned by the same stockholders with the
same ownership rights and interests as those stockholders had
immediately before the restructuring.
ELL will assume all of the regulated utility obligations of ELI,
along with the property and other assets of ELI that are used to
provide retail and wholesale electric service to ELI's customers.
ELL's retail utility operations will be subject to the
jurisdiction of the Louisiana Public Service Commission (LPSC) to
the same extent that the LPSC currently possesses jurisdiction
over ELI's retail utility operations. ELL will succeed to and
assume all of ELI's jurisdictional tariffs, rate schedules, and
service agreements, and provide electric service to ELI's
customers without interruption.
EOI operates Waterford 3 pursuant to an Operating Agreement with
ELI. EOI will continue to operate Waterford 3 and the current
Operating Agreement will be amended to reflect the new owner of
the plant.
EOI will not be affected by the restructuring.
Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.80, no license, or any right thereunder,
shall be transferred, directly or indirectly, through transfer of
control of the license, unless the Commission shall give its
consent in writing. The Commission will approve an application
for the transfer of a license, if the Commission determines that
the proposed transferee is qualified to hold the license, and
that the transfer is otherwise consistent with applicable
provisions of law, regulations, and orders issued by the
Commission pursuant thereto.
Before issuance of the proposed conforming license amendment, the
Commission will have made findings required by the Atomic Energy
Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), and the Commission's
regulations.
As provided in 10 CFR 2.1315, unless otherwise determined by the
Commission with regard to a specific application, the Commission
has determined that any amendment to the license of a utilization
facility which does no more than conform the license to reflect
the transfer action involves no significant hazards
consideration. No contrary determination has been made with
respect to this specific license amendment application. In light
of the generic determination reflected in 10 CFR 2.1315, no
public comments with respect to significant hazards
considerations are being solicited, notwithstanding the general
comment procedures contained in 10 CFR 50.91. The filing of
requests for hearing and petitions for leave to intervene, and
written comments with regard to the license transfer application,
are discussed below.
Within 20 days from the date of publication of this notice, any
person whose interest may be affected by the Commission's action
on the application may request a hearing and, if not the
applicant, may petition for leave to intervene in a hearing
proceeding on the Commission's action. Requests for a hearing and
petitions for leave to intervene should be filed in accordance
with the Commission's rules of practice set forth in Subpart C
``Rules of General Applicability: Hearing Requests, Petitions to
Intervene, Availability of Documents, Selection of Specific
Hearing Procedures, Presiding Officer Powers, and General Hearing
Management for NRC Adjudicatory Hearings,'' of 10 CFR part 2. In
particular, such requests and petitions must comply with the
requirements set forth in 10 CFR 2.309. Untimely requests and
petitions may be denied, as provided in 10 CFR 2.309(c)(1),
unless good cause for failure to file on time is established. In
addition, an untimely request or petition should address the
factors that the Commission will also consider, in reviewing
untimely requests or petitions, set forth in 10 CFR
2.309(c)(1)(I)-(viii). Requests for a hearing and petitions for
leave to intervene should be served upon David A. Repka, Esq.,
Winston & Stawn, LLP, 1700 K Street, NW., Washington, DC
20006-3817; the General Counsel, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001 ); and the Secretary of the
Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC
20555-0001, Attention: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff, in
accordance with 10 CFR 2.302 and 2.305. The Commission will issue
a notice or order granting or denying a hearing request or
intervention petition, designating the issues for any hearing
that will be held and designating the Presiding Officer. A notice
granting a hearing will be published in the Federal Register and
served on the parties to the hearing.
As an alternative to requests for hearing and petitions to
intervene, within 30 days from the date of publication of this
notice, persons may submit written comments regarding the license
transfer application, as provided for in 10 CFR 2.1305. The
Commission will consider and, if appropriate, respond to these
comments, but such comments will not otherwise constitute part of
the decisional record. Comments should be submitted to the
Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC
20555-0001, Attention: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff, and
should cite the publication date and page number of this Federal
Register notice.
For further details with respect to this action, see the
application dated July 20, 2005, available for public inspection
at the Commission's Public Document Room (PDR), located at One
White Flint North, Public File Area O1 F21, 11555 Rockville Pike
(first floor), Rockville, Maryland. Publicly available records
will be accessible electronically from the Agencywide Documents
Access and Management System's (ADAMS) Public Electronic Reading
Room on the Internet at the NRC Web site, . Persons who do not
have access to
[[Page 60375]] ADAMS or who encounter problems in accessing the
documents located in ADAMS, should contact the NRC PDR Reference
staff by telephone at 1- 800-397-4209, 301-415-4737 or by e-mail
to .
Dated at Rockville, Maryland this 6th day of October, 2005.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Nageswaran Kalyanam, Project Manager, Section 1, Project
Directorate IV, Division of Licensing Project Management, Office
of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. E5-5688 Filed 10-14-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
*****************************************************************
24 NRC: Nuclear Management Company, LLC, Palisades Plant; Exemption
FR Doc E5-5689
[Federal Register: October 17, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 199)]
[Notices] [Page 60375-60379] From the Federal Register Online via
GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr17oc05-120]
1.0 Background Nuclear Management Company, LLC (NMC) is the
holder of Facility Operating License No. DPR-20, which authorizes
operation of the Palisades Nuclear Plant (PNP). The license
provides, among other things, that the facility is subject to all
rules, regulations, and orders of the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (NRC or Commission) now or hereafter in effect.
The facility consists of a pressurized-water reactor located in
VanBuren County in Michigan.
2.0 Request/Action Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations 10
CFR part 50, Section 50.68(b)(1) specifies requirements for
handling and storing spent fuel assemblies during cask loading,
unloading, and handling operations. Section 50.68(b)(1) sets
forth the following requirement that must be met, in lieu of a
monitoring system capable of detecting criticality events: Plant
procedures shall prohibit the handling and storage at any one
time of more fuel assemblies than have been determined to be
safely subcritical under the most adverse moderation conditions
feasible by unborated water.
NMC is unable to satisfy the above requirement for handling the
10 CFR part 72 licensed contents of the Transnuclear (TN)
NUHOMS[reg]-32PT storage system. Section 50.12(a) allows
licensees to apply for an exemption from the requirements of 10
CFR part 50, if special circumstances are demonstrated. NMC's
letter of June 21, as supplemented August 25, 2005, requested a
license exemption from the requirements of 10 CFR, part 50,
Section 50.68(b)(1) for handling and storing spent fuel
assemblies during cask loading, unloading, and handling
operations for PNP. NMC stated in its letters that complying with
10 CFR 50.68(b)(1) is not necessary for handling the 10 CFR part
72 licensed contents of the cask system to achieve the underlying
purpose of the rule. Additionally, NMC contends that complying
with the rule in this case will result in undue hardship.
3.0 Discussion Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.12, ``Specific Exemption,''
the Commission may, upon application by any interested person or
upon its own initiative, grant exemptions from the requirements
of 10 CFR part 50 when (1) the exemptions are authorized by law,
will not present an undue risk to public health or safety, and
are consistent with the common defense and security; and (2) when
special circumstances are present. These circumstances include
the special circumstance listed in 10 CFR 50.12(a)(2)(iii), where
``Compliance would result in undue hardship or other costs that
are significantly in excess of those contemplated when the
regulation was adopted, or that are significantly in excess of
those incurred by others similarly situated.'' In its exemption
supplement of August 25, 2005, NMC provided a justification for
satisfying the hardship special circumstance.
The staff agrees with NMC that due to the short duration between
the March 23, 2005, issuance of Regulatory Issue Summary (RIS)
2005-05, ``Regulatory Issues Regarding Criticality Analyses for
Spent Fuel Pools and Independent Spent Fuel Storage
Installations'' (ADAMS ML043500532), and the scheduled October
2005 cask loading campaign at PNP, insufficient time exists for
NMC to perform the required analyses necessary to demonstrate
compliance with 10 CFR 50.68. RIS 2005-05 identified an
acceptable methodology for demonstrating compliance with the 10
CFR 50.68(b)(1) requirements during cask loading, unloading, and
handling operations in pressurized water reactor SFPs. The staff
has determined that a hardship claim may be acceptable for
licensees that have previously scheduled loading campaigns
commencing before March 31, 2006 (1 year after the issuance of
the RIS). Therefore, the staff concludes that pursuant to 10 CFR
50.12(a)(2)(iii), NMC has provided sufficient justification to
support a conclusion that undue hardship would occur if NMC were
required to postpone its scheduled cask-loading campaign until it
could comply with 10 CFR 50.68. However, since NMC's
justification is based on the time needed to perform the
necessary analyses, the staff has determined that NMC must comply
with the regulations within an appropriate amount of time. In its
exemption supplement, NMC proposed that the exemption remain
valid until July 31, 2006. This will provide enough time for NMC
to perform the necessary analyses and submit a license amendment
request (LAR) to comply with 10 CFR 50.68. If NMC submits an LAR
by July 31, 2006, this exemption will remain in effect until such
time as the NRC staff either approves or denies the LAR. In this
case, the NRC staff finds it acceptable to leave the exemption in
effect because it will allow NMC to unload any previously loaded
cask should it become necessary. However, if NMC does not submit
a license amendment by July 31, 2006, this exemption will expire,
and NMC will not be able to load, unload, or handle dry shielded
canisters (DSCs) in the spent fuel pool (SFP). In its exemption
supplement, NMC committed to complete supporting criticality
analyses and submit a LAR to allow credit for burnup to meet the
requirements of 10 CFR 50.68(b)(1) in July 2006 or earlier.
The NRC staff also evaluated NMC's request to determine if NMC
has provided reasonable assurance that it can conduct the
proposed cask loading, unloading, and handling activities in a
safe and effective manner. PNP's Technical Specifications (TSs)
currently permit NMC to store spent fuel assemblies in
high-density storage racks in its SFP. In accordance with the
provisions of 10 CFR 50.68(b)(4), NMC takes credit for soluble
boron for criticality control, and ensures that the effective
multiplication factor (keff) of the SFP does not exceed 0.95 if
flooded with borated water. Section 50.68(b)(4) also requires
that if credit is taken for soluble boron, the keff must remain
below 1.0 (subcritical) if flooded with unborated water. However,
NMC is unable to satisfy the requirement to maintain the keff
below 1.0 with unborated water at all times, which is also the
requirement of 10 CFR 50.68(b)(1). Therefore, NMC's request for
exemption from 10 CFR 50.68(b)(1) proposes to permit NMC to
perform spent fuel loading, unloading, and handling operations
related to dry cask storage without being subcritical under the
most adverse moderation conditions feasible by unborated water.
Appendix A, ``General Design Criteria (GDC) for Nuclear Power
Plants,'' of 10 CFR, part 50, lists the minimum design
[[Page 60376]] requirements for nuclear power plants. According
to GDC 62, ``Prevention of criticality in fuel storage and
handling,'' PNP must have physical systems or processes to limit
the potential for criticality in the fuel handling and storage
system. Section 5.1.7.3 of PNP's Updated Final Safety Analysis
Report (UFSAR) describes PNP's compliance with GDC 62. Section
5.1.7.3 specifically references the design of the spent fuel
storage racks to maintain a geometrically safe configuration that
provides spacing and neutron poisons sufficient to maintain a
keff of less than 1.0 when flooded with unborated water.
Section 50.68 of 10 CFR part 50, gives NRC requirements for
maintaining subcritical conditions in SFPs. Section 50.68
specifies criticality-control requirements that, if satisfied,
ensure that an inadvertent criticality in the SFP is an extremely
unlikely event. These requirements include appropriate,
conservative criticality margins during handling and storage of
spent fuel. Section 50.68(b)(1) states, ``Plant procedures shall
prohibit the handling and storage at any one time of more fuel
assemblies than have been determined to be safely subcritical
under the most adverse moderation conditions feasible by
unborated water.'' Specifically, 10 CFR 50.68(b)(1) requires NMC
to maintain the SFP in a subcritical condition during handling
and storage operations without crediting the soluble boron in the
SFP water.
NMC received a license to construct and operate an Independent
Spent Fuel Storage Installation (ISFSI) at PNP. The ISFSI permits
NMC to store spent fuel assemblies in large concrete dry storage
casks (Horizontal Storage Modules). As part of its ISFSI loading
campaigns, NMC transfers spent fuel assemblies to a DSC in the
cask pit area of the SFP. NMC performed criticality analyses of a
fully-loaded DSC with fuel having the highest permissible
reactivity. It determined that a soluble-boron credit was
necessary to ensure that the DSC would remain subcritical in the
SFP. NMC is thus unable to satisfy the requirement of 10 CFR
50.68(b)(1) to ensure subcritical conditions during handling and
storage of spent fuel assemblies in the pool with unborated
water. Accordingly, NMC identified the need for an exemption from
the 10 CFR 50.68(b)(1) requirement to support DSC loading,
unloading, and handling operations, without being subcritical
under the most adverse moderation conditions feasible by
unborated water.
The NRC staff evaluated the possibility of an inadvertent
criticality of the spent nuclear fuel at PNP during DSC loading,
unloading, and handling. The NRC staff has established a set of
acceptance criteria that, if met, minimize the potential for an
inadvertent criticality event. In lieu of complying with 10 CFR
50.68(b)(1), the NRC staff determined that an inadvertent
criticality accident is unlikely to occur if NMC meets the
following five criteria: Criterion 1--The cask criticality
analyses are based on the following conservative assumptions:
--No credit is taken for fuel-related burnable absorbers.
--All fuel assemblies in the cask are unirradiated and at the
highest permissible enrichment.
--The cask is assumed to be flooded with moderator at the
temperature and density corresponding to optimum moderation.
--Only 75 percent of the Boron-10 in the fixed poison panel
inserts is credited.
Criterion 2--NMC's ISFSI TSs require the soluble boron
concentration to be equal to, or greater than, the level assumed
in the criticality analysis. TS surveillance requirements specify
periodically verifying the concentration both prior to, and
during, loading and unloading operations.
Criterion 3--Radiation monitors, as required by GDC 63,
``Monitoring Fuel and Waste Storage,'' are provided in fuel
storage and handling areas to detect excessive radiation levels
and to initiate appropriate safety actions.
Criterion 4--The quantity of other forms of special nuclear
material (e.g., sources, detectors, etc.) to be stored in the
cask will not increase the effective multiplication factor above
the limit calculated in the criticality analysis.
Criterion 5--Sufficient time exists for plant personnel to
identify and terminate a boron dilution event prior to achieving
a critical boron concentration in the DSC. NMC must provide the
following to demonstrate that it can safely identify and
terminate a boron dilution event: --A plant-specific criticality
analysis to identify the critical boron concentration in the cask
based on the highest reactivity loading pattern.
--A plant-specific boron dilution analysis to identify all
potential dilution pathways, their flowrates, and the time
necessary to reach a critical boron concentration.
--A description of all alarms and indications available to
promptly alert operators of a boron dilution event.
--A description of plant controls that NMC will implement to
minimize the potential for a boron dilution event.
--A summary of operator training, and procedures that will be
used, to ensure that operators can quickly identify and terminate
a boron dilution event.
In RIS 2005-05, the NRC identified an acceptable methodology for
demonstrating compliance with the 10 CFR 50.68(b)(1) requirements
during cask loading, unloading, and handling operations in
pressurized water reactor SFPs. The NRC staff has determined that
licensee implementation of this methodology will eliminate the
need to grant future exemptions for cask storage and handling
evolutions. NMC submitted its exemption request on June 21, 2005,
3 months after the issuance of the RIS. Since the exemption
request was submitted after the issuance of the RIS, and an
acceptable methodology for complying with the regulation exists,
the staff has determined that it is not appropriate to approve
the exemption based on the 50.12(a)(2)(ii) special circumstance
related to the underlying purpose of the rule.
In its August 25, 2005, supplement, NMC contends that due to the
short duration available between the March 2005 issuance of the
RIS, and the October 2005 planned cask loading campaign, an undue
hardship exists. Section 50.12 of 10 CFR provides for a special
circumstance that allows the staff to review an exemption request
based on undue hardship. Specifically, 10 CFR 50.12(a)(2)(iii)
states the following: Compliance would result in undue hardship
or other costs that are significantly in excess of those
contemplated when the regulation was adopted, or that are
significantly in excess of those incurred by others similarly
situated.
Since the NRC staff has determined that it is not appropriate to
grant the exemption based on satisfying the underlying intent of
the rule, it reviewed the exemption request based on the undue
hardship special circumstance in 10 CFR 50.12(a)(2)(iii). In
determining the technical acceptability of NMC's exemption
request, the NRC staff reviewed NMC's criticality analyses
submitted to support the ISFSI license application and its
exemption request, and NMC's boron dilution analysis. For each of
the aspects, the NRC staff evaluated whether NMC's analyses and
methodologies provide reasonable
[[Page 60377]] assurance that adequate safety margins are
developed, and can be maintained, in the PNP SFP during loading
of spent fuel into DSCs for dry cask storage.
3.1 Criticality Analyses The NRC staff's review of NMC's
criticality analyses, as described in the Standardized
NUHOMS[reg] Fuel Safety Analysis Report, dated 6/ 30/04 (ADAMS
ML051040570), consists of four parts. First, the NRC staff
reviewed the methodology and assumptions NMC used in its
criticality analysis to determine if Criterion 1 was satisfied.
NMC stated the following: It took no credit in the criticality
analyses for burnup or fuel-related burnable neutron absorbers.
All assemblies were analyzed at the highest permissible
enrichment.
All criticality analyses for a flooded DSC were performed at
temperatures and densities of water corresponding to optimum
moderation conditions.
In its exemption request, NMC provided the results of its optimum
moderation analysis that effectively demonstrated that the
optimum moderation condition had been identified. NMC also said
that it credited 90 percent of the Boron-10 content for the fixed
neutron absorber in the DSC. NUREG-1536, ``Standard Review Plan
for Dry Cask Storage System,'' states that ``[f] or a greater
credit allowance [i.e., greater than 75 percent for fixed neutron
absorbers] special, comprehensive fabrication tests capable of
verifying the presence and uniformity of the neutron absorber are
needed.'' The NRC staff accepted a 90-percent credit for the
fixed neutron absorbers as described in Section 6 of Appendix M
of the Standardized NUHOMS[reg] Final Safety Analysis Report.
Therefore, for the purposes of this exemption, the staff finds a
90-percent credit acceptable on the basis that it has previously
been reviewed and approved by the NRC. Based on its review of the
criticality analyses and the information submitted in its
exemption request, the NRC staff finds that NMC has satisfied
Criterion 1.
Second, the NRC staff reviewed the proposed PNP ISFSI TSs.
NMC's criticality analyses credit soluble boron for reactivity
control during DSC loading, unloading, and handling operations.
Since the boron concentration is a key safety component necessary
for ensuring subcritical conditions in the pool, NMC must have a
conservative ISFSI TS capable of ensuring that sufficient soluble
boron is present to perform its safety function. The ISFSI TSs
applicable to the NUHOMS[reg]-32PT DSC, and attached to the
Certificate of Compliance No. 1004, contain the requirements for
the minimum soluble boron concentration as a function of fuel
assembly class, DSC basket type, and corresponding assembly
average initial enrichment values. In all cases, the boron
concentration required by the ISFSI TS ensures that the keff will
be below 0.95 for the analyzed loading configuration.
Additionally, NMC's ISFSI TSs contain surveillance requirements
that assure it will verify the boron concentration is above the
required level both prior to, and during, DSC loading, unloading,
and handling operations. Based on its review of the PNP ISFSI
TSs, the NRC staff finds that NMC has satisfied Criterion 2.
Third, the NRC staff reviewed the PNP's UFSAR, and the
information provided by NMC in its exemption request, to ensure
that it complies with GDC 63. GDC 63 requires that licensees have
radiation monitors in fuel storage and associated handling areas
to detect conditions that may result in a loss of residual heat
removal capability and excessive radiation levels and initiate
appropriate safety actions. In its exemption request, NMC stated
that its radiation monitoring system consists of gamma-sensitive
detector assemblies in the SFP area, with audible alarm at the
initiating detector and in the main control room. NMC stated in
its exemption request that operations personnel will investigate
the cause of high radiation levels and initiate appropriate
safety actions. Furthermore, NMC's compliance with GDC 63 is
described in its UFSAR, Sections 5.1.7.4 and 9.11.4.4. Based on
its review of the exemption request and the PNP UFSAR, the NRC
staff finds that NMC has satisfied Criterion 3.
Fourth, as part of the criticality analysis review, the NRC staff
evaluated the storage of non-fuel related material in a DSC. The
NRC staff evaluated the potential to increase the reactivity of a
DSC by loading it with materials other than spent nuclear fuel
and fuel debris. The approved contents for storage in the
NUHOMS[reg]-32PT cask design are listed in the PNP ISFSI TS
Limiting Condition for Operation (LCO) 1.2.1 ``Fuel
Specifications.'' This ISFSI TS LCO restricts the contents of the
DSC to only fuels and non-fissile materials irradiated at PNP. As
such, PNP is prohibited from loading other forms of special
nuclear material (e.g., sources, detectors, etc.) in the DSC.
Therefore, the NRC staff determined that the loading limitations
described in PNP's ISFSI TSs will ensure that any authorized
components loaded in the DSCs will not result in a reactivity
increase.
Based on its review of the loading restrictions, the NRC staff
finds that NMC has satisfied Criterion 4.
3.2 Boron Dilution Analysis (Criterion 5) Since NMC's ISFSI
application relies on soluble boron to maintain subcritical
conditions within the DSCs during loading, unloading, and
handling operations, the NRC staff reviewed NMC's boron dilution
analysis to determine whether appropriate controls, alarms, and
procedures were available to identify and terminate a boron
dilution accident prior to reaching a critical boron
concentration.
The NRC's letter of October 25, 1996, ``Topical Report Evaluation
of WCAP-14416, Westinghouse Spent Fuel Rack Criticality Analysis
Methodology'' (ADAMS 9610300008), issued a safety evaluation on
licensing topical report WCAP-14416, ``Westinghouse Spent Fuel
Rack Criticality Analysis Methodology.'' This safety evaluation
specified that the following issues be evaluated for applications
involving soluble boron credit: Events that could cause boron
dilution; Time available to detect and mitigate each dilution
event; Potential for incomplete boron mixing; Adequacy of the
boron concentration surveillance interval.
The criticality analyses performed for the NUHOMS[reg]-32PT DSC
are described in the FSAR for the Standardized NUHOMS[reg]
Horizontal Modular Storage System for Irradiated Nuclear Fuel.
NMC used the same criticality analysis methods, models, and
assumptions for its boron dilution evaluation. These PNP
criticality calculations are based on the KENO V.a code. The
calculations determined the minimum soluble boron concentration
required to maintain subcriticality (keff Within 4 hours prior
to flooding the DSC cavity; Within 4 hours prior to inserting the
first spent fuel assembly into the DSC; Reconfirmed at intervals
not to exceed 48 hours until such time as the DSC is removed from
the SFP; NMC's analysis identified all credible potential sources
that could dilute the SFP to critical conditions. NMC determined
that the limiting boron dilution event occurs when water from the
fire protection system, with a maximum flow rate of 210 gpm from
a 1.5-inch diameter hose, is added to the SFP. NMC's calculations
show that at least 4 hours will be available to terminate the
event before the DSC water boron concentration decreases from
2500 ppm to the critical concentration of 1850 ppm, assuming a
straight dilution to the SFP overflow limit and a feed and bleed
operation thereafter with instantaneous complete mixing.
The Palisades' SFP is a large rectangular structure filled with
borated water which completely covers the spent fuel assemblies.
During loading, unloading, and handling activities, the DSC is
located in a 9 by 9 foot area in the north east corner of the
SFP. This area is open to the SFP, thereby ensuring that thermal
currents within the pool will mix the volume near the DSC with
the remainder of the pool.
To demonstrate that sufficient time exists for plant personnel to
identify and terminate a boron dilution event, NMC described all
alarms available to alert operators, and plant controls that will
be implemented. There is no automatic level control system for
the SFP; therefore, the SFP will overflow on an uncontrolled
water addition. However, a high-level alarm in the control room
would alert personnel of a potential boron dilution event within
45 minutes for a 210 gpm dilution rate; 30 additional minutes
will elapse before the pool begins to overflow. From this point,
NMC calculated that at least 3 more hours are available to
mitigate the dilution event before the boron concentration is
reduced to the critical concentration of 1850 ppm.
In its exemption request of June 21, 2005, NMC stated that ``to
ensure defense-in-depth regarding the detection of a boron
dilution event, NMC will revise procedures to include a
requirement that whenever a 32PT DSC is in the SFP and fuel is in
the DSC, the SFP level will be monitored on at least an hourly
frequency (via television monitor or locally) to ensure that the
SFP is not overflowing, and that SFP water level is not
unintentionally rising.'' Therefore, should a boron dilution
event occur, the most conservative time for the individual to
detect the event would be when the SFP begins to overflow.
Assuming the pool water level starts just above the low-level
alarm setpoint, then at most 73.3 minutes could elapse since the
start of the dilution. With a limiting value of 210 gpm of
unborated water being added to the pool, there would be 2.96
additional hours to mitigate and terminate the event. The staff
finds that this is acceptable.
To ensure that operators are capable of identifying and
terminating a boron dilution event during DSC loading, unloading,
and handling operations, NMC stated that operator training will
be conducted.
NMC said that during training activities, operators will receive
revised alarm manual procedures, which verify that the SFP boron
concentration is in compliance with the new ISFSI TS limit prior
to the loading of a NUHOMS[reg]-32PR DSC.
Based on the staff's review of NMC's exemption request dated June
21, 2005, and its boron dilution analysis, the staff finds that
NMC has provided sufficient information to demonstrate that an
undetected and uncorrected dilution from the TS required boron
concentration to the calculated critical boron concentration is
very unlikely. Based on its review of the boron analysis and
enhancements to the operating procedures and operator training
program, the staff finds NMC has satisfied Criterion 5.
Therefore, in conjunction with the conservative assumptions used
to establish the TS-required boron concentration and critical
boron concentration, the boron dilution evaluation demonstrates
that the SFP and DSC will remain subcritical during spent fuel
loading, unloading and handling operations.
Accordingly, the NRC staff concludes that since NMC has satisfied
the five criteria, as described in Section 3.0 of this exemption,
NMC has provided reasonable assurance that it can conduct the
proposed cask loading, unloading, and handling activities in a
safe and effective manner.
Section 50.68(b)(1) of 10 CFR was promulgated to require that
adequate controls are in place so that the handling and storage
of fuel assemblies is conducted in a manner that provides
reasonable assurance that the fuel assemblies will remain safely
subcritical. Based on the NRC staff's review of NMC's exemption
request, the staff has determined the following: NMC has
demonstrated that sufficient controls are in place to provide
reasonable assurance that there is no undue risk to public health
and safety given conservative assumptions in the criticality
analysis (Criterion 1).
Surveillances periodically verify the boron concentration before,
and during, loading and unloading (Criterion 2).
Radiation monitoring equipment is used to detect excessive
radiation and initiate appropriate protective actions (Criterion
3).
Only fuel authorized by the ISFSI TSs will be loaded and stored
in the ISFSI (Criterion 4).
Boron dilution events have been analyzed, and there are
sufficient monitoring capabilities and time for NMC to identify
and terminate a dilution event prior to achieving a critical
boron concentration in the cask (Criterion 5).
Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that NMC has established
sufficient controls to ensure the fuel assemblies remain
subcritical during loading, unloading, and handling within the
SFP and DSC so that there is no undue risk to public health and
safety.
This exemption results in changes to the operation of the plant
by allowing the operation of the new dry fuel storage facility
and loading of the NUHOMS[reg]-32PT DSC.
4.0 Conclusion Accordingly, the Commission has determined that,
pursuant to 10 CFR 50.12(a), the exemption is authorized by law,
will not present an undue risk to the public health and safety,
and is consistent with the common defense and security. Also,
special circumstances are present. Therefore, the Commission
hereby grants NMC, an exemption from the requirements of 10 CFR
50.68(b)(1) for the loading, unloading, and handling of the
components of the TN NUHOMS[reg]-32PT
[[Page 60379]] dry cask storage system at PNP. However, since NMC
does not have an NRC-approved methodology for evaluating changes
to the analyses or systems supporting this exemption request, the
NRC staff's approval of the exemption is restricted to those
specific design and operating conditions described in NMC's June
21, 2005, exemption request.
NMC may not apply the 10 CFR 50.59 process for evaluating changes
to specific exemptions. Any changes to the design or operation of
(1) the dry cask storage system; (2) the SFP; (3) the fuel
assemblies to be stored; (4) the boron dilution analyses; or (5)
supporting procedures and controls, regardless of whether they
are approved under the general Part 72 license or perceived to be
conservative, will invalidate this exemption. Upon invalidation
of the exemption, NMC will be required to comply with NRC
regulations prior to future cask loadings.
Based upon the review of NMC's exemption request to credit
soluble boron during DSC loading, unloading, and handling in
PNP's SFP, the NRC staff concludes that pursuant to 10 CFR
50.12(a)(2)(iii), NMC's exemption request is acceptable. However,
the NRC staff places the following limitations/conditions on the
approval of this exemption: 1. This exemption is limited to the
loading, unloading, and handling of the DSC for only the TN
NUHOMS[reg]-32PT at the PNP.
2. This exemption is limited to the loading, unloading, and
handling in the DSC at PNP of Combustion Engineering 15 x 15 fuel
assemblies, without burnable poison rod assemblies, that had
maximum initial, unirradiated U-235 enrichments less than 3.6
weight percent.
3. This exemption is limited to the one-time only loading,
unloading, and handling of the 7 TN NUHOMS[reg]-32PT cask systems
(224 assemblies total) scheduled for the October 2005 cask
loading campaign at PNP.
4. If NMC submits a LAR by July 31, 2006, this exemption will
remain in effect until such time as the NRC staff either approves
or denies the LAR. In this case, the NRC staff finds it
acceptable to leave the exemption in effect because it will allow
NMC to unload any previously loaded cask should it become
necessary. However, if NMC does not submit a license amendment by
July 31, 2006, this exemption will expire, and NMC will not be
able to load, unload, or handle DSCs in the SFP. In its exemption
supplement, NMC committed to complete supporting criticality
analyses and submit a LAR to allow credit for burnup to meet the
requirements of 10 CFR 50.68(b)(1) in July 2006 or earlier.
5. During DSC loading, unloading, and handling at PNP, the SFP
soluble boron concentration must be greater than or equal to 2500
ppm at all times.
Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.32, the Commission has determined that the
granting of this exemption will not have a significant effect on
the quality of the human environment (70 FR 57899).
This exemption is effective upon issuance.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 6th day of October 2005.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Ledyard B. Marsh, Director, Division of Licensing Project
Management, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. E5-5689 Filed 10-14-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
b
*****************************************************************
25 NRC: Nuclear Management Company, Palisades Plant; Notice of
FR Doc E5-5690
[Federal Register: October 17, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 199)]
[Notices] [Page 60379] From the Federal Register Online via GPO
Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr17oc05-121]
Correction to Individual Notice for Environmental Assessment and
Finding of No Significant Impact AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory
Commission.
ACTION: Notice of issuance; correction.
SUMMARY: This document corrects a notice appearing in the Federal
Register on October 4, 2005 (70 FR 57899), that incorrectly
referred to Dominion Nuclear Connecticut, Inc. This action is
necessary to correct the erroneous information.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: L. Mark Padovan, Project
Manager, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear
Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone (301)
415-1423, e-mail .
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On page 1, the title is corrected to
read from ``Dominion Nuclear Connecticut, Inc.'' to ``Nuclear
Management Company.'' Dated in Rockville, Maryland, this 6th day
of October 2005.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
L. Raghavan, Chief, Section 1, Project Directorate III, Division
of Licensing Project Management, Office of Nuclear Reactor
Regulation.
[FR Doc. E5-5690 Filed 10-14-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
*****************************************************************
26 CBC Ottawa: $4.25 billion to restart 2 nuclear reactors
Last updated Oct 17 2005 01:00 PM EDT
CBC News
The McGuinty government has agreed to restart two more
nuclear reactors in the province. The Liberals announced a
$4.25-billion deal Monday morning to repair and refurbish four
units at the Bruce A nuclear generating station near Kincardine.
But the government's not paying for the deal. Bruce Power will
pay for it by charging more to the consumer. The four nuclear
reactors at Bruce A were shut down in the late nineties for
safety reasons. Two have already been returned to service. Now,
because of the looming electricity shortage, the government's
agreed to get the other two up and running.
Bruce Power has agreed to spend the $4.25 billion to refurbish
units one and two, refurbish unit three when its life is up, and
replace the steam generators on unit four. In return, it will
be able to charge 6.3 cents a kilowatt hour for all of the energy
Bruce A produces.
NDP Leader Howard Hampton says that's a sweetheart deal.
"Nulcear power was pegged at about 4.5 cents a kilowatt hour.
This company's going to get over 6 cents a kilowatt hour. So
they're going to get literally a 33-per-cent profit," Hampton
says. But the new Energy minister, Donna Cansfield, says
Hampton has got his numbers wrong. She says he's not including
the cost of Hydro's stranded debt when he quotes the lower price.
Cansfield says the consumer or the taxpayer won't be on the hook
for cost-overruns, if they occur.
"That will be born entirely by the Bruce people, and not by the
people of Ontario," she says.
The Energy minister had promised there'd be a full debate on
whether there'd be more nuclear power in Ontario.
But Hampton says Donna Cansfield has pre-empted part of that
debate with her announcement on Monday.
Copyright CBC 2005
*****************************************************************
27 CBC New Brunswick: Liberals support second nuclear reactor
Last updated Oct 17 2005 09:16 AM ADT
CBC News
New Brunswick Liberals will investigate spending $2 billion on
a second nuclear reactor at Point Lepreau if they form the next
government. The Liberal promise came the same day Premier
Bernard Lord set Nov. 14 as the date of a provincial byelection
in Saint John, a city that would benefit economically from more
construction at Lepreau. Liberal hopeful Dr. Ed Doherty will
seek Liberal Party nomination for the riding. Saint John Deputy
Mayor Michelle Hooton announced last week she'll seek the
Conservative nomination in the riding. The NDP has not chosen a
candidate to replace Elizabeth Weir, who held the seat for 14
years.
+ FROM OCT. 14, 2005: Tories first off the blocks in race for
Saint JohnLiberal leader Shawn Graham announced his party's
support for a second reactor at policy convention on the
weekend. It's among 30 new ideas approved by delegates to be
part of the party's next election platform. The
policies include ways to drive economic development and a plan
to ban people from using cell phones while driving. The reactor
is by far the most expensive idea, but Graham says it's crucial,
because the scheduled upgrade of the existing reactor isn't
enough to power New Brunswick. "We're still not dealing with the
challenge of an energy deficiency in the next decade. That's why
it's important to start that planning process today, that will
allow us to meet the energy needs of the future." Former Liberal
premier Ray Frenette just retired as the chair of the federal
Crown corporation that builds nuclear reactors, and says
Graham's idea makes sense. He says wind and solar power can't
cover a looming energy shortage at NB Power.
"You're going to have to find some very solid good
technology to produce your baseload, and the base load can only
come from certain sources of power," he said.
Copyright CBC 2005
*****************************************************************
28 [du-list] Nuclear Half-life Modification Technology
Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2005 15:06:23 -0700
X-Temp-From: YES
X-Temp-Whitesubject: YES du-list
X-Temp-Whitephrase: YES Nuclear
X-Spamprobe: ham-super * 0.0000372 OK
Nuclear Half-life Modification Technology
Radioactivity Deactivation at High Temperature in an Applied DC Voltage Field
Full article at http://www.gdr.org/nuclear_half.htm
"In 1964 we thought and believed that radioactivity in nuclear
waste would soon be history on planet earth. As history has
proven us wrong, we now know and understand that there is
a fortune, billions yearly, to be made by saving every scrap of
radioactive nuclear waste and trying to bury it in Yucca
Mountain and in cleaning up spills, leaks, and escaping radioactive
particles from decaying containment schemes. We were just
looking at the wrong goal post. No one receiving the funds has
any interest in eliminating radioactivity in nuclear waste.
Nuclear Half-Life Modification Technology could reduce the
cost to a fraction of the cost that is experienced today.
Someone tried to tell me that the money was mother's milk of politics."
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page
http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/FGYolB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~->
To unsubscribe from this groups send a message to
du-list-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com. In the body of the message type
unsubscribe and send.
*****************************************************************
29 NRC: NRC Cites Pennsylvania Hospital for Violation of Requirements
News Release - Region I - 2005-05
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
Office of Public Affairs, Region I No. I-05-052
October 17, 2005 CONTACT: Diane Screnci (610) 337-5330 Neil
A. Sheehan (610) 337-5331 E-mail:
opa1@nrc.gov
Based on an investigation conducted by the NRCs Office of
Investigations, the agency determined that in three instances
former Hershey nuclear medicine technicians used NRC-licensed
radioactive material to perform unauthorized nuclear medicine
tests on themselves in the 1996-1997 time-frame, in October 2002
and April 2004. NRC regulations require that a technician use
byproduct material for medical uses only under the supervision
of an authorized user physician.
The enforcement decision was reached through a process called
Alternate Dispute Resolution (ADR). Once the NRC identified the
apparent violation, it offered Hershey the opportunity to attend
a pre-decisional enforcement conference to discuss the apparent
violations or exercise ADR. When choosing ADR, a company meets
with the NRC and a mediator to resolve any disagreement on
whether a violation occurred, to discuss the appropriate
enforcement action and to gain alignment on the appropriate
corrective actions. The ADR session between the Hershey Medical
Center and the NRC was held on Aug. 23 in King of Prussia, Pa.
NRC and Hershey Medical Center have agreed that these medical
administrations were not done in accordance with NRC regulations
and that two of the administrations were deliberate. The
facility has taken numerous corrective actions to ensure the
events do not recur and has agreed to take additional actions,
including providing orientation for new students and employees
that describes this enforcement action, and both discussing this
issue at professional conferences and communicating it via
industry trade journals. Those commitments were confirmed in an
order issued by the NRC.
Hershey Medical Center has waived its right to request a hearing
on all or any part of the Confirmatory Order. Anyone other than
the Medical Center that is adversely affected by this Order may
request a hearing within 20 days.
Last revised Monday, October 17, 2005
*****************************************************************
30 Independent: Are we ready for the biggest risks facing Britain?
Avian flu kills millions, London is evacuated as terrorists
strike, climate chaos leaves East Anglia under water... No, not
apocalyptic visions, but real possibilities. Malcolm Macalister
Hall investigates the biggest risks facing Britain - and whether
we're prepared for the worst
Published: 17 October 2005
Bus and Tube suicide bombings in London; oil at nearly $60 a
barrel; Arctic sea ice at a record low; 200 pieces of
anti-terrorism legislation on the statute books and more to
come; three dead in floods that hit Carlisle in January; a
130mph whirlwind in Birmingham in July; fears that bird flu is
creeping towards Western Europe...
The Cold War may be history, but with threats ranging from
global warming to terror cells, Britain's emergency planners are
now struggling to prepare for a greater range of potential
disasters than ever before.
Since the outcry after the poorest citizens of New Orleans were
left marooned in their ruined city in the wake of Hurricane
Katrina, emergency planning has been thrown - harshly - into the
spotlight.
With the passing of the Civil Contingencies Act last year, the
UK's emergency planning procedures have been updated. Local
authorities, now under a statutory duty to prepare emergency
plans, have been dusting down their Cold War command centres -
often nuclear-proofed basements in town halls - and installing
computer and communications systems, preparing "risk registers"
and creating a "Local Resilience Forum" of representatives from
emergency, health and other services.
Some have done more than others. "I have to say my feeling is
that our state of preparedness is variable across the country,"
says a senior source. "Many counties have had that sort of
strategic co-ordination group for years anyway, so the Act is
simply formalising what was already being done as best practice.
But that hasn't happened everywhere. I won't name names, but
some areas are just beginning to get [organised]."
In Whitehall, the Civil Contingencies Secretariat, set up in
2001, is at the head of Britain's emergency planning operation.
Its roles include "horizon scanning" for possible threats to the
UK. In a major emergency, the Civil Contingencies Committee is
convened in the Cabinet Office briefing rooms - known as Cobra -
and will usually be chaired by the Prime Minister or the Home
Secretary. From here, a Government liaison team will be
despatched to "Gold Command" at the disaster scene (typically
led by a senior police officer, this could include up to 20
representatives from emergency, health, local authority,
transport, the utilities and other agencies). Below this are a
Silver (tactical) Command and a Bronze (operational) Command,
which deals with the disaster scene itself. For emergencies on a
wider than local scale, Regional Civil Contingencies Committees
will convene at government offices around the country.
Protocols have been agreed: all TV and radio broadcasters will
transmit public information in an emergency (such as evacuation
arrangements), in partnership with the Government's News
Co-ordination Centre. If emergency food supplies are needed,
many local authorities have arrangements with supermarket groups
to open stores - instantly - on receipt of a code word and
county identifier, via a 24-hour hotline. Supplies can be taken
straight through the checkouts, and billed later.
More than 1,000 satellite phones have just been issued to
emergency services and local authorities as an ultimate
fall-back if all other communications become overloaded in an
emergency, or fail. As in earlier civil defence legislation (in
1920 and 1948), the Civil Contingencies Act also allows the
Government to assume emergency powers, in extreme situations and
"as a last resort". These could include imposing travel and
movement restrictions, requisition of property, banning
specified assemblies, and use of the armed forces. (The powers
cannot, however, be used against industrial action or strikes.)
Hurricane Katrina gave Britain's emergency planners a stark
example of the likely recriminations if things go awry - and a
stark example of what they may have to cope with if climate
change brings the extreme weather that is predicted.
As it is obviously impractical to rehearse the evacuation of an
entire city, the official reports on the New Orleans event may
influence UK plans, according to Dr John Asquith, the chairman
of the Emergency Planning Society, the UK's leading professional
association in the field. The group has about 2,200 members from
central and local government, emergency services, industry,
utilities and government agencies.
"We're waiting to see what we may learn from Katrina," says
Asquith, who is the emergency planning manager for
Worcestershire. "It's an enormous undertaking to evacuate a
city, but one of the early lessons seems to be that you must
consider the most disadvantaged when making evacuation plans. In
New Orleans, they were just left there. In an emergency, we must
not neglect the most needy in society. That's a tremendously
important lesson for us."
Many other emergency plans have been rehearsed, though usually
in "table-top" exercises where communications and chains of
command are tested, with no actual activity on the ground. One
exception was the simulated poison-gas attack on a London Tube
train at Bank station in 2003.
Cynics may have smelt a whiff of Government "disaster PR" here.
As cameras rolled and ministers watched from the Mansion House
steps, a mere 60 police cadets tried to replicate a normally
packed Tube train, and firefighters struggled in huge,
cumbersome protective suits (so cumbersome, indeed, that in a
real incident they are likely to be limited to 20-minute spells
of duty in them).
And, last year, the Environment Agency staged a vast, national
flood disaster exercise. A "table-top" rehearsal, with 1,000
people and 60 services and agencies involved, it was broadly
regarded as a success but threw up many problems:
communications, uncertainty about who should do what, what role
the military might play, where to find pumps, and more. But even
with the best-laid plans, disasters are like that. They catch
you out.
AVIAN FLU PANDEMIC
Scenario: In South-east Asia, a worker on a battery chicken farm
catches normal influenza. At work, he is then infected with bird
flu. The two combine, and the bird flu virus - type A, strain
H5N1 - mutates into a form that can be passed from person to
person. A global epidemic - a pandemic - begins. Within three
months, it has reached the UK.
Risk level: High.
Possible damage: Up to a quarter of the population (about 14
million) could be affected. There is disruption to economy and
society at all levels as millions stay away from work, either
from fear of infection or to care for the sick. Emergency
planners have been warned to envisage 25 per cent staff absences
of a week or longer, in all businesses and services, over three
months.
Possible fatalities: A potential 50,000 in England and Wales
alone.
Likely response: On the advice of the Chief Medical Officer, the
Health Secretary convenes the UK National Influenza Pandemic
Committee (UKNIPC). The Department of Health and the Health
Protection Agency begin efforts to contain the outbreak if it is
localised, advising voluntary quarantine and targeting the area
with the first of the 14.6 million courses of the antiviral drug
Tamiflu ordered by by the Department of Health at a cost of
180m. Enough for a quarter of the population - the World Health
Organisation's recommended level - this merely reduces symptoms
and may cut risk of infection. (A vaccine tailored to the exact
strain could take six months to develop).
If the outbreak spreads, schools could be closed and mass
gatherings such as football matches and rock concerts cancelled.
The Government could invoke Part II of the Civil Contingencies
Act to impose, for example, travel restrictions. Nurses and key
workers are likely to be first in line for antiviral doses,
followed by vulnerable groups. (The elderly, with possible
residual immunity from past outbreaks, may be less at risk than
younger people, as in the 1918-19 "Spanish flu" pandemic that
killed 20-40 million worldwide and about 250,000 in UK, most of
them under 60.) With cumulative 25 per cent staff absences,
there are huge business continuity problems. A below-strength
NHS is under pressure, and hospitals may be overwhelmed by up to
19,000 extra admissions a week at the peak. Temporary mortuaries
are set up, with coroners' offices and crematoria also
understaffed.
HURRICANE
Scenario: A deep depression in the Atlantic causes winds
exceeding 100mph to sweep across the UK (as in October 1987, the
worst UK storm for nearly 300 years, with 15 million trees
felled and a strongest gust of 122mph recorded in Suffolk).
Risk level: Localised, high; region-wide, low.
Possible damage: Structural damage to property, with hundreds of
buildings uninhabitable. Power cables are down, leading to
widespread power cuts. Transport is in chaos; lorries overturn
on motorways and thousands of fallen trees block A and B roads.
Passengers are stranded on trains as overhead cables are
damaged. Shipping is in chaos, with smaller boats wrecked. There
is great disruption to landline and mobile phone systems (masts
destroyed or networks overloaded).
Possible fatalities: None to 18 (as in 1987 hurricane), from
flying debris, falling trees and traffic accidents.
Likely response: All emergency services are called in, and the
Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the
Environment Agency and the Regional Civil Contingencies
Committee are involved. Local authorities and the Highways
Agency bring in all available contractors to clear roads. Cobra
meets with utilities chiefs to discuss plans to restore
services. Power and telephone companies bring in workers from
across the country to restore supplies. (In the East Anglia
storms of 2000, power workers from France were brought in to
help repair the damage.)
NUCLEAR MELTDOWN
Scenario: A Soviet-era nuclear power plant in Eastern Europe
overheats and melts down. The explosion releases cloud of
radioactive material (as happened at Chernobyl in April 1986).
Wind spreads the radiation cloud across northern Europe and the
UK.
Risk level: A meltdown incident in the UK is considered
implausible; in Europe, within radiation reach of UK, the risk
is low.
Possible damage: Radiation doses from Chernobyl to people in the
UK were small compared to natural background radiation
(Chernobyl dose; 0.03 millisieverts: natural annual background
dose; 2.2 millisieverts). But farmers (beef, lamb, milk and food
crops) may be seriously affected if land is contaminated (the
highest risk is if heavy rainfall combines with the radiation
cloud).
Possible fatalities: None (in the UK).
Likely response: By international agreement, the UK should
receive warning of nuclear accidents abroad. The Environment
Department also operates the Radioactive Incident Monitoring
Network (Rimnet), in which instruments around the country detect
abnormal radiation. Cobra convenes, there is a nationwide
response; Environment Department assesses possible contamination
of food and water supplies. In some areas, the sale of (say)
sheep could be prohibited for several years. Evacuation of areas
affected by radiation cloud is unlikely unless the incident is
in northern Europe, close to English Channel.
FUEL BLOCKADE
Scenario: Further Western military and/or political intervention
in the Middle East provokes producers to retaliate, slashing or
banning fuel exports to the West. Pump prices soar. Hauliers
blockade depots in protest at the Government's refusal to cut
fuel duty.
Risk level: Middle East export ban, low; domestic blockade,
medium.
Possible damage: Enormous economic damage; costs may run into
billions of pounds. Electricity could be rationed; possible
nationwide power cuts. In winter, the elderly who rely on
electricity for heating may be seriously affected. Civil
disorder is possible.
Possible fatalities: None likely, unless there are power cuts in
winter.
Likely response: Under European law, the UK must hold 67 days'
reserve of refined oil products at normal daily consumption
(current stocks are 80 days). But, in some areas during the
recent fuel-blockade scare, panic buyers drained a week's supply
in one day. The Department of Trade and Industry activates its
Downstream Oil Emergency Response Plan to manage stocks. If the
shortage is serious, the Energy Act 1976 includes emergency
powers to ensure that essential infrastructure can operate. If
the blockade continues, fuel is further restricted to essential
users. In an extreme situation, emergency services, health
workers and food distribution would get the last fuel. The Army
could be called in to guard depots.
TELECOMS BLACKOUT
Scenario: Telecoms blackout in large urban area. Possible causes
include: major power failure; fire in main cable trunking system
(as in Manchester in March 2004, which left 130,000 phone lines
dead and bank computers, cashpoints, mobiles and e-mail knocked
out); mobile networks saturated, as in the 7 July London
bombings; or hackers disable the telephone systems.
Risk level: Lower medium.
Possible damage: There is immediate risk to life if the 999
system is disabled, and huge disruption to business.
Possible fatalities: Unlikely.
Likely response: The police draft officers into streets to relay
any emergency service requests by radio. The telecoms companies
work to reactivate the system, perhaps by re-routing phone
traffic. This is industry-led, but with the involvement of
Cabinet Office-based "telecoms resilience" specialists.
FLOODING
Scenario: Force 11 storms in the North Sea combine with high
spring tides to create a surge that travels down the east coast
of England. It reaches its peak at the Wash, overrunning flood
defences on the East Anglian coast, as happened on 31 January
1953. This was the UK's worst natural disaster of the 20th
century; 307 people died and 32,000 were evacuated. In the
Netherlands, 1,800 people died.
Risk level: Localised, high; regional, medium.
Possible damage: Potential "catastrophic" event with flooding
over much of the Fens. Sea water runs from King's Lynn to
Peterborough, perhaps even to the edges of Cambridge. Norwich
and Great Yarmouth are badly affected. Livestock is drowned and
crops are lost in the UK's main vegetable-growing area. Salt
contamination means potentially lower yields for some time.
Floodwater is polluted, posing severe health risks. Transport
links and water, electricity and gas supplies are cut: their
restoration is a major operation. Some hospitals may be out of
action and thousands are left homeless.
Possible fatalities: None to 300.
Likely response: Immediate ministerial involvement. Cobra, the
Civil Contingencies Committee, is convened, chaired by the Home
Secretary. All emergency services are engaged in the rescue
operation. The Environment Agency sets up a national incident
room and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
(Defra) opens a Regional Flood Management Division operations
room. Local authority emergency plans are implemented, directing
evacuees to safety. The Army helps with pumping floodwater and
the RAF provides helicopters. Long-term power cuts cause huge
disruption to the local economy, and it will take six to nine
months to restore the area's high-voltage network. A full return
to normality takes more than a year.
EVACUATION
Scenario: "In certain emergencies, the decision may be made to
evacuate certain parts of central London, or Heathrow," notes
the London Resilience Strategic Emergency Plan. The aim is to
"evacuate the optimum number of people expeditiously and safely
using the resources and infrastructure to hand. Preservation of
life will be the overriding principle. Large-scale evacuation
will always be a last resort..." A government or Cobra decision
will be needed to invoke the plan, which will use private and
all public transport.
Public transport: Public transport loading points (known as
"hubs") have been predetermined; people will be expected to walk
to these locations. Trains, buses and Tubes will then run
non-stop from these to unloading points ("heads") and
immediately return empty to continue the evacuation. In a
large-scale evacuation, the normal train timetable will be
suspended and replaced by a Special Evacuation Service. Rail
stations in outer London, and in Home Counties towns such as
High Wycombe, have been identified as suitable for receiving
evacuees as there are buildings nearby to use as reception
centres.
Roads: High Capacity Emergency Access Routes (HCEARs) have been
designated; private cars will be directed out of the capital on
these, while emergency vehicles travel in. A specific traffic
plan has been drawn up that could mean part or all of the M25
orbital motorway being dedicated for use by the emergency
services and agencies involved in the evacuation. Police cars
will be used as "blocking vehicles" to enforce carriageway
closures. Standard emergency service responses to road accidents
will no longer apply.
Evacuees: Local authorities and the voluntary sector "will
provide the best possible care for evacuees within the
restrictions of capacity and in overwhelming circumstances".
Initial reception will provide basic accommodation needs
(somewhere to sit, drinking water and toilets) in an "airport
delay"-style operation for up to 48 hours after the incident.
TERRORIST STRIKE
Scenario: A suicide bomber detonates a van packed with
explosives while passing, say, the Treasury or the Houses of
Parliament.
Risk level: High. For a so-called "dirty bomb" attack, medium
high.
Possible damage: Huge disruption in central London, and probable
national trauma at an attack on the heart of government.
Possible casualties/fatalities: None to 100, depending on blast
force and time of attack.
Likely response: Police and emergency services life-saving and
rescue respond, Cobra is convened, medical mobilisation, and so
on. There is a full crime-scene investigation and
evidence-gathering, and a major police and intelligence
operation to identify the terrorist cell. Government departments
have back-up outside a blast zone; their main network node may
be out along with their premises, but they have the ability to
function even after an attack.
If it is a "dirty bomb" (where a conventional explosive, such as
dynamite or Semtex, is packed with radioactive material),
radioactive dust would spread over the surrounding area. Even
so, fatalities would be more probable from the blast itself than
from the dust cloud, which is likely to be low-grade. A
cross-Government initiative called the Chemical, Biological,
Radiological or Nuclear (CBRN) Resilience Programme aims to
ensure that fewer lives will be risked or lost in the event of a
terrorist or accidental CBRN incident. Under the CBRN programme,
the Government has provided 360 mobile decontamination units
around the country for use by ambulance and A&E departments. By
February 2005, nearly 7,000 police officers had received special
training to deal with CBRN incidents. In addition, 7,250
personal protection suits exist for key health workers, with an
extra 2,500 additional personal protective suits stockpiled, and
4,400 new high-performance gas-tight suits for firefighters.
Emergency medical equipment, strategically stored at sites
around the country and available at 24 hours' notice, is also
stockpiled.
DROUGHT
Scenario: Minimal rainfall this winter and next spring is
followed by a parched summer in 2006. The Met Office is already
predicting a drier winter this year than average, to follow the
driest spring and summer in southern England since 1976. Despite
flooding in the north and west of the country last week,
groundwater levels in much of England and Wales are already
below the long-term monthly average, with reservoir levels still
falling in southern England, where 3.4 million people remain
subject to hosepipe or sprinkler bans. Reservoirs are at their
lowest levels in the southern region, at just 43 per cent of
capacity. Across England and Wales, overall capacity currently
stands at 67 per cent.
Scenario: Malfunction, human error or terrorist action results
in an airliner explosion over, or a crash in, London.
Risk level: Low.
Possible damage: Catastrophic destruction, but in a
comparatively "containable" area if the plane comes down intact.
If it breaks up in the air, debris will cause less damage but
over a much wider area. This is certain to be a traumatic event
on a national scale, as was the Lockerbie disaster.
Possible casualties/fatalities: Impossible to predict, but
likely to be between 100 and 500 (including passengers).
Likely response: An immediate police Gold Command scene, with
all emergency services involved. The priorities are saving life,
extinguishing fires, cordoning off the area and taking the
injured to hospital. There are many burns cases, and injuries
caused by falling metal and/or exploding fuel. A screened-off
body-holding area may be set up. Cobra, the Civil Contingencies
Committee, meets and there is Government assistance. Major
incident plans are activated by the Department of Health and the
NHS.
The accident scene may also be a crime scene, involving
prolonged cordoning while police and air accident investigators
gather evidence. Long-term shelter will probably be required
even for residents whose homes are within the cordon but not
destroyed. After evidence-gathering is complete, the local
authority will remove debris and rebuild. Government assistance
is likely.
Also in this section
2005 Independent News & Media (UK) Ltd.
*****************************************************************
31 Scotsman.com News: Workers at centre of nuclear scare
Mon 17 Oct 2005
A nuclear site is at the centre of a second health scare amid
fears workers may have inhaled plutonium.
A plant at Dounreay has been closed and eight workers are being
biologically monitored after routine tests on them showed traces
of radioactivity.
The scare follows a recent spillage of hazardous material at a
cementation plant at the Caithness site.
Spokesman Colin Punler said the eight employees had been working
at the four-storey pulsed column laboratory, which was once used
to reprocess nuclear material and is now being decommissioned.
He said: "We know there is a hazard from radioactive
contamination and one of the checks the workers go through is a
nose-blow into a tissue.
"Eight of the tissue samples which the workers were asked to
provide as a routine precaution came back with traces of
radioactivity on them. These workers are being monitored and the
facility has been stopped while we wait for their results to
come back."
Last month a cementation plant at Dounreay was closed and
investigations launched after the spillage of hazardous,
dissolved spent fuel on to the cell floor. An investigation by
the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority (UKAEA) has been
completed and the results are expected to be published in the
next few weeks.
Mr Punler added that a remotely operated camera had been placed
in the cell to capture images and give a timescale for the
clean-up operation. He said two workers had faced disciplinary
action in relation to the incident, but that it had been decided
that no formal action would be taken against them.
Mr Punler said the decommissioning of the site, which was
Britain's centre of fast reactor research and development from
1955 until 1994, provided many challenges for the workforce.
"The more you take it apart, the greater the hazard becomes," he
said. "It is proving to be a difficult job and a dirty job."
© Copyright Press Association Ltd 2005, All Rights Reserved.
*****************************************************************
32 NEWS.com.au: Leak affects reactor worker - NSW/ACT -
From: AAP
October 18, 2005
AN investigation by the Australian Nuclear Science and
Technology Organisation has failed to determine why a
maintenance worker at Sydney's Lucas Heights nuclear reactor has
recorded an unusually high dose of radiation. However, ANSTO
executive director Ian Smith said today a radiation leak was the
"only explanation".
[External link] ANSTO: Australian nuclear expertise
During a routine monthly health check, the worker's radiation
monitoring badge registered a dose of 66 millisieverts, when the
maximum dose allowed per year was 50mSv.
But an additional monitor designed to alarm when in a radiation
field did not show unusual radiation exposure, ANSTO said.
None of the other workers recorded unusual doses of radiation.
An investigation was launched to determine whether the reading
was false, which can occur if a monitor is put down in a
radioactive area and left for a period of time.
It confirmed routine safety procedures were followed but could
not verify why the worker recorded the higher dose, ANSTO said.
The Australian reported today the worker had been working on a
hot cell used for producing radio pharmaceuticals.
"The only explanation would be there was some point at which
radiation was leaking in to the hot cell from adjacent hot
cells," Dr Smith said.
Blood tests showed the worker had not received a dose more than
100 millisieverts, the maximum dose allowed by the International
Atomic Energy Agency and the Australian Radiation Protection and
Nuclear Safety Agency, over five years.
The worker will be assigned duties in non-radioactive areas of
the organisation, but his health was not at risk and he was not
concerned about the situation, ANSTO said.
*****************************************************************
33 AU ABC: Reactor worker in radiation scare.
18/10/2005. ABC News Online
[Lucas Heights employee checked for excessive radiation
exposure.]
Lucas Heights employee checked for excessive radiation exposure.
Reactor worker in radiation scare
Tests have cleared a maintenance worker at Sydney's Lucas
Heights nuclear of excessive exposure to radiation despite one
of his monitoring badges registering an overdose.
The Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation
(ANSTO) says the discrepancy in the worker's monitoring badge
was detected during a monthly health check.
A spokeswoman says the worker's radiation monitoring badge
showed a dose of 66 millisieverts, the equivalent of five
abdominal CT scans.
The maximum dose a worker can be exposed to per year is 50
millisieverts.
However, the spokeswoman says an additional monitor worn by the
staff member and those of his colleagues do not show unusual
radiation exposure.
ANSTO says blood tests reveal the worker has not received more
than the maximum dose and his health is not at risk.
The organisation says false readings can occur if a monitoring
badge is put down in a radioactive area and left for a period of
time.
*****************************************************************
34 SMH: Radiation leak blamed for reactor worker alert -
smh.com.au
October 18, 2005 - 10:05AM
An investigation by the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology
Organisation has failed to determine why a maintenance worker at
Sydney's Lucas Heights nuclear reactor has recorded an unusually
high dose of radiation.
However, ANSTO executive director Ian Smith said today a
radiation leak was the "only explanation".
During a routine monthly health check, the worker's radiation
monitoring badge registered a dose of 66 millisieverts, when the
maximum dose allowed per year was 50 millisieverts.
But an additional monitor, which was designed to sound an alarm
when in a radiation field, did not show unusual radiation
exposure, ANSTO said.
None of the other workers recorded unusual doses of radiation.
An investigation was launched to determine whether the reading
was false, which can occur if a monitor is put down in a
radioactive area and left for a period of time.
It confirmed routine safety procedures were followed but could
not verify why the worker recorded the higher dose, ANSTO said.
The Australian newspaper today reported the worker had been
working on a hot cell used for producing radio pharmaceuticals.
"The only explanation would be there was some point at which
radiation was leaking in to the hot cell from adjacent hot
cells," Dr Smith told the paper.
Blood tests showed the worker had not received a dose more than
100 millisieverts, the maximum dose allowed by the International
Atomic Energy Agency and the Australian Radiation Protection and
Nuclear Safety Agency, over five years.
The worker will be assigned duties in non-radioactive areas of
the organisation, but his health was not at risk and he was not
concerned about the situation, ANSTO said.
AAP
Copyright 2005. The Sydney Morning Herald.
*****************************************************************
35 AU ABC: Howard's job to find suitable dump site - Labor
08:11 (ACST)Tuesday, 18 October 2005. 09:11 (AEDT)Tuesday, 18
Labor says the PM must find a suitable waste dump site.ABC TV
The Federal Opposition has rejected the Prime Minister's
suggestion that he will consider an alternative site for a
national nuclear waste facility if Labor leaders can find one.
John Howard says he has been given no choice but to build a
nuclear waste facility in the Northern Territory.
Legislation is now before Parliament that overrides the Northern
Territory's ability to oppose the dump.
But Mr Howard says he will look at another site if one is put
forward.
Labor's spokeswoman for science and research, Jenny Macklin,
says that is unacceptable and wider community consultation is
needed.
"It's extraordinary really," she said.
"It's the Prime Minister's responsibility to get this right,
it's his responsibility to get the agreement of the Australian
people to fight this nuclear waste dump.
"It's not the responsibility of anybody else and he should get
on with the job."
Ms Macklin says Labor recognises the need for a national dump
but opposes the way the Federal Government has handled the
issue.
She says the party will support the Northern Territory's efforts
to stop the dump being built without consensus.
"They're being told this will happen in the Northern Territory,"
she said.
"You can understand why they're so angry about it so we'll
certainly be working with the Northern Territory Government to
persuade senators that this has not been a fair process."
*****************************************************************
36 BBC: China seeking to mine uranium
Last Updated: Monday, 17 October 2005
[Ranger mine, courtesy ERA (archive photo)]
Australia has three working uranium mines, one in a national park
Australia may be prepared to let China explore for and mine
uranium, as long as the material is not used militarily.
Foreign Minister Alexander Downer said that, given certain
conditions, there was "no reason" Chinese firms could not invest
in Australian natural resources.
The comments come as the two countries are negotiating a
safeguard agreement, which would allow Australia to begin
exporting uranium to China.
China needs new sources of energy supplies to secure its economic
growth.
Mr Downer announced in August that Australia had started
negotiating a safeguard agreement with Beijing regarding future
uranium exports, a sensitive issue in Australia.
But on Monday, the country's media reported that the negotiations
were broader, and that China also wanted to carry out its own
exploration and mining operations.
Admitting that the issue had been under discussion, Mr Downer
told Australian radio on Monday: "We wouldn't be exporting any
uranium to China for military purposes of any kind.
"By that I don't only mean for use in nuclear weapons, but also
we wouldn't be exporting any uranium to China for use in military
vessels or vehicles of one kind or another," he told ABC radio.
Local opposition
He also emphasised that there were still several hurdles before a
definite agreement could be reached.
One problem is that the opposition Labor party, which holds
office in all the country's states and territories, is opposed to
opening any new uranium mines.
"If Labor changed its policy, if we had a nuclear safeguards
agreement and if the Foreign Investment Review Board approved the
investment then they could do it," Mr Downer said.
The sale of mining rights could prove extremely lucrative to
Australia.
The country has about 40% of the world's known uranium reserves,
but partly because of the ban on new mines, only three uranium
mines are currently operating.
Critics of the Australian government position fear that it will
be difficult to keep track of any uranium sold to China, and
therefore hard to ensure it is used solely for the generation of
electricity.
*****************************************************************
37 BBC: Fresh safety alert at Dounreay
Last Updated: Monday, 17 October 2005
[Dounreay Nuclear Power Plant]
Eight workers at Dounreay are being monitored
Officials at the Dounreay nuclear complex in Caithness are
dealing with the second radioactivity alert in less than three
weeks.
A second part of the site has been closed after tests showed
traces of plutonium in eight workers.
They had been working in a laboratory which is being
decommissioned.
A treatment plant at the nuclear site was closed last month after
an escape of dangerous spent fuel, although no-one was harmed by
the spill.
The latest fears were triggered when the employees, who are now
being monitored, had routine tests after working in the
laboratory.
Eight of the tissue sampl came back with traces of radioactivity
on them Colin Punler Dounreay spokesman
It is the second problem to affect work on dismantling the
one-time test laboratory in less than a year.
It was shut down last November after a similar alert involving 15
workers.
The unit remained closed until a couple of months ago.
Spokesman Colin Punler said of the new scare: "One of the checks
the workers go through is a nose-blow into a tissue.
"Overnight last Thursday, eight of the tissue samples which the
workers were asked to provide as a routine precaution came back
with traces of radioactivity on them."
[Dounreay]
Monitoring is being carried out after the latest problem
Dounreay, which is run by the United Kingdom Atomic Energy
Authority, was used as Britain's centre of fast reactor research
and development from 1955 until 1994.
Mr Punler added: "The more you take it apart, the greater the
hazard becomes. It is proving to be a difficult job and a dirty
job."
Last month a treatment plant was closed after an alert involving
a batch of hazardous, dissolved spent fuel.
Officials said nobody had been harmed, or exposed to radioactive
waste, as a result of the problem in the cementation area.
No formal disciplinary action was taken against any member of the
workforce following the incident.
The authority said the spill was "contained within the cell", but
admitted it was a "setback" to the 30-year decommissioning
programme.
*****************************************************************
38 Rebel Yell: Former congresswoman reads memoir excerpts
Current Issue: 10/17/2005 [----]
Stone Nickelson, Staff Writer
Barbara Vucanovich shares with students her experiences as a
female politician in Nevada. Nicole Musolino Former U.S.
Representative Barbara Vucanovich, R-Nev., reaffirmed her
opposition on Yucca Mountain Thursday at a book signing in the
MSU.
Vucanovich read excerpts from her memoir, "Barbara F.
Vucanovich: From Nevada to Congress and Back Again," which she
co-wrote with her daughter, Patty Cafferata.
Vucanovich's opposition to the transfer of nuclear waste to
Yucca Mountain goes back decades when a similar proposal went
through Congress in 1987 known as the "Screw Nevada" bill.
"I find that the scientific community has never made a solid
case for the safe storage of nuclear waste," Vucanavich said.
A commission assembled by the Department of Energy under
President Bush recently approved storage of nuclear waste
materials at Yucca.
Juliana Ormsby of the Women's Research Institute introduced
Vucanovich and her daughter to start off the event.
Paul Moradkhan, regional representative for U.S. Rep. Jon
Porter, presented Vucanovich with a certificate of recognition
in honor of Vucanovich's service to Nevada.
Vucanovich spoke about how she came to write the book.
She said that through the goading of her many grandchildren,
she decided with the help of her daughter, to write a memoir.
At first she said she thought the memoir would be arrogant and
felt that nobody would want to read what she had to say. But she
was later convinced to write it after she participated in the
"Letters from Nevada's Daughters" project, an oral history of
Nevada Women and their achievements.
She recounted two tales as a former congresswoman.
One was when she first ran for office in 1982.
When one man heard Vucanovich was running for a congressional
seat in the U.S. House of Representatives he apparently replied,
"that old bag?"
When she heard the comment, she said she "now has a campaign
slogan, 'old bags for Barb.'"
Another anecdote she shared was about when she was in a
receiving line at the White House with President Ronald Reagan
in 1983.
According to custom, dignitaries stand in line with their
partner at their right side. In 1983, with few female
politicians holding national office, Vucanovich experienced
gender discrimination firsthand.
A Marine guard insisted that the "congressman" line up to the
left side.
The Marine kept arguing with Vucanovich to move to the right of
her husband.
Feeling sorry for the guard, Vucanovich said she finally
complied, and for years afterward she "always responded to the
official title of 'congressman' Barbara Vucanovich."
Vucanovich said she enjoyed writing the book and the publishing
process.
"At one point my publishers said it was too partisan,"
Vucanovich said. "[Then] they said it was too short."
Vucanovich's memoir is available at local Border's Books
outlets.
It is also online at unpress.nevada.edu.
Copyright 2005 The Rebel Yell | Privacy Policy | Terms &
*****************************************************************
39 AU ABC: Australian government 'no objections' to China uranium mining
17/10/2005 22:55:22 AEST
The Australian government says it has no objections to
China mining uranium in Australia, provided it meets all the
relevant regulations.
Foreign Affairs Minister Alexander Downer says if China signs a
Nuclear Safeguards Agreement then there is every chance the
country could begin investing in Australia's resource industries.
Our reporter, Adele Hodge, says Australian Prime Minister John
Howard is also supportive, provided China satisfies the Foreign
Investments Review Board.
"If China or anybody else wants to mine uranium in Australia
they'll be subject to the same laws as anybody else," he said.
However, Mr Downer says at the moment state laws prevent a new
uranium mine being established.
"So it's all a bit academic unless they change their policy," he
said.
Mr Downer says an agreement would put restrictions on how
Australian uranium can be used.
"We wouldn't be exporting any uranium to China for military
purposes of any kind," he said.
"By that I don't only mean for use in nuclear weapons, but also
we wouldn't be exporting any uranium to China for use in
military vessels of one kind, or vehicles of one kind or
another."
ABC Asia Pacific TV / Radio Australia
*****************************************************************
40 NRC: ASLB to Hold Evidentiary Hearing on Proposed N.M. Enrichment Facility, Oct. 24-27 in Rockville,
Md.
News Release - 2005-14 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Office
of Public Affairs Telephone: 301/415-8200 Washington, DC
20555-0001 E-mail: opa@nrc.gov No. 05-141 October 17,
2005
Board will conduct an evidentiary hearing Oct. 24-27 at agency
headquarters in Rockville, Md., concerning the application of
Louisiana Energy Services (LES) to construct and operate a gas
centrifuge uranium enrichment facility in Lea County, N.M.
The majority of the hearing will be closed to the public,
because the testimony will include information that is
proprietary to LES proposed facility. The first session on
Monday, Oct. 24, will begin with a public session for opening
statements by LES, the NRC staff, and the intervenors - the
Nuclear Information and Resource Service (NIRS) and Public
Citizen. There will be a second public session at the end of the
hearing.
The Board will hear evidence regarding the technical contentions
filed by NIRS and Public Citizen challenging the LES
application. These contentions pertain primarily to costs
associated with facility decommissioning and the disposal of
depleted uranium tails created by the enrichment process.
The hearing will be held in the ASLB hearing room at NRC
headquarters, Two White Flint North, 11545 Rockville Pike,
Rockville, Md. The public session on Oct. 24 will begin at 9:30
a.m. and is expected to last for 1-2 hours. Updates on any
subsequent public sessions will be available by calling
1-800-368-5642, ext. 5036. The hearing is being held in Maryland
due to the necessity for closed sessions to discuss proprietary
information.
As part of the licensing process, NRC regulations require the
Board to conduct an additional evidentiary hearing to assess
environmental and technical matters that were not raised by
intervening party challenges to the LES application. The Board
currently expects to conduct this public hearing in Lea County
in March 2006, including one or more limited appearance sessions
during which members of the public will be able to present the
Board with their views on the LES license application.
Last revised Monday, October 17, 2005
*****************************************************************
41 KUTV: Appeal of Envirocare Expansion To Go Before State
+ CBS.com
[clock] Oct 17, 2005 3:22 pm US/Mountain
SALT LAKE CITY An appeal of a proposed expansion for a low-level
radiation and hazardous waste site will be heard Wednesday by
the state Radiation Control Board, which will decide if the
environmental group challenging the measure has the legal
standing to do so.
The Healthy Environment Alliance of Utah appealed the Division
of Radiation Control's decision to allow Envirocare to double
the size of its site about 80 miles west of Salt Lake City from
543 acres to 1,079 acres with land north of the existing
facility.
Division of Radiation Control director Dane Finerfrock said the
civilian board, which did not approve the Envirocare proposal,
will decide whether the Healthy Environmental Alliance of Utah
has proper standing to appeal.
The Legislature and Gov. Jon Huntsman must also give their
approval before construction can begin. A legislative committee
is scheduled to consider Envirocare's proposal in a separate
hearing Wednesday.
Envirocare has said it has adequate capacity at the landfill to
accept low-level radioactive and hazardous waste for up to 20
years.
Envirocare is one of three U.S. sites licensed to take
commercial low-level radioactive waste. A Washington state site
is limited to taking waste from nine states, and the South
Carolina facility is set to close its doors to all but three
states in 2008.
That leaves Envirocare to handle much of the commercial
radioactive waste that comes from nuclear power plants
primarily, as well as from medical and research facilities. The
Utah site also counts on federal cleanup waste for about half of
its revenue.
In the first six months of 2005, the Tooele County site disposal
site took in 74 percent as much waste as it accepted in all of
last year, most of it from Superfund and U.S. Energy Department
cleanups.
( 2005 The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. This material
may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.)
MMV, CBS Broadcasting, Inc. All Rights Reserved. [ /] [ /] [
*****************************************************************
42 Nevada Observer: Why Should We Care About Yucca? Are There Serious Safety Concerns?
Opinion
Vol. 2, No. 24 October 15, 2005
Nevada's Online State News Journal
by Johnny Gunn
If you are among the few that were amazed by the tremendous lack
of interest in the recent EPA hearings dealing with new standards
for radiation hazard, it probably means you are among the few who
really give a hoot about whether or not Yucca Mountain Nuclear
Waste Repository comes on line. The concept simply isn't a part
of most Nevadan's lives. Should it be?
For the most part those who are to be affected the most either
live along the transportation corridors in other states or won't
be born for another 10,000 to 250,000 years. One person in
Pahrump said at the hearing, why should I be worried about
storing nuclear waste? I lived through hundreds of above ground
nuclear explosions during the 50s and 60s.
Someone living along a major interstate rail line is more apt to
be "nuked" by way of a train wreck than someone living within 100
miles of the repository, even if the most strict radiation
standards in the world are put in place. So why the huge fight
over radiation standards, placement of a repository in Nevada,
alleged lies and fabrications coming from DOE and other federal
agencies? It has a lot to do with what in the real world would be
called "truth in advertising." In the world of the bureaucrat,
getting your way regardless of the truth seems more important in
the Yucca Mountain discussions.
There are many reasons not to be in favor of the repository, not
the least of which is those proposed standards, standards vastly
relaxed from the international norm. But setting that aside for a
moment, the repository is only so large, and it's already known
that there is more waste existing today than there is available
storage space. Couple that with continued building of nuclear
power plants nationwide and the continued operation of existing
plants, and you have an equation that spells disaster.
Not for those living 10,000 to 250,000 years from now, but for
those living near southern Nevada today. Casks piling up, water
seepage eating away at the concrete, earthquakes doing the
shake-rattle-and-roll thing, and threats of terrorist attacks.
Nuclear waste spreading its deadly radiation into the ground
water that supplies southern Nevada is very real. Ground water is
already seeping into the Yucca Mountain tunnels.
All that aside, it will be railroads bringing hundreds of
thousands of tons of highly radioactive waste through
neighborhoods across the country that will pose the greatest
threat to Americans. An example of the danger: In Reno there is
a new sublevel set of rail lines running through the middle
of downtown. Train cars using the trench, as it's known, are
longer than the trench is wide. We've all seen pictures of train
wrecks hundreds of times, and almost without fail we see railcars
stacked into accordion patterns. That wouldn't happen in the new
Reno train trench. The cars would be forced upward and outward
from the trench.
Now assume for a moment that the train wreck in question is one
in which many of the railcars are loaded with high level nuclear
waste. Project this potential disaster into thousands of
communities from coast to coast, and it is obvious that safety is
not a current concern of the DOE or those in charge of trying to
create a central nuclear waste repository.
Reno and most of northern Nevada has been rather blas about the
whole Yucca situation, and it's time for them to understand that
the intercontinental rail line across the northern counties will
be host to trainloads of high level nuclear waste. Residents in
most of the other states will also find trainloads of high energy
nuclear waste moving through their state, cities, and
neighborhoods.
As was pointed out in congressional hearing recently by Utah
Senator Bennett, on-site storage of nuclear waste is the only
sensible approach to the problem. But of course that doesn't
include the fact that our government in all its shortsightedness
made a contract with the nuclear power industry that the
government would be responsible for all the waste. This contract
was written and signed before Congress or the general public had
even contemplated a nuclear waste repository. Nuclear energy
producers got away with one for the time being.
No other government in the world has been this shortsighted when
dealing with nuclear energy. Every other country that has nuclear
energy facilities demands the waste be stored at the nuclear
energy site. There are no trains carrying thousands of tons of
high level nuclear waste through high-density population centers.
There are no vulnerable casks sitting underground and being eaten
away by migrating water.
If you are under the impression that moving water doesn't have
much of an effect on concrete, drive across any high Sierra pass
following spring thaw. The population of southern Nevada will be
threatened from the moment those casks are placed underground,
not 10,000 to 250,000 years from now. The population of many
states and cities along interstate rail lines will bethreatened
from the first train load to pass through their area.
It's time for the United States Government to come clean with
everyone. The contract with the nuclear energy industry was
wrong. Say so, pay the reparations, and create a safe system of
storage. Work toward creating a safe and sane program instead of
ramming it to the citizens you are truly supposed to be
representing.
_________________________ Cartoon by Thomas
Nast, April 12, 1874
*****************************************************************
43 AU ABC: China wants Australia's uranium
AM - Monday, 17 October , 2005 08:14:01
Reporter: Catherine McGrath
TONY EASTLEY: China wants to mine uranium in Australia, and
Foreign Minister Alexander Downer says it's possible but only if
Labor changes its three mines policy.
Mr Downer says the Chinese plans would also have to pass the
Foreign Investment Review Board, and the Nuclear Safeguards
Agreement would have to be finalised.
Alexander Downer has confirmed reports in today's Age newspaper
that he was asked about the issue in a meeting with Chinese
officials in August last year.
At that meeting, Chinese delegates said they knew that the issue
was a "sensitive one for Australia".
Alexander Downer is speaking here with our Chief Political
Correspondent Catherine McGrath.
CATHERINE MCGRATH: Alexander Downer, can you tell us first of
all about that meeting with China's Vice Chairman of the
National Development and Reform Commission, Zhang Guobao, where
he asked about access to the Australian industry?
ALEXANDER DOWNER: Well I explained to him, from recollection,
but it's quite a long time ago, that obviously we have nuclear
safeguards agreements and we don't export uranium to countries
that aren't, with which we don't have a nuclear safeguards
agreement.
So, beyond that, if China wanted to negotiate with Australia a
nuclear safeguards agreement, and that was satisfactorily
negotiated, we would be able to export uranium to China.
CATHERINE MCGRATH: So what came first, their interest in
exporting and receiving Australian uranium and having a
safeguards agreement, or their desire to be part of the industry
here and conduct their own exploration and mining?
ALEXANDER DOWNER: I honestly don't know the answer to that,
excepting that they can't of course export uranium from
Australia to China unless they have a nuclear safeguards
agreement.
CATHERINE MCGRATH: Given China's nuclear weapons, would it have
the ability to be involved in exploring and exporting uranium
from here?
ALEXANDER DOWNER: Well, France does of course, and France is a
nuclear weapon state, so anything's possible I suppose, but
you've got to remember that the States have a sorry, the Labor
Party overall, and they control all of the States and
Territories, they have a three mines policy. So they wouldn't
approve any new uranium mines, so it's all a bit academic unless
they change their policy.
But if they change their policy, well there's no reason why
Chinese companies can't invest in Australian resources
industries, but that would all be subject to the Foreign
Investment Review Board.
CATHERINE MCGRATH: Would there be greater concerns with China,
though? Given the power issues at the moment between China and
Taiwan, given the involvement of the US, the sensitivity there
is so much greater than, for example, the French experience?
ALEXANDER DOWNER: Well I wouldn't align China with the old
Soviet Union, as people sort of seem to do, they think that
China is trying to export some, you know, communist ideology.
China is not trying to export ideology to anybody.
China is a rapidly developing economy, and those concerns would
be dealt with, that you mention in your question, they would be
dealt with by the fact that we wouldn't be exporting any uranium
to China for military purposes of any kind, and by that I don't
only mean for use in nuclear weapons, but also we wouldn't be
exporting any uranium to China for use in military vessels of
one kind or vehicles of one kind or another.
CATHERINE MCGRATH: So, Mr Downer, do you personally support it?
ALEXANDER DOWNER: Ah, well I'm a supporter of the nuclear
industry, and I do
CATHERINE MCGRATH: Are you a supporter of China being involved
in its own exploration here?
ALEXANDER DOWNER: Well, I mean, we'd have to look at it on a
case-by-case basis.
CATHERINE MCGRATH: But there's nothing to stop China doing it if
Labor changed its policy, and if China met the safeguards
agreement?
ALEXANDER DOWNER: Well, if China, if Labor changed its policy,
if we had a nuclear safeguards agreement, and if the Foreign
Investment Review Board approved the investment, then they could
do it, but there are to use a Chinese-style expression the
three ifs.
TONY EASTLEY: The Foreign Minister, Alexander Downer, speaking
with Catherine McGrath.
*****************************************************************
44 AU ABC: Uranium sales receive bipartisan support
The World Today - Monday, 17 October , 2005 12:37:00
Reporter: Louise Yaxley
ELEANOR HALL: It has the potential to divide the Federal Labor
Party, but nevertheless the proposal that Australia sell uranium
to China and also allow the Chinese to mine the ore here has
received bilateral support.
China would have to sign nuclear safeguards before Australia
would agree to sell the uranium, and the negotiations for that
have already begun.
But both the Government and the Opposition say that provided the
agreements are signed, they support the proposal, as Louise
Yaxley reports.
LOUISE YAXLEY: Australia's huge uranium resources are in demand
from around the world, but Australia only agrees to export it
providing the nations buying it have signed safeguards agreement.
China and Australia are negotiating one and provided it's
signed, the Federal Government is happy to sell uranium to China.
The Labor leader Kim Beazley has the same view.
KIM BEAZLEY: They've got no problems with exporting uranium to
China. A proper study needs to be made of all the security
issues and waste disposal issues that we do when we export to
any new country, and if those come through correctly, and I'm
sure they will, then I've got no problems with exporting to
China.
LOUISE YAXLEY: But Mr Beazley is cautious about aspects of the
uranium industry, so he prefers selling from existing mines,
rather than any new ones being opened.
KIM BEAZLEY: Well, I would say at this stage we're as far into
the business as we want to be. We've got plenty of opportunity
to acquire uranium from our current facilities. But in terms of
the uranium industry at this stage, I think we're as far into it
as we want to be. We've got a huge line at Olympic Dam, which is
now increasing in size.
You've got major issues internationally with the character of
nuclear power. We have not resolved the nuclear proliferation
issues, and the intersection of the nuclear proliferation issues
and the war on terror must take top priority in all the
decisions we make on exporting uranium, and anything else
related to the nuclear industry, I might say.
LOUISE YAXLEY: The Federal Government has confirmed China is
interested in exploring for the resource and opening its own
mines in Australia, but it notes the States aren't allowing new
uranium mines to open under Labor Party policy.
While Mr Beazley is cautious, his Resources Spokesman, Martin
Ferguson, says China shouldn't be treated any differently than
any other nation.
MARTIN FERGUSON: The Labor Party adopts the view that we're open
for investment. It's about economic growth and jobs in
Australia. Is China to be treated any different to South Korea,
Japan, France, United States? I don't think so. We don't have
one rule for China in terms of overseas investment and economic
growth and jobs and another rule for Japan.
I'm up at the north-west shelf at the moment having a look at
the gas development. Well, Australia's pretty excited about
selling gas to China.
ELEANOR HALL: Labor's Resources Spokesman, Martin Ferguson,
ending that report from Louise Yaxley.
*****************************************************************
45 UK: News & Star: SELLAFIELD PLANS ‘IN TERROR CAR’
Published on 17/10/2005
[Security claims: The Sellafield nuclear plant]
By Andrea Thompson
SELLAFIELD bosses were today investigating claims that detailed
plans of the nuclear plant were found in a car linked to one of
the London terror fanatics.
Police are said to have discovered photographs, slides and
detailed information about the type of radioactive material
stored at the West Cumbrian station and other sites including
Dounreay in Scotland.
A national Sunday newspaper revealed yesterday that details
about sensitive areas of Britain’s nuclear sites, including
fuel store locations, emergency generators and buildings with
high radiation levels inside, were among the material seized by
police.
They were discovered during a raid in the wake of the July 7
bombings in London.
It was alleged that details of the seizure were disclosed when
police interviewed a nuclear expert, who did not want to be
named, telling him he was the author of most of the material –
which he drew-up after the 9/11 attacks.
The expert told the newspaper: “The material for my lectures
can be gained from legal sources, such as planning offices,
libraries and the internet.
“You can quite easily find out about the types of material
stored and even its precise location on the nuclear sites.”
A spokeswoman for the British Nuclear Group said: “We are
monitoring the situation but security of the site is down to the
Office for Civil Nuclear Security.”
The OCNS is in touch with the Metroplitan Police who have so far
refused to comment.
*****************************************************************
46 AFP: Australia mulls Chinese request to explore for uranium - Yahoo!
Monday October 17, 05:43 PM
SYDNEY, (AFP) - Australia said that it could give
resource-hungry China direct access to its huge uranium deposits
if Beijing signs pledges the nuclear material would not be used
for military purposes.
Foreign Minister Alexander Downer said China asked for
permission to conduct uranium exploration and mining in
Australia during talks early this year in the Chinese capital.
But he said the Chinese plans would have to get past Australia's
Foreign Investment Review Board and there would need to be a
nuclear safeguards agreement.
"We wouldn't be exporting any uranium to China for military
purposes of any kind," Downer said on national radio.
"By that I don't only mean for use in nuclear weapons, but also
we wouldn't be exporting any uranium to China for use in
military vessels or vehicles of one kind or another," he said.
China has a ravenous appetite for energy to power its rapidly
growing economy and is already a major purchaser of Australian
coal and natural gas.
Chinese officials first asked for access to Australian uranium
deposits during meetings in February with the Australian Nuclear
Safeguards and Non-Proliferation Office, officials said.
The Chinese initiative was revealed Monday by The Age newspaper
in Melbourne and then confirmed by Downer, who earlier this year
raised the prospect of increasing Australian exports of uranium
to help fuel expanding nuclear power industries across Asia,
notably in China, South Korea and India.
Australia has about 40 percent of the world's known uranium
reserves but has only three operating uranium mines, two in
South Australia and one in the Northern Territory. The country
has no nuclear power industry.
The center-left Labor Party, which controls the state and
territory governments, has opposed opening more uranium mines.
Federal Labor leader Kim Beazely reaffirmed on Monday his
party's opposition to opening additional uranium mines, though
he said he had "no problems" with exporting uranium to China if
security and waste disposal issues could be resolved.
"I would say at this stage we're as far into the business as we
want to be," he said. "They (the Chinese) have got plenty of
opportunity to acquire uranium from current facilities."
But Prime Minister John Howard's conservative federal government
in August seized control of uranium mining rights in the
Northern Territory, giving it the power to grant approvals for
exploration and mining activity.
Downer said that if barriers to further uranium mining in
Australia were lifted, "there's no reason why Chinese companies
can't invest in Australian resources industries ... subject to
the Foreign Investment Review Board."
"If Labor changed its policy, if we had a nuclear safeguards
agreement and if the Foreign Investment Review Board approved
the investment then they could do it," he said. "But they are,
to use a Chinese-style expression, the three ifs."
A nuclear proliferation expert expressed strong concern that
allowing China to conduct its own uranium operations in
Australia would make it difficult to ensure the nuclear material
was used only for civilian purposes.
"I'm very worried about this," Richard Broinowski told The Age.
"I think the Australians are seeing dollar signs all over the
place," he said, raising the prospect of China using Australian
uranium for power generation so that it would be free to use its
own uranium deposits for the military.
In 2004, Australia exported 9,648 tonnes of uranium, 39 percent
of which went to the United States, 25 percent to Japan, 25
percent to the European Union, 10 percent to South Korea and one
percent to Canada.
Copyright 2005 Yahoo! Australia &NZ Pty Limited. All rights
*****************************************************************
47 AU ABC: Martin vows to target senators in fight against nuclear dump
13:18 (ACST)Monday, 17 October 2005. 14:18 (AEDT)Monday, 17
The Northern Territory Government says it will focus on
influencing senators to stop a national nuclear waste dump.
Chief Minister Clare Martin says the Government is looking at
any options for taking legal action but admits there is little
scope for a High Court challenge.
Ms Martin says she will contact every senator urging them to
vote against federal legislation to push through a nuclear waste
facility.
But she says that would not be necessary if the Prime Minister
had kept his promise to respect the Territory's rights.
"What the Federal Government has said is 'let's get the place
that has the least rights to be able to resist this'," she said.
"Despite the Prime Minister's words he's turned around and said
'we've got you Northern Territory and we're going to trample
over your rights as a Territory'."
*****************************************************************
48 AU ABC: Senators reject NT call to stop nuclear dump
Monday, 17 October 2005. 20:06 (AEST)Monday, 17 October 2005.
The Northern Territory Government's vow to rally for senators
to support its fight against a national nuclear waste facility
being built in its jurisdiction looks set to fail.
The Federal Government has identified three possible sites in
the Territory for the facility and has introduced legislation
into Parliament that stifles the NT Government's ability to
fight the proposal.
Chief Minister Clare Martin had said she would continue the
fight by a number of means, including seeking the backing of
senators such as Queensland's Barnaby Joyce.
A spokeswoman for Senator Joyce says he represents Queensland
interests.
The spokeswoman says Senator Joyce would refer the Chief
Minister's concerns back to NT Country Liberal Party (CLP)
Senator Nigel Scullion.
Senator Scullion has indicated he will support the legislation
before Parliament but is seeking some minor amendments.
*****************************************************************
49 [NukeNet] Re Hiroshima/Nagasaki Ending WW II?: Downer on WMD
Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2005 14:58:17 -0700
NukeNet Anti-Nuclear Network (nukenet@energyjustice.net)
Dear Nichigu,
I note with interest,
especially your having been a Japanese citizen and
an officer in the Japanese Air Command Office
your statement that the war ended because of the
Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings[your quote is just
below]. I just want to have you confirm this
unless I have misunderstood something you stated.
Also, if you believe Hiroshima/Nagasaki ended WWII
can you tell us in as much detail as possible why
you believe this to be the case?
For a long time I believed the bombings were
unnecessary and were used to threaten Stalin and
the USSR and to justify the huge expenditures to
the public after the war. Historian Richard Frank
and his 1999 book "Downfall" have led me to change
my mind and believe that as horrific as these
bombings were, not using the bombs would have led
to massively more death and suffering on both
sides, especially millions of Japanese whom would
have starved to death because of the planned
blockade of Japan until they capitulated. Can you
please comment on this?
Nichigu Asangha wrote:
> I am now 88 years old.but when the
> Pacific War was endeing, I was an Air Force
Major, in charge, at the Army
> Air Command Office,
> The War ended by our complete surrender.
Reason was the very Hirroshima &
> Nagasaki's!
Sincerely/Curious,
Bill Smirnow
----- Original Message -----
From: "nichigu asangha"
To: "FoE Sydney - Nuclear Campaign"
; ;
;
;
;
;
Cc: ;
; "Dimity
Hawkins" ; "John
Hallam"
Sent: Thursday, September 06, 1956 1:05 AM
Subject: Re: [abolition-caucus] Downer on WMD
> Dear friends,
> Let me inroduce myself that I am
now 88 years old.but when the
> Pacific War was endeing, I was an Air Force
Major, in charge, at the Army
> Air Command Office, for the counter atack
against allied assault-landing
> operation, by producing heat source tracing
missiles, which by means of
> Magnetron UHF alti-meter above just 10meter
above ocean surface,then rise
> rectangularly upword upto 3000 meters, then turn
downword, tracing the heat
> sauces, such as Chimneies, Engines and so on,
thus, chasing enemy ships by
> alotted one misile thus to be able to cunter the
total assaulting fleet.
> Mass-production couldn't folow the
objectives, and the programme failed!
> The War ended by our complete surrender.
Reason was the very Hirroshima &
> Nagasaki's!
> During right after the end of the War, as ou
know, Soviet deplomat
> iriensole and the US one, Acheson, reached the
so called Acheso-Lirinsole
> Agreement, which invite the two nuclear powers
to place the Inteernational
> possession and control! over all o the owners of
Atomi Bombs. We of Japan
> cried with joy! But alas the Agreement was
desroyed by Baaruk nominated US
> Delegate on the matter nminated by President
By this, the Internaational
> possession and control of atomic weapons had
been destroyed! after al by
> Truman!
>
>
>
>
>
> > From: FoE Sydney - Nuclear Campaign
> > Date: Sat, 15 Oct 2005 12:07:06 +1000
> > To: ,
,
> > ,
,
> > ,
> > Cc: ,
,
> > Dimity Hawkins ,
John Hallam
> >
> > Subject: Re: [abolition-caucus] Downer on WMD
> >
> > Hmm...I have to add in fairness that the main
document to which this
> > refers does contain a chapter on CTBT (which I
havet read yet) and
> > does contain a photo of Downer looking very
smug indeed opening a
> > CTBT monitoring station.
> >
> >
> > At 4:17 PM +0200 14/10/05, Aaron Tovish wrote:
> >> Well Downer sure is reading off of the same
page as his big brother!
> >> Not even a mention of the CTBT. When he
wrote, "A handful of
> >> countries have flouted international norms by
developing WMDs and
> >> missiles for delivering them." for a brief
second I thought he might
> >> be including ALL such nations. Apparently he
does not recognize
> >> that there is a universal norm. How much
longer is he going to be
> >> in office?
> >> AT
> >>
> >>
> >> ---------- Original
Message ----------------------------------
> >> From: FoE Sydney - Nuclear Campaign
> >> Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2005 16:08:51 +1000
> >>
> >>> FOCUS / WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION
> >>> Practical action against proliferation
> >>>
> >>> By ALEXANDER DOWNER
> >>>
> >>> The spread of weapons of mass destruction is
one of the main threats
> >>> to international and regional security. As
irresponsible states and
> >>> terrorists seek to gain access to
devastating weapons, no country is
> >>> immune to this menace. Thankfully, our
immediate region is free of
> >>> nuclear, chemical and biological weapons.
But if we allow some
> >>> countries to get away with acquiring such
weapons, we risk weakening
> >>> restraints preventing others _ potentially
closer to home _ from
> >>> doing the same.
> >>>
> >>> This applies equally to terrorists who have
shown they will stop at
> >>> nothing to enhance their ability to kill.
The horrific bombings in
> >>> Bali only strengthen our resolve to keep
WMDs beyond their reach.
> >>>
> >>> Inaction is simply not an option for any
nation that values its
> >>> security and prosperity.
> >>>
> >>> Australia is firmly committed to practical
action to stop
> >>> proliferation. A new paper, ''Weapons of
Mass Destruction:
> >>> Australia's Role in Fighting
Proliferation'', outlines contemporary
> >>> proliferation threats and the Australian
government's
> >>> multi-dimensional strategy for addressing
them.
> >>>
> >>> Since the end of the Cold War, the
proliferation threat has
> >>> diversified. While the risk of nuclear
conflagration has receded,
> >>> checks on proliferation have failed to keep
pace with new global
> >>> security realities.
> >>>
> >>> And globalisation has increased the
availability of materials and
> >>> technologies required to make WMDs.
> >>>
> >>> A handful of countries have flouted
international norms by developing
> >>> WMDs and missiles for delivering them.
Earlier this year, North Korea
> >>> claimed that it possessed nuclear weapons.
Iran is on notice to
> >>> dispel ambiguity over its nuclear programme.
Some countries, or rogue
> >>> elements within them, have even exported
their deadly expertise. The
> >>> Abdul Qadeer Khan (of Pakistan) nuclear
network is a case in point.
> >>>
> >>> The rise of global terrorism has further
raised the proliferation
> >>> stakes. Al-Qaeda has made no secret of its
ambitions to acquire and
> >>> use WMDs. Terrorist groups in our own region
have similar ambitions.
> >>>
> >>> WMD proliferation is an actual threat, not
just a potential one. It
> >>> needs to be urgently addressed in
comprehensive and pro-active ways.
> >>>
> >>> In the face of the UN summit's lamentable
failure to deliver outcomes
> >>> on non-proliferation, Australia remains
committed to strengthening
> >>> multilateral treaties.
> >>>
> >>> Put simply, countries that ignore their
non-proliferation obligations
> >>> must be held to account by the international
community. Australia has
> >>> led the way by calling on the UN Security
Council to assume greater
> >>> responsibility in this area and by promoting
more stringent
> >>> safeguards that would provide early warning
of covert nuclear
> >>> activities.
> >>>
> >>> Recent undertakings by Singapore, Thailand
and Malaysia to conclude
> >>> Additional Protocols with the International
Atomic Energy Agency are
> >>> especially welcome in this regard. They send
a clear signal of strong
> >>> regional support for strengthened safeguards
and their role in
> >>> enhancing transparency in relation to
nuclear activities.
> >>>
> >>> At the same time, the Australian government
recognises the need for
> >>> innovation and flexibility by embracing new
thinking to stop
> >>> proliferation as it occurs.
> >>>
> >>> Australia has been a pioneer in the
Proliferation Security Initiative
> >>> (PSI). With no overarching treaty or
secretariat, PSI demonstrates
> >>> what can be achieved within international
and national law to disrupt
> >>> WMD-related trade, drawing on the support of
more than 60 countries.
> >>>
> >>> The Australian government has been assiduous
in ensuring that
> >>> Australian exports do not contribute to WMD
programmes. And we
> >>> continue to work with like-minded countries
to harmonise export
> >>> controls, especially through chairmanship of
the Australia Group,
> >>> which sets benchmarks in preventing chemical
and biological weapons
> >>> proliferation.
> >>>
> >>> We have also moved to strengthen domestic
measures to prevent
> >>> proliferators and terrorists from gaining
access to sensitive
> >>> materials, such as radioactive sources, and
expanded our efforts to
> >>> encourage regional countries to do likewise,
including through
> >>> provision of technical training.
> >>>
> >>> Importantly, we have done so through a
cooperative approach,
> >>> integrating a growing role for many of the
arms of government _
> >>> defence, intelligence and border protection.
> >>>
> >>> Australia's commitment to fighting
proliferation will not be deterred
> >>> by the complexity of present-day threats.
Through the Australian
> >>> government's wide-ranging policies and
measures and close cooperation
> >>> with like-minded partners in the region and
beyond, we will continue
> >>> to address them in comprehensive, innovative
and practical ways.
> >>>
> >>> Alexander Downer is Australia's Minister for
Foreign Affairs.
> >>> ''Weapons of Mass Destruction: Australia's
Role in Fighting
> >>> Proliferation'' can be accessed at
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
__________________________________________________
______________
> >> Sent via the WebMail system at ipb.org
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > To subscribe to the Abolition Global Caucus,
send an email from the account
> > you wish to be subscribed to:
abolition-caucus-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
> > To unsubscribe, send a blank email to
> > abolition-caucus-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> >
> > Do not include a subject line or any text in
the body of the message.
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
> ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups
Sponsor --------------------~-->
> Fair play? Video games influencing politics.
Click and talk back!
>
http://us.click.yahoo.com/VpgUKB/pzNLAA/cUmLAA/7XSolB/TM
> ------------------------------------------------
--------------------~->
>
> To subscribe to the Abolition Global Caucus,
send an email from the account you wish to be
subscribed to:
abolition-caucus-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
> To unsubscribe, send a blank email to
abolition-caucus-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
> Do not include a subject line or any text in the
body of the message.
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
> <*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
>
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/abolition-caucus/
>
> <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an
email to:
> abolition-caucus-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
> <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>
>
>
>
_______________________________________________________________________
Subscribe/Unsubscribe Here: http://www.energyjustice.net/nukenet/
Change your settings or access the archives at:
http://energyjustice.net/mailman/listinfo/nukenet_energyjustice.net
*****************************************************************
50 DenverPost.com: What you don't see at Rocky Flats
OPINION
Article Launched: 10/17/2005 01:00:00 AM
By Penelope Purdy Denver Post Staff Columnist
I balanced atop a rock amid wildflowers, amazed not at what I
saw, but at what I knew once existed: a room so polluted that
Geiger counters couldn't even measure the radiation levels.
A decade ago, Rocky Flats was a notorious hot spot. During half
a century of bomb making, the government and its contractors
were so focused on making atomic triggers that they downplayed
environmental concerns.
Barrels of radioactive wastes were dumped in trenches, and other
radioactive trash wound up next to a creek.
It takes 8 ounces of plutonium to make a nuclear bomb, but for a
time the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) couldn't account for 60
pounds of the stuff - it'd been lost in the factory's labyrinth
of pipes.
The situation was so bad that in 1989 the FBI raided the federal
facility for violating U.S. environmental laws. Then-contractor
Rockwell International pleaded guilty.
It was years before the government would decide how to proceed.
In the meantime, plutonium was strewn around work areas where
workers had abruptly stopped making bomb parts. Barrels of
radioactive materials were stored in hallways.
On my many visits, I got used to metal detectors, steel gates
and machine-gun toting guards.
Rocky Flats covers 10 square miles, but bomb making took place
on only half a square mile. In that industrial core a maze of
power lines and roads flanked grim, concrete buildings, whose
equally grim interiors were illuminated by harsh glare. Elevator
music blasted through loud speakers (a safety feature - if the
music stopped, the workers knew something was wrong).
Production rooms were cavernous, but actual bomb making took
place in glove boxes, rooms within rooms made of lead and glass.
Thick gloves permanently attached to the boxes let workers reach
inside without releasing radiation. Even so, they wore
protective clothes.
The DOE also made visitors don protective garb. When the tours
were done, we practiced an elaborate ritual to remove the
jumpsuits without contaminating our street clothes underneath.
As a final check, we stepped into a contraption that resembled a
"Star Trek" transporter.
But the one place reporters were never allowed was the "infinity
room" in Building 771, considered the most contaminated building
in America, seething with so much radiation it couldn't be
measured by early Geiger counters.
Workers who ventured into the room (which was packed with
barrels of plutonium) wore "moon suits" with helmets and oxygen
hoses - the air was too dangerous to breathe.
Today, even after witnessing much of the site's cleanup, I can
scarcely believe what has become of Rocky Flats.
There's still some contamination on federal land, but the only
industrial activity now occurs at private strip mines on the
edge of DOE property.
But after nine years of intensive environmental work, the bomb
factory's buildings, power lines, roads and security guards are
gone.
The plutonium was hauled to safer storage in other states, the
glove boxes dismantled, walls scrubbed, contaminated concrete
trucked away. Visitors no longer need special garb but can walk
(albeit still with an official escort) through the old industrial
zone clad in jeans.
A few weeks ago I stood on a rock surrounded by native flowers
that the DOE planted at the behest of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, which will run the site as a refuge. I was at the exact
location of the "infinity room."
I gazed across the foothills to the Rockies, outlined by autumn
snow.
The awesome vista had always been there, but for 50 years all we
could see was a roomful of the most deadly materials on Earth.
Penelope Purdy ()
is a member of the Denver Post editorial board.
All contents Copyright 2005 The Denver Post or other copyright
*****************************************************************
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:
*****************************************************************