*****************************************************************
01/19/06 **** RADIATION BULLETIN(RADBULL) **** VOL 14.16
*****************************************************************
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 [NYTr] Iran wins Syrian support on Nuclear Issue
2 AFP: Iran threatens oil crisis in nuclear standoff
3 AFP: US bill urges international sanctions, isolation for Iran -
4 UPI: Iran says nuclear compromise possible
5 Guardian Unlimited: Iranian President Cements Syrian Alliance
6 Guardian Unlimited: Rice Pushes for Renewed N. Korea Talks
7 Guardian Unlimited: U.S., SKorea to Meet on NKorea Nuke Talks
8 US: [NukeNet] To END the NUCLEAR AGE: Global Day of Action in 2006?
9 US: APP.COM: Whistleblowers find their efforts wasted for exposing w
10 [NYTr] India Nukes: Bush Thumbs Nose at Already-Angry Pakistan
11 BBC: France 'would use nuclear arms'
12 Xinhua: First nuclear tech museum to open in Sichuan
NUCLEAR REACTORS
13 US: Philadelphia Daily News: TMI's owner is now paying attention
14 US: San Luis Obispo Tribune: Diablo debate needed all 11 hours
15 US: AP Wire: Former Davis-Besse nuclear plant employees, contractor
16 US: NRC: NRC, Constellation to Discuss License Renewal Inspection Co
17 iafrica.com: sa news Koeberg unit down for three months
18 Xinhua: African gov't committed to developing nuclear project
19 US: NRC: Sunshine Act Meeting Notice
20 US: NRC: Regulatory Information Conference
21 SABCnews.com: Govt remains committed to nuclear project
22 NZ: Scoop: Ecologist: Taking The Wind Out Of Nuclear Power
23 US: PRN: Interstate Power and Light and FPL Energy Move Closer to
24 Business Day: Faulty unit at Koeberg to remain shut
NUCLEAR SECURITY
NUCLEAR SAFETY
25 US: Deseret News: Release the fallout report
26 US: APP.COM: Radionuclides in well prompt its shutdown
27 US: Hawaii Health Guide: DU exposure investigation called for
28 US: CDC: NIOSH: Dose reconstruction proposal
29 US: Vermont Guardian: Top county official questions radiation levels
NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE
30 Las Vegas SUN: Miss Nevada is cheerleader for Yucca Mountain
31 Santa Fe New Mexican: Sandia gets Yucca Mountain contract
32 BBC: Call for UK nuclear clean-up plan
33 reviewjournal.com: YUCCA MOUNTAIN: Laboratory gets expanded duties
34 US: Salt Lake Tribune: Legislators would be able to overturn a veto
35 US: SouthofBoston.com: Tax the rods?
36 US: PE.com: Water board chief opposed to delaying a July hearing
37 News & Star: Ruling in pollution dispute
PEACE
US DEPT. OF ENERGY
38 DOE: DOE Technology Helps NASA Seek New Horizons
39 Santa Fe New Mexican: Move to separate LANL pension fund irks employ
40 Newsday.com: BNL's economic impact goes beyond LI --
41 Aiken Today: SRS salt waste plans progress
42 The State: Waste removal plan criticized
*****************************************************************
*****************************************************************
FULL NEWS STORIES
*****************************************************************
*****************************************************************
1 [NYTr] Iran wins Syrian support on Nuclear Issue
Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2006 15:36:48 -0600 (CST)
Via NY Transfer News Collective * All the News that Doesn't Fit
Reuters - Jan 19, 2006
http://today.reuters.com/news/newsarticle.aspx?type=worldNews&storyid=2006-01-19T144841Z_01_L1914474_RTRUKOC_0_US-SYRIA-IRAN.xml
Iranian president wins Syrian support on atomic row
By Rasha Elass
DAMASCUS (Reuters) - Syria said on Thursday Iran had a right to acquire
nuclear technology for peaceful means and demanded Israel be stripped of its
suspected nuclear arsenal.
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad held talks with Syrian President
Bashar al-Assad at the start of a two-day visit to Damascus, his first since
he took office in August.
Syria and Iran both risk showdowns with the U.N. Security Council --
Damascus over a U.N. inquiry into the murder of a Lebanese ex-prime minister
and Tehran over its nuclear plans.
"We support the right of Iran and any state in the world to acquire peaceful
technology," Assad told a joint news conference after the talks. "Countries
who oppose this gave no convincing reason, regardless of whether it is
legitimate or not."
The United States and the European Union's three biggest powers, Britain,
France and Germany, said this month Iran's resumption of nuclear research
meant it should be referred to the U.N. Security Council, which could impose
sanctions.
Iran removed the U.N. seals on its uranium enrichment equipment but says it
has no intention of building nuclear arms and seeks atomic energy only to
generate electricity.
Assad renewed Syria's call for a Middle East free of nuclear weapons and
said "the beginning should be with Israel". The Jewish state is widely
believed to have nuclear weapons.
Syria also faces pressure from the Security Council, which passed a
resolution in October demanding it cooperate fully with a U.N. inquiry into
the February 14 assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik
al-Hariri or risk further action.
Syria has denied any involvement in the murder but has said it will not
allow investigators to question Assad in the case.
STABILITY IN LEBANON
Assad said he supported stability in Lebanon and called for an end to what
he called foreign interference there.
Lebanon has been rocked by more bombings and killings since Hariri's death
for which many Lebanese politicians blame Syria.
International and Lebanese pressure forced Syria to end its 29-year military
presence in its smaller neighbor in April.
"We believe that the Lebanese people can find a solution and I call on all
factions to show restraint and patience," Ahmadinejad said.
Neither Syria nor Iran face an imminent threat of military action or broad
sanctions at the United Nations, but will come under more diplomatic
pressure on every front, analysts say.
Assad was the first head of a foreign state to visit Iran after Ahmadinejad,
a religious conservative, took office.
Iran's new president seized that opportunity to vow closer cooperation in
the face of U.S. pressure and is returning the visit at a time when Assad
finds himself particularly isolated.
Both accused by Washington of sponsoring terrorism, Syria and Iran are the
main backers of Lebanon's Hizbollah group, itself under pressure to disarm
under a 2004 U.N. resolution.
Hizbollah, the only Lebanese group to keep its arms after Lebanon's
1975-1990 civil war, helped force Israel to end its 22-year occupation of
southern Lebanon in 2000.
Both Syria and Iran accuse the United States of backing the interests of
their arch-foe Israel at the expense of Muslims and Arabs. They defend
Hizbollah's right to resist the Jewish state.
Ahmadinejad has caused an international furor by calling for Israel to be
wiped out and describing the Holocaust, in which six million Jews were
killed, as a myth.
(Additional reporting by Suleiman al-Khalidi)
) Reuters 2006.
*
================================================================
.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
================================================================
*****************************************************************
2 AFP: Iran threatens oil crisis in nuclear standoff
Thu Jan 19, 2:06 PM ET
TEHRAN (AFP) - Iran" /> Iranwarned of a world oil crisis if
sanctions are imposed over its nuclear program even as the
United States and Europe struggled to get support for UN
Security Council action.
"In case of sanctions, other countries will suffer as well as
Iran," Oil Minister Davoud Danesh-Jafari said, according to the
official news agency, IRNA.
"One of the consequences will be the unleashing of a crisis in
the oil sector and particularly a price hike."
Iran, the number two oil exporter in OPEC" /> OPECwith oil
revenue last year of 42 billion dollars, risks being referred to
the United Nations" /> United NationsSecurity Council over what
the West suspects is a covert nuclear weapons drive.
World oil prices this week hit a near-four-month high in New
York, partly on fears of Iran sanctions.
The nuclear standoff came to a head when Iran broke
international seals last week to restart uranium enrichment
research which had been suspended for two years under deals with
the Europeans.
But the United States and Europe are facing resistance,
particularly from permanent UN Security Council members China
and Russia, to their push for a referral to the world body and
possible sanctions.
"We have been very clear that we believe the time has come for a
referral of Iran to the Security Council," US Secretary of State
Condoleezza Rice" /> Condoleezza Ricesaid in Washington.
Rice said Iran had been given adequate opportunities to resolve
the nuclear issue through negotiations and prove to the world
that it was not seeking nuclear weapons.
Russia, which is Iran's main partner in the growing civil
nuclear program, has been trying to steer away from a UN
showdown. China has also opposed such a step.
Britain, France and Germany, backed by the United States, have
called for an emergency meeting of the International Atomic
Energy Agency" /> International Atomic Energy Agency(IAEA) on
February 2, a first step before possible UN Security Council
referral.
Iran insists it is not seeking to build nuclear weapons and that
it has the right to develop atomic energy. It has threatened to
suspend snap inspections by the IAEA if it is brought before the
Security Council.
But the Western powers have rejected Iran's call for a return to
direct talks, Britain describing it as "vacuous," unless there
is a return to the fuel cycle suspension.
French Foreign Minister Philippe Douste-Blazy met with
resistance when he held talks in Moscow with his Russian
counterpart Sergei Lavrov to get support for UN action.
"We must simultaneously be united but also firm, to tell the
Iranians to return to reason, to stop these dangerous nuclear
activities and to let us negotiate together," Douste-Blazy told
reporters after the talks.
But Lavrov reiterated Russia's attempts to strike a less
confrontational stance.
"We need to act exactly as in medicine," he told journalists.
"First understand what method is the most effective -- the
scalpel or therapy. Only then do you understand all the
aftereffects of further steps. Only then should you act."
As the world powers appeared split, Iran secured backing from
Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, who pledged support for Iran's
nuclear program and rejected pressure on Tehran.
"We expressed our support for Iran in its pursuit of peaceful
nuclear technology and we back the idea of a dialogue with
international parties," Assad said after talks with Iranian
President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
"We also reject the pressure being exerted on this country" over
its nuclear program, he said.
A US senator said he planned to introduce a bill calling on
President George W. Bush" /> President George W. Bush's
administration to press governments around the world to shun
Iran over its nuclear program.
Democratic Senator Evan Bayh, speaking on US television, said he
plans to introduce his resolution Friday, calling for Iran to be
excluded from international forums and events and asking the
administration to urge other governments to sever economic
relations with Tehran.
Copyright 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The
*****************************************************************
3 AFP: US bill urges international sanctions, isolation for Iran -
Thu Jan 19, 4:01 PM ET
WASHINGTON (AFP) - A US senator announced legislation that would
urge the international community impose tough sanctions on Iran"
/> Iranover its nuclear program.
Democratic Senator Evan Bayh said he plans to introduce his
resolution Friday calling for Iran to be excluded from
international forums, events and organizations, and calling on
foreign governments to sever economic relations with Tehran.
The legislation also calls on the administration of President
George W. Bush" /> President George W. Bushto cut assistance to
countries whose companies are investing in Iran's energy sector,
including pipelines to export Iranian crude, and to block
supplies of refined gasoline to Iran.
The bill also calls for a worldwide ban on the sale of weapons
to Iran, and urges the United Nations" /> United NationsSecurity
Council to impose a rigorous new inspection regime on the
country.
"The United States must make the government of Iran understand
that if its nuclear activity continues it will be treated as a
pariah state," a passage of the legislation read.
Earlier Thursday, Bayh told US television that the Bush
administration has paid too little attention to the potentially
enormous nuclear threat posed by Iran, and said time is running
out for action.
"I just came back from the region, and it is increasingly clear
that Iran presents a real menace not only to the national
security interests of the United States but to the rest of the
civilized world, as well.
"They are the foremost sponsor of terrorism in the world," Bayh
told the Fox News cable television network.
"Now they are seeking nuclear weapons, and that is an outcome we
cannot allow to happen," he said.
Bayh's Senate office said the international ostracism would
extend to excluding Tehran from the Olympics and this year's
World Cup football tournament in Germany, as well as
international political and economic groups such as the World
Trade Organization" /> World Trade Organization.
"We need tough action now, including economic sanctions,
cultural sanctions, cutting off their supply of gasoline, arms
sales, those kind of things, to convince the radical leaders of
Iran that nuclear weapons are something they just cannot have,"
Bayh told Fox News.
"The window for action here may be as little as a few months"
before Iran succeeds in developing nuclear weapons, he warned.
Copyright 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The
*****************************************************************
4 UPI: Iran says nuclear compromise possible
United Press International - NewsTrack -
1/19/2006 8:07:00 AM -0500
TEHRAN, Jan. 19 (UPI) -- Iran is ready to reach a compromise on
its nuclear research and repeated Thursday it is not developing
atomic weapons.
In an interview with the BBC, Iran's top nuclear negotiator, Ali
Larijani, said it was time for renewed talks with European
countries and the United States.
"If they want guarantees of no diversion of nuclear fuel, we can
reach a formula acceptable to both sides in talks," Larijani
said.
However, when asked if there were any circumstances in which
Iran would suspend enrichment research, Larijani said there were
not.
"They should not ask a brave nation with very good scientists to
expect not to engage in nuclear research," he said.
Last week, Iran reopened its sealed facility at Isfahan, which
prompted Britain, France and Germany to call off negotiations.
Along with the United States, Russia and some support from
China, the countries have called for a Feb. 2 emergency meeting
of the International Atomic Energy Agency.
Copyright 2006 United Press
International, Inc. All Rights Reserved
*****************************************************************
5 Guardian Unlimited: Iranian President Cements Syrian Alliance
From the Associated Press
[UP]
Thursday January 19, 2006 12:17 PM
AP Photo XHS107
By ALBERT AJI
Associated Press Writer
DAMASCUS, Syria (AP) - Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad
began a visit to Syria Thursday to consolidate an old alliance
made increasingly crucial as both countries face mounting U.S.
pressure and the threat of international sanctions.
Ahmadinejad and Syrian President Bashar Assad were expected to
talk about Iran's standoff with the West over its nuclear
program and the threat to refer it to the U.N. Security Council,
as well as Syria's own troubles over a U.N. investigation that
implicated it in the assassination of Lebanon's former prime
minister.
Bilateral economic, industrial and cultural agreements also were
expected to be discussed during the two-day visit.
Syria is Iran's closest Arab ally. The two countries have had
close relations since 1980 when Syria sided with Iran against
Iraq at the start of the Iran-Iraq war.
On the eve of the visit, Ahmadinejad described bilateral
relations as ``strong and good.''
Both countries share to a certain extent similar foreign policy
objectives: opposition to what they describe as U.S. attempts to
dominate the Middle East, hostility toward Israel and support
for Palestinian and Lebanese militant groups fighting the Jewish
state.
Ahmadinejad's visit comes at a very delicate time for both
nations.
Iran's insistence to proceed with its peaceful nuclear
activities have raised great concern in the European Union and
the United States, which have been pushing for referring the
issue to the Security Council, a first step toward possible
sanctions.
Syria faces international accusations of failing to fully
cooperate with the U.N. investigation into last year's
assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri.
Investigators have implicated Syrian officials and now want to
interview Assad and his foreign minister. Damascus has denied
any role in the killing.
Syria sits on the 35-nation International Atomic Energy Agency
board, which meets on Feb. 2 for a vote on whether to refer
Tehran to the Security Council.
Ahmadinejad on Wednesday accused the West of acting like the
``lord of the world'' in denying his country peaceful use of
nuclear energy. But the United States and other countries are
suspicious that Iran is planning on develop nuclear arms.
Guardian Unlimited Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006
*****************************************************************
6 Guardian Unlimited: Rice Pushes for Renewed N. Korea Talks
From the Associated Press
[UP]
Thursday January 19, 2006 9:47 PM
AP Photo DCSA103
By FOSTER KLUG
Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON (AP) - A U.S. negotiator signaled his North Korean
counterpart that the United States is ready to restart talks
over Pyongyang's nuclear program, a State Department official
said Thursday.
Wednesday's meeting in Beijing, which was arranged and attended
by Chinese officials, didn't result in an agreement on a date to
restart negotiations, said State Department spokesman Sean
McCormack. The session involved Assistant Secretary of State
Christopher Hill, the lead U.S. envoy to the nuclear talks, and
North Korea's vice foreign minister, Kim Gye Gwan.
``Hill sent a strong, clear message that we are prepared to
resume the six-party talks,'' McCormack said.
``We would hope the North Korean government is ready to return
to those talks, without preconditions, as well, and at the
earliest possible date,'' McCormack said.
Talking to reporters, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice urged
North Korea to heed international calls to return to stalled
six-nation talks on its nuclear program.
During a meeting with South Korean Foreign Minister Ban Ki-moon,
Rice emphasized the importance of efforts to break a deadlock in
negotiations and persuade North Korea to scrap its nuclear
programs.
``We are both urging North Korea to come back to the talks
without conditions,'' Rice told reporters at an appearance with
Ban.
``North Korea is being told by the international community that
it has to be a Korean Peninsula that is free of nuclear weapons,
and that North Korea must dismantle its nuclear programs,'' Rice
said.
Diplomats from the Koreas, China, the United States, Russia and
Japan ended the latest round of negotiations in November. The
prospect of a resumption of the talks, which began in 2003, is
uncertain.
The North has said it won't resume negotiations until the United
States ends financial sanctions meant to halt alleged weapons
proliferation and counterfeit currency distribution by North
Korea. The U.S. says nuclear negotiations are unconnected to the
sanctions.
``We hope that we'll have early resumption of the six-party
process,'' Ban said.
The meeting between Rice and Ban follows reports that North
Korean leader Kim Jong Il, in a rare foreign trip, told China's
president he was committed to a peaceful resolution of the
nuclear standoff.
North Korea pledged on Sept. 19 to scrap its nuclear programs in
return for aid and security assurances, a statement that was
hailed as a breakthrough in the Korean peninsula's long nuclear
saga.
The optimism hasn't lasted: Four months later, six-nation
nuclear talks are deadlocked as the communist-led North
backtracks and tension escalates between Washington and
Pyongyang.
---
On the Net:
CIA World Factbook on North Korea:
http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/kn.html
Guardian Unlimited Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006
*****************************************************************
7 Guardian Unlimited: U.S., SKorea to Meet on NKorea Nuke Talks
From the Associated Press
[UP]
Thursday January 19, 2006 8:47 AM
By FOSTER KLUG
Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON (AP) - When North Korea pledged on Sept. 19 to scrap
its nuclear programs in return for aid and security assurances,
it was hailed as a breakthrough in the Korean peninsula's long
nuclear saga.
The optimism hasn't lasted: Four months later, six-nation
nuclear talks are deadlocked as the communist-led North
backtracks and tension escalates between Washington and
Pyongyang.
Those strained nuclear talks were likely to dominate the
conversation between South Korean Foreign Minister Ban Ki-moon
and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice at the State Department
on Thursday.
Diplomats from the Koreas, China, the United States, Russia and
Japan ended the latest round of negotiations in November. The
prospect of a resumption of the talks, which began in 2003, is
uncertain.
The North has said it won't set a return date unless the United
States ends financial sanctions meant to halt alleged weapons
proliferation and counterfeit currency distribution by North
Korea. U.S. officials say the sanctions are a criminal issue
unrelated to the nuclear talks.
Despite the squabbling, there have been some hopeful signs
recently.
North Korean leader Kim Jong Il reportedly told China's
president this week, during a rare trip outside the North, that
he was committed to a peaceful resolution of the nuclear
standoff. South Korean news reports said U.S. Assistant
Secretary of State Christopher Hill, the lead American envoy to
the talks, met Wednesday in Beijing with his North Korean
counterpart, Vice Foreign Minister Kim Gye Gwan, to discuss
reviving their efforts.
Rep. James Leach, R-Iowa, who chairs the House International
Relations Asia and the Pacific subcommittee, said Kim Jong Il's
trip to China was a positive development.
``The more that he sees the world and sees what change can bring
to North Korea, the greater the odds North Korea might change
direction,'' Leach said in an interview.
In September, the North pledged at the nuclear talks in Beijing
to give up its atomic programs in return for aid and security
assurances. But no progress was made on implementing the
agreement after North Korea placed new conditions - which the
U.S. said were unacceptable - on its disarmament.
During an appearance Wednesday at the United Nations, Ban agreed
that Kim's meeting with Chinese President Hu Jintao should have
``very positive implications'' for resumption of the stalled
talks.
Since the last round, the State Department has called repeatedly
for the parties to meet again, but recent comments from U.S.
officials also have signaled what appears to be a growing
frustration with Kim's communist government.
Last month, Alexander Vershbow, the new U.S. ambassador to
Seoul, called the North a ``criminal regime,'' part of a string
of comments that led South Korea's leading journalist
organization on Wednesday to demand an apology for what it
called Vershbow's ``problematic remarks'' about North Korea.
Early this month, Rice called the North a ``dangerous regime.''
Jonathan Pollack, a North Korea analyst at the U.S. Naval War
College, said, ``Throwaway lines may make us feel good, but
they're not going to advance the ball.''
``Even if we find this a reprehensible regime with no redeeming
values whatsoever, it is the regime that we have to deal with,''
he said.
Leach said that while ``there's always a case for accuracy and
frankness'' in describing North Korea, ``we should always be
aware that words matter.''
---
On the Net:
CIA World Factbook on North Korea:
http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/kn.html
Guardian Unlimited Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006
*****************************************************************
8 [NukeNet] To END the NUCLEAR AGE: Global Day of Action in 2006?
Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2006 20:38:06 -0800
NukeNet Anti-Nuclear Network (nukenet@energyjustice.net)
Dear all,
My name is Ethan. I'm a new subscriber to this list, although
Mike Ewall knows me well from our occasionally linked work on
energy & other environmental activist issues in the Philadelphia
area...
My involvement with anti-nuclear activism, while sporadic,
dates back to 2002, when I participated in the 800-mile,
Shundahai-led "Family
Spirit Walk for Mother Earth" against
the nuclear cycle, from Los Alamos in New Mexico, through
uranium-mining Amerindian country in Arizona, to the Nevada
Test Site and Yucca Mountain...
I'm writing now to solicit responses to, and hopefully support
for, an idea for a Global Day of Action to END THE NUCLEAR
AGE. This is a long message, but please read the whole
thing:
As you probably all know, the Nuclear Age began on July 16,
1945, when the Manhattan Project concluded with the
successful detonation of the first atomic bomb in New Mexico,
at the test site code-named Trinity.
As you all also know, in 2006 a number of industrialized
countries, including the US and UK, are now trying to expand
their use of nuclear energy & build new nuclear plants.
This July 15-17, eight of the world's biggest industrialized
countries, all of whom have significant history with and/or
present use of nuclear energy/weapons, will be meeting in
St. Petersburg, Russia for the annual G8 Summit, an event
that always draws huge protests.
Last year at the G8 Summit in Scotland, UK activists united
under the banner of Dissent.
This year, a group in which I am active --
Reclaim the
Commons -- has issued a call for
"Energy
Dissent" in
response to the 2006 G8 Summit. Our opening statement,
published widely 2 weeks ago, is as follows:
Reclaim the Debate! Resist the G8!
In July 2006, the G8 will hold its annual Summit in
St.Petersburg, Russia.
Vladimir Putin says he's
placing "energy security"
at the top of the G8 agenda
during Russia's presidency
of the Gang of 8--the West's 7 biggest
industrialized
States plus Japan. As the G8's
biggest
(and the world's 2nd largest) oil
exporter
and the
major
exporter of natural gas to Europe,
fossil fuels give
Russia its
trans-national clout. Now
Moscow claims it wants to
help put the
Kyoto Protocol into effect,
making this G8 Summit another critical
moment for
climate justice action.
But dissenters should demonstrate that
there can be no
"energy security"
while climate
crisis & ecosystem destruction gain speed, and
civilization drives suicidally
down a road paved by dependence on
non-renewable, fast-depleting fossil
fuels. The G8 countries consume 45% of
world oil and produce 47% of global CO2 emissions. Their "energy security" is
our energy grave!
Our statement proceeds to quote the Canadian NGO report,
The G8 and
the Nuclear Industry, which says:
G8 countries dominate the world's nuclear economy. The nuclear weapons and
energy programmes of G8 countries make up the majority of the world's nuclear
technology. The influence of the nuclear industry and the military
implications of
nuclear technology have made nuclear issues a part of the agenda at recent G8
summits.
The influence of the nuclear industry on G8 states is indisputable. Despite the
fact that nuclear power has been excluded from the Kyoto protocol as a clean
energy source, the nuclear industry and some G8 governments continue to extol
the virtues of nuclear energy as a "solution" to climate change. Continued G8
support for nuclear energy syphons billions of dollars away from the
development
of cheaper, cleaner and more sustainable energy sources.
So, getting to the point, our hope is to pull together Global
Days of Action, on each of the 3 days of the G8 Summit, for
"Energy Dissent" against each of the world's 3 deadliest
energy sources: coal, nuclear and oil.
The literal and symbolic centerpiece--on Sunday, July 16,
2006--would be a Global Day of Action to END THE
NUCLEAR AGE. Because the Nuclear Age started on July
16, 1945, this could be a very powerful way of making the
point and uniting people around the world. The goal would
be to organize actions/events in AT LEAST each of the G8
countries: United States, England, France, Germany,
Canada, Italy, Russia and Japan.
My group, Reclaim the Commons, can be a lead coordinator
of this in various ways, but we have nowhere near the ability or
connections to pull it off by ourselves. That's why I'm
writing to all of you. We want your help.
With 6 months between now and July, there is plenty of
time to organize something incredibly big that the G8 leaders
won't be able to ignore.
So, now it's your turn to respond: Is this an idea that you
and your groups can get excited about & mobilize behind? If
yes, what ideas can you add to the vision articulated
above? If no, why not? And, if yes, what are the first things
we must do in order to bring this to fruition?
As our response to the last question, we think that we would
need to form Coalitions to End the Nuclear Age, both within
and among the G8 countries.
Also, we would need to write and widely distribute a "Call to
Action" to End the Nuclear Age. If there is some consensus
that should can do this, and commitment from various people &
groups to follow through over the next 6 months, I could write a
draft of that over the next week or so...
Well, I could say a lot more, but I think that's enough for now...
I'm looking forward to your responses!!
In Solidarity ~ Ethan from Philly
Yahoo! Photos
Ring in the New Year with
Photo
Calendars. Add photos, events, holidays, whatever.
_______________________________________________________________________
Subscribe/Unsubscribe Here: http://www.energyjustice.net/nukenet/
Change your settings or access the archives at:
http://energyjustice.net/mailman/listinfo/nukenet_energyjustice.net
*****************************************************************
9 APP.COM: Whistleblowers find their efforts wasted for exposing wrongs
| Asbury Park Press Online
January 19, 2006
by the Asbury Park Press on 01/19/06
BY PAUL K. MCMASTERS
When it comes to free-speech protections for federal employees,
the Constitution sometimes isn't quite enough.
As far back as 1912, Congress began work to ensure that federal
agency workers wanting to blow the whistle on excesses and
missteps were protected from retaliation. In addition to a raft
of laws, Congress over the years has laid down protections in the
Merit Systems Protection Board, established an Office of Special
Counsel for whistleblowers in trouble, and even given a federal
appellate court it created in 1982 exclusive jurisdiction over
litigation arising from whistleblower cases.
Why all this concern for bureaucratic tattletales? Because they
have served as a constant and valuable check on the federal
government. As Louis Fisher writes in "National Security
Whistleblowers," a Congressional Research Service report:
"Over the years, agency employees have received credit for
revealing problems of defense cost overruns, unsafe nuclear
power plant conditions, questionable drugs approved for
marketing, contract illegalities and improprieties, and
regulatory corruption."
From the top down, whistleblowers have received high praise for
their service in improving government, according to Fisher.
President Jimmy Carter proposed the Office of Special Counsel to
protect whistleblowers "who expose gross management errors and
abuses."
President Ronald Reagan saluted whistleblowers and promised them
protection for reporting illegal or wasteful activities. They
"must be assured that when they "blow the whistle' they will be
protected and their information properly investigated," he said.
President George H.W. Bush said that "a true whistleblower is a
public servant of the highest order," and "these dedicated men
and women should not be fired or rebuked or suffer financially
for their honesty and good judgment."
But suffer they have.
According to Fisher's report, whistleblowers rarely have won
when they've taken their cases to the protection board, the
special counsel or even the courts. Instead, whistleblowers
routinely have faced firing, transfers, reprimands, loss of
promotion and harassment, not to mention criminal sanctions in
some instances.
A House committee taking up amendments to the Whistleblowers
Protection Act in 1994 reported that though the act "is the
strongest free speech law that exists on paper, it has been a
counterproductive disaster in practice. The WPA has created new
reprisal victims at a far greater pace than it is protecting
them."
That woeful record continues today.
Consider, for instance, the travails of Sibel Edmonds, the
former FBI translator who was fired after she went public with
claims of security violations, mismanagement and possible spying
within the FBI department translating documents vital to the war
on terror.
Another whistleblower, Bunny Greenhouse, was demoted from the
top procurement post at the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers after
she challenged the process by which a subsidiary of Halliburton
won a multibillion-dollar contract just before the war in Iraq.
Similar troubles were in store for the Army general who disputed
his superiors' troop-strength projections for the Iraq war and
the Medicare expert who tried to tell Congress about the real
costs of new drug subsidies.
Little wonder that whistleblowers more often go the press, which
has a better record of protecting them than boards, special
counsels, the courts, members of Congress or their bosses.
But even going to the press is not all that safe. The Justice
Department has just launched a criminal investigation to track
down anyone who leaked information to The New York Times about
the National Security Agency's super-secret monitoring of
telephone calls and e-mails from within the United States.
In another investigation, a special counsel in the Justice
Department has been trying for two years to find out who in the
White House leaked the name of CIA operative Valerie Plame to
columnist Robert Novak. The prosecutor was able to force some
journalists to testify before a grand jury and to send one
reporter to prison for refusing to testify.
No one knows how many whistleblowers who have shared information
with journalists are looking over their shoulders right now. For
example, the Times relied on a dozen or so current and former
government officials for its coverage of the NSA surveillance.
Now, a prominent attorney warns there could be further erosion
of the press' ability to help whistleblowers offer information
about government abuse, mistakes and violations of the law.
Harvey Silverglate, who represented several parties in the
Pentagon Papers case in the 1970s, says in a recent article in
the Boston Phoenix that the laws and court decisions are such
that newspapers, reporters, editors and publishers "are at
serious risk of indictment" in leak investigations.
When laws, regulations, courts and the Constitution itself are
not enough to protect freedom of speech and freedom of the
press, there is more than just good government at risk.
Paul K. McMasters is First Amendment ombudsman at the First
Amendment Center, Arlington, Va. [E-mail] E-mail
Copyright 2006 Asbury Park Press. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
10 [NYTr] India Nukes: Bush Thumbs Nose at Already-Angry Pakistan
Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2006 14:21:29 -0600 (CST)
Via NY Transfer News Collective * All the News that Doesn't Fit
[The day the Pakistani Foreign Minister arrived in the US, fresh from a
Cabinet meeting that condemned the US airstrike on the alleged hideout
of al Qaeda bigwigs, at the same time Bush and his allies are making
loud noises of outrage over Iran's nuclear program.... Bush decides to
ignore India's previous violations of its promises to the US and forge
ahead with a US-India nuclear reactor project. The timing is impeccable.
But Bush figures what other friends does Pakistan have left, and just
doesn't give a shit.... -NYTr]
Reuters - Jan 18, 2006
http://today.reuters.com/news/newsarticle.aspx?type=politicsNews&storyid=2006-01-18T192058Z_01_N18199661_RTRUKOC_0_US-INDIA-NUCLEAR-USA.xml
US aims to set aside India reactor controversy
By Carol Giacomo
Diplomatic Correspondent
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Bush administration, confronting a potential
threat to its 2005 nuclear deal with India, has signaled it will set aside
concerns that New Delhi violated a previous agreement with the United
States.
In documents released by a Senate panel, the State Department said it could
not determine whether the project in question -- a 40 megawatt nuclear
reactor called Cirus -- had violated a 1956 U.S.-India contract.
Some experts say the project violated past Indian assurances that U.S.
nuclear material would be used only for peaceful uses, not weapons, and this
called into question India's trustworthiness as a future nuclear partner.
But Undersecretary of State for Non-proliferation Robert Joseph said "a
conclusive answer (on whether a violation occurred) has not been possible."
Rather than spend time on Cirus, "the administration believes the most
productive approach is to focus on India's new commitments under (the July
18, 2005) joint statement," he told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
The agreement, which must be approved by the U.S. Congress, would give India
access to nuclear technology, including fuel and reactors, and commit New
Delhi to place nuclear facilities associated with its civilian energy
program under international inspection.
Nicholas Burns, undersecretary of State for political affairs, is due in New
Delhi on January 19 to work on the deal, aiming to show progress when
President George W. Bush visits India in late February or early March.
For 30 years, the United States led the effort to deny India nuclear
technology because it tested and developed nuclear weapons in contravention
of international norms. India has refused to sign the nuclear
Non-proliferation Treaty.
But Bush now views India, a rising democratic and economic power on China's
border, as an evolving core U.S. ally and the new nuclear deal is central to
that vision.
WEAPONS GRADE PLUTONIUM
The controversy revolves around a Canada-supplied nuclear reactor located
north of Mumbai, which produces a significant amount of India's weapons
grade plutonium.
Canada cut off nuclear cooperation with India in 1974 after plutonium from
Cirus was used in India's first nuclear test. At the time, India called the
test "peaceful." It resumed testing in 1998 and now acknowledges its nuclear
weapons capability.
The United States is affected because it supplied Cirus with "heavy water,"
which is used to moderate nuclear fission.
Asked about Cirus by Sen. Richard Lugar, the committee chairman, Joseph said
India also had its own heavy water and heavy water from an unnamed third
country in the reactor.
After the 1974 nuclear test, Washington examined whether India's actions
complied with the 1956 contract, which said U.S. heavy water could only be
used for peaceful purpose.
But a "conclusive answer was not possible" because of uncertainty over
whether U.S. heavy water was used in producing plutonium for the test and
because India and the United States disagreed on the contract's scope,
Joseph said.
Gary Milhollin of the independent Wisconsin Project on Nuclear Arms Control
said Joseph's statement was "flatly wrong," while Henry Sokolski of the
Non-proliferation Policy Education Center called it "unbelievable and
shameful."
"We know in fact that plutonium produced by the Cirus reactor was produced
with U.S. heavy water," Milhollin told Reuters.
Joseph rebuffed Lugar's suggestion that Washington ask India for a full
accounting, saying "the administration believes the most productive approach
is to focus on India's new commitments" under the 2005 nuclear deal,
including allowing U.N. monitors to inspect civilian nuclear facilities.
Milhollin said the administration is afraid to press further because "they
don't want to know" and don't want to have to hold India to account.
) Reuters 2006. All
*
================================================================
.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
================================================================
*****************************************************************
11 BBC: France 'would use nuclear arms'
Last Updated: Thursday, 19 January 2006
[French President Jacques Chirac]
Chirac warned of new threats in a post-Cold War world
French President Jacques Chirac has said France would be ready to
use nuclear weapons against any state which launched a terrorist
attack against it.
Speaking at a nuclear submarine base in north-western France, Mr
Chirac said a French response "could be conventional. It could
also be of another nature."
He said France's nuclear forces had been configured for such an
event.
France has had an independent nuclear deterrent since 1960, after
an arms programme ordered by Charles de Gaulle.
'Odious attacks'
The BBC's Alistair Sandford in Paris says this is the first time
that Mr Chirac has so clearly linked the threat of a nuclear
response to a terrorist attack.
On a visit to L'Ile-Longue base in Brittany, Mr Chirac said
leaders of states who would "use terrorist means against us, just
like anyone who would envisage using, in one way or another, arms
of mass destruction, must understand that they would expose
themselves to a firm and adapted response from us".
The president spoke of new threats in a post-Cold War world,
without mentioning any specific threat against France.
"In numerous countries, radical ideas are spreading, advocating a
confrontation of civilisations," he said, adding that "odious
attacks" could escalate to "other yet more serious forms
involving states".
Following the end of the Cold War, France scaled down its nuclear
deterrent, scrapping a number of missile systems.
It is believed to have a current arsenal of around 350 nuclear
weapons.
*****************************************************************
12 Xinhua: First nuclear tech museum to open in Sichuan
www.xinhuanet.com
www.chinaview.cn 2006-01-19 14:12:33
BEIJING, Jan.19 -- China's first theme museum, on the course
of development of nuclear technology, will be set up in Mianyang
City, southwest China's Sichuan Province, according to a China
News Service report on Monday.
The museum, which is now under construction, is expected to
open in April.
With a total investment of 250 million yuan (US$31 million),
the museum will be divided into four big exhibition sections,
namely nuclear technology, wind tunnel technology, computer
science, and Changhong vision technology.
As the core of the museum, the nuclear technology section
will be subdivided into five parts, namely "atom and nucleon",
"tremendous nuclear power", "application of nuclear power",
"peaceful utilization of nuclear technology", and "interactive
demonstration programs". Each part focuses on popularizing
nuclear knowledge and peaceful utilization of nuclear power and
technology.
In addition, the exhibits will also showcase the people and
touching stories behind the "two bombs and one satellite"
program. The program describes the detonation of China's first
atom bomb in 1964, which was followed by the successful launch
of a missile in 1966 and explosion of a H-bomb in 1967. The
launch of China's first satellite "Dong Fang Hong" in 1970 was a
declaration to the world that China had mastered satellite
technology.
The 30-meter-high entertainment wind tunnel with a diameter
of 12 meters, the first of its kind, will enable three to five
visitors to "fly" at the same time to experience space travel.
Besides, China's first series of computers -- Yinhe I, Yinhe II
and Digistar3 Theater -- will also be on display.
Mianyang City boasts many national-level science and
technology institutes including the Chinese Academy of
Engineering Physics, which conducted much of the research for
the "two bombs one satellite" program, and China Aerodynamics
Research and Development Center, counting many famous Chinese
scientists including Deng Jiaxian, also known as the father of
China's atom bomb, as previous in-house researchers.
(Source: China.org.cn)
Copyright 2003 Xinhua News Agency. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
13 Philadelphia Daily News: TMI's owner is now paying attention
| 01/19/2006 |
Associated Press
MIDDLETOWN, Pa. - The company that operates the Three Mile
Island nuclear power plant said it has investigated five
incidents of inattentive employees in the past two years,
including two reports in December.
AmerGen Energy Co. said it has hired an outside company to
investigate a report last month that involved a shift manager.
The company also will look into how common inattentiveness is at
the plant.
Plant employees are not allowed to be inattentive, an industry
term that can mean sleeping. The reports also involved security
guards not responding promptly to employees waiting to enter the
plant.
In each case, the employee in question was disciplined by
AmerGen, company spokesman Ralph DeSantis said. None of the
incidents affected the operation of the plant, he said.
Eric Epstein, chairman of watchdog Three Mile Island Alert,
blamed the incidents on understaffing at the plant and called
for an independent investigator to look into TMI's operations.
TMI, about 10 miles southeast of Harrisburg, was the site of the
nation's worst nuclear accident when a partial meltdown occurred
in 1979.
*****************************************************************
14 San Luis Obispo Tribune: Diablo debate needed all 11 hours
| 01/19/2006 |
Posted on Thu, Jan. 19, 2006
Viewpoint
By Sarah Christie The Tribune
Tribune, hit me again!
Smacking the county Planning Commission with a "brickbat" for
spending 11 hours discussing the proposed replacement of eight
steam generators at Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant, thereby
potentially extending the facility's lifespan by 50 years, is
just the kind of public flogging I welcome. (Opinion, Jan. 16)
While I certainly can't speak for the entire commission, my
general sense from the many people who participated in the
hearing was one of gratitude that the commission was examining
the issues in depth.
Pacific Gas and Electric Co. would love for everyone to focus
narrowly (as the brickbatter did) on the fact that they are
simply proposing to build five temporary structures and one
permanent storage building. But this ignores the woolly mammoth
in the room: the fact that the new steam generators, with a
performance life of 50 years, will cause the plant to remain on
line decades longer than it would otherwise. Had the
brickbat-wielder actually listened to the hearing, he might have
focused on the fact that by omitting any analysis of this
central fact, the environmental impact report approved by the
Public Utilities Commission was so intellectually dishonest as
to border on criminal negligence. Additionally, it completely
disregarded issues that the county Planning Department
specifically said needed to be addressed. Yet the commission was
bound by the report's flawed conclusions because staff did not
inform the Board of Supervisors of the 30-day window of
opportunity to challenge the findings.
A paper of record more concerned with watchdogging government
agencies and looking out for the public's health and welfare
might inquire as to how and by whom this decision to keep vital
information away from the board was made, instead of lambasting
commissioners for taking so much time asking pesky questions
about the adequacy of the EIR.
Better yet, one might inquire as to why the county let the PUC
take the lead on preparing the EIR in the first place? In the
past, the county has always assumed this role, as we are the
ones who live most intimately with the consequences.
Hampered as we were with a deeply flawed report, the commission
still struggled to find legally defensible ways to lessen the
effects of the project through additional permit conditions. Far
from using the hearing as a platform for "all things nuclear,"
we actually came to consensus on several key issues of public
safety, improved public access to the Port San Luis Lighthouse,
and long-term monitoring requirements. Had we been able to
continue the project to a later date, we may also have been able
to work out additional access improvements, habitat restoration
and the vital issue of an emergency escape route for the
residents of Avila Beach.
Unfortunately, PG successfully made the pitch that its project
could not absorb the slightest delay, so the project will now go
the Board of Supervisors on appeal, without any of the changes
the commission did agree on. But at least the public has had the
benefit of a thorough discussion of the issues.
So hit me with that brickbat any time, Tribune. Those bruises
I'll wear as a badge of honor!
Sarah Christie represents the 5th District on the county
Planning Commission.
*****************************************************************
15 AP Wire: Former Davis-Besse nuclear plant employees, contractor indicted
01/19/2006 |
CONNIE MABIN Associated Press
CLEVELAND - A federal grand jury charged two former Davis-Besse
nuclear plant employees and a contractor Thursday with hiding
information about serious damage to the facility from
regulators.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission inspectors found an acid leak in
2002 that nearly ate through a 6-inch steel cap on the reactor
vessel at the plant, which sits along the Lake Erie shore about
30 miles east of Toledo. It's not clear how close the plant was
to an accident when the leak was discovered, but it was the most
extensive corrosion ever seen at a U.S. nuclear reactor.
The plant was closed for two years but returned to full power in
2004. Akron-based FirstEnergy Corp., which owns Davis-Besse,
spent $600 million making repairs and buying replacement power
because of the shutdown.
Company and NRC investigations concluded that the rust hole had
been growing for at least four years and that Davis-Besse's
managers had ignored the evidence because they were focused on
profits rather than safety.
The indictment accuses the trio of misleading regulators in the
fall of 2001 into believing that the plant was safe so
inspectors would delay visits until the spring of 2002, during a
scheduled shutdown for refueling.
Indicted were former engineering design manager David Geisen,
former engineer Andrew Siemaszko and Rodney Cook, a consultant
who was working for Davis-Besse.
There were no Ohio telephone listings for Siemaszko and Geisen.
Messages were left at numbers listed under Rodney Cook.
Siemaszko was responsible for making sure the reactor vessel
head was cleaned and inspected. The NRC has said he deliberately
provided false information about the plant's conditions.
Siemaszko has said he was wrongly fired and that he had told
supervisors the reactor needed to be cleaned. He said managers
rejected his requests.
Both Siemaszko and Geisen were barred by the NRC from working in
the nuclear industry for five years.
All three signed off on reports from the company to the NRC in
2001 that concealed information about problems with the reactor
vessel head, where inspectors eventually found the cracks and
leak, the indictment states.
The indictment also accuses the employees of omitting important
facts about previous company inspections, including the fact
that employees had trouble accessing the equipment that needed
inspecting because of leaks.
The three also are accused of omitting parts of a videotape that
was sent to the NRC that was to show inspections of the reactor
vessel head but parts showing "substantial deposits of boric
acid" were edited out, according to the indictment.
FirstEnergy also agreed to pay a record $5.45 million fine for
failing to stop the acid leak.
Davis-Besse spokesman Richard Wilkins said Thursday that he was
not aware of the indictments.
"Those are former employees so I couldn't comment on it anyway,"
he said.
According to the U.S. Department of Energy, Davis-Besse provides
70,160 megawatt hours of energy annually.
FirstEnergy, the nation's fourth-largest investor-owned utility,
has 16 power plants and 4.4 million customers in New Jersey,
Ohio and Pennsylvania.
The case was assigned to U.S. District Court Judge David A. Katz
in Toledo.
---
(Associated Press writers M.R. Kropko in Cleveland and John
Seewer in Toledo contributed to this report.)
ON THE NET
Nuclear Regulatory Commission:
FirstEnergy Corp
*****************************************************************
16 NRC: NRC, Constellation to Discuss License Renewal Inspection Conducted at Nine Mile Point
Nuclear Power Plant
News Release - Region I - 2006-00 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY
COMMISSION
Office of Public Affairs, Region I No. I-06-003
January 19, 2006 CONTACT: Diane Screnci (610) 337-5330 Neil
A. Sheehan (610) 337-5331 E-mail:
opa1@nrc.gov
Point nuclear power plant will be discussed on Thursday, Jan.
26, at a meeting between NRC officials and the facilitys
management. The Aging Management Program Team Inspection is part
of an ongoing NRC review of a license renewal application for
the plant, which is located in Scriba, N.Y., and operated by
Constellation Generation Group.
The meeting is scheduled to begin at 6:30 p.m. at the Town of
Scriba Assembly Hall, 42 Creamery Road in Oswego, N.Y. Members
of the public are invited to observe and will have an
opportunity to pose questions to NRC officials after the
business portion but before the meeting is adjourned.
In May 2004, Constellation applied to the NRC for a 20-year
extension of the operating licenses for the Nine Mile Point
units. NRC reviews of license renewal applications usually take
about 22 months if there is no hearing involved and about 30
months if there is a hearing. However, in the case of Nine Mile
Point, the NRC staff announced in March 2005 that Constellation
had requested a 90-day grace period to allow the company to
address issues involving information provided in the plants
application. Those issues were resolved and the company
submitted an amended license renewal application, with the NRC
staff review resuming in July 2005.
One important aspect of the NRC license renewal process is to
ensure that a plant manages the effects of aging equipment
through an effective monitoring and maintenance program. Such a
program is necessary to permit safe operation for an additional
20 years beyond its initial license period of 40 years.
The current operating license for Nine Mile Point 1 is due to
expire on Aug. 22, 2009, while the current operating license for
Nine Mile Point 2 is scheduled to terminate on Oct. 31, 2026.
A copy of the Nine Mile Point license renewal application is
available via the NRCs web site at:
www.nrc.gov/reactors/operating/licensing/renewal/applications/nin
e-mile-pt.html. Additional information about the license renewal
process is available at:
www.nrc.gov/reactors/operating/licensing/renewal.html.
Last revised Thursday, January 19, 2006
*****************************************************************
17 iafrica.com: sa news Koeberg unit down for three months
CAPE TOWN
Lynn Bolin
Thu, 19 Jan 2006
The faulty Unit 1 at Eskom's Koeberg nuclear power station
outside of Cape Town is likely to remain shut down for a minimum
of three months while Eskom works to make repairs and find
replacement parts for the generator, Eskom CEO Thulani Gcabashe
disclosed on Thursday.
He was speaking at a media briefing at Koeberg, where he also
confirmed that a bolt had been responsible for extensive damage
to the generator of Unit 1 at Koeberg.
Unit 1 had been shut down for scheduled maintenance in
December, with Unit 2 at Koeberg supplying the majority of the
Western Cape's power supply. As the unit was returning to
service on December 25, however, generator problems were
experienced that caused an automatic shutdown, and the unit has
remained out of service ever since.
Gcabashe revealed that the preliminary results of an
investigation by a team from Eskom and experts from French
energy group Alstom had determined that an 8cm-long bolt,
normally found on the outside of the unit and used to close the
covers, had caused extensive damage to the generator's rotor and
stator, as well as to more than half of the stator bars
(electrical wiring inside the circular stator unit) and to the
cooling systems of the generator.
"We are unsure for now how the bolt got there, but this is the
subject of the ongoing investigation," said Gcabashe. "We
haven't ruled out anything, including sabotage. It is most
unlikely to be due to a lack of proper maintenance procedures,
but if it is established that negligence is the cause, some form
of discipline would be called for, including even instituting
criminal charges."
Eskom had decided that the best and quickest way forward would
be to find a replacement rotor and stator from similar power
stations in Europe ones that were currently spare, either new
or used, the CEO explained. He was unsure of the cost of the
large equipment. At the same time, they would attempt to repair
the damage, the cost of which was also unkown.
"Our best estimate at this point is that it will take a minimum
of three months to do the repairs and return the unit back to
service," he said. "It is, however, possible that the repair
could take longer than three months. This will be announced once
established."
Currently, the Western Cape's electricity supply is dependent
on Koeberg's Unit 2 and transmission transfers from power
stations in the north of the country. This unit is currently
running well and was being closely monitored, Gcabashe
confirmed. To meet morning and evening peak demand requirements,
additional back-up and emergency generation based in the Western
Cape is being used.
Unit 2 is currently scheduled for a shutdown for routine
maintenance and re-fueling in March, but Gcabashe explained that
Eskom believed this shutdown could be delayed by a further two
months if necessary, subject to the approval of the National
Nuclear Regulator. The utility had not yet decided what the
shutdown timeframe for Unit 2 would be, as it depended on how
quickly it was able to find the spare parts and make Unit 1
operational again.
He cautioned that the risk of further power outages in the
region had risen, however, due to Eskom's reliance on only one
unit for baseload power generation over the next three months.
"Should there be any faults in Unit 2, though, there will be
faults in the system," warned Gcabashe. "Vigilance has been
heightened to ensure this doesn't happen.
"As things stand we will have enough power for the current
period, and Unit 1 should be back in service before winter," he
added.
"I want to extend a sincere apology to our customers in the
Cape for any uncertainty this has caused, and would like to
reassure them that this matter is receiving attention at the
highest level," concluded Gcabashe.
Eskom has already invested or has plans to invest a total of
R5.7-billion in projects to improve the generation and
transmission of electricity in the Western Cape. The parastatal
spent R657-million to improve transmission capacity north of its
D'Aar station and some R1.1-billion on transmission capacity
south of the station between 2002 and 2004.
A 463 million rand project to strengthen the southern Cape's
transmission grid had been approved in April 2005 and was
expected to be completed in May 2007.
Finally, construction had just gotten underway on two new open
cycle gas turbines for new power plants at Atlantis (outside
Cape Town) and Mossel Bay at a combined cost of R3.5-billion.
These plants are expected to supply an additional 1000 megawatts
of power to the region once they come on line in June 2007.
I-Net Bridge
Copyright 2002-2005 iafrica.com
*****************************************************************
18 Xinhua: African gov't committed to developing nuclear project
www.xinhuanet.com
www.chinaview.cn 2006-01-20 00:28:55
JOHANNESBURG, Jan. 19 (Xinhuanet) -- The South African
government remains committed to developing the Pebble Bed
Modular Reactor (PBMR), the Public Enterprises Department said
on Thursday.
The government believed the nuclear power plant would prove
a safe, cost-competitive solution to fast-growing local,
regional and global energy requirements.
The department said that the government therefore believed
it would have the right technology at the right time. The world
market for new power stations was 100 billion U.S. dollars a
year.
"A three percent share of this market, which the government
believes is achievable, would make this project highly
profitable and create almost 56,000 jobs locally," it added.
Pebble-bed reactor technology uses spheres or pebbles of
coated uranium dioxide encased in graphite. When fully loaded,
the reactor holds about 452,000 fuel spheres each of which is 60
cm in diameter.
The nuclear reaction that takes place in the reactor is
cooled by helium gas, which enters the top of a vessel at
approximately 500 DegC, flows down between the spheres and
leaves the bottom of the vessel having been heated to 900 DegC.
This heated gas then passes through a gas turbine that
drives an electricity generator. Enditem
Copyright 2003 Xinhua News Agency. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
19 NRC: Sunshine Act Meeting Notice
FR Doc 06-524
[Federal Register: January 19, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 12)]
[Notices] [Page 3127-3128] From the Federal Register Online via
GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr19ja06-124]
Agency Holding The Meetings: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Date: Weeks of January 16, 23, 30; February 6, 13, 20, 2006.
Place: Commissioners' Conference Room, 11555 Rockville Pike,
Rockville, Maryland.
Status: Public and closed.
Matters To Be Considered: Week of January 16, 2006 Tuesday,
January 17, 2006 1:30 p.m. Discussion of Security Issues
(Closed--Ex. 1 & 3.
[[Page 3128]] Week of January 23, 2006--Tentative There are no
meetings scheduled for the Week of January 23, 2006.
Week of January 30, 2006--Tentative Tuesday, January 31, 2006
9:30 a.m. Briefing on Strategic Workforce Planning and Human
Capital Initiatives (Closed--Ex. 2). Wednesday, February 1, 2006
9:30 a.m. Discussion of Security Issues (Closed--Ex. 1 & 3). Week
of February 6, 2006--Tentative Monday, February 6, 2006 9:30 a.m.
Briefing on Materials Degradation Issues and Fuel Reliability
(Public Meeting). (Contact: Jennifer Uhle, 301-415-6200.) This
meeting will be Webcast live at the Web
address--http://www.nrc.gov .
2 p.m. Discussion of Security Issues (Closed--Ex. 1 & 3).
Wednesday, February 8, 2006 9:30 a.m. Briefing on Office of
Nuclear Materials Safety and Safeguards (NMSS) Programs,
Performance, and Plans--Materials Safety (Public Meeting).
(Contact: Teresa Mixon, 301-415-7474; Derk Widmayer, 301-415-
6677).
This meeting will be Webcast live at the Web
address--http://www.nrc.gov .
1:30 p.m. Briefing on Office of Research (RES) Programs,
Performance and Plans (Public Meeting). (Contact: Gene Carpenter,
301-415-7333).
This meeting will be Webcast live at the Web
address--http://www.nrc.gov .
Week of February 13, 2006--Tentative Tuesday, February 14, 2006 2
p.m. Briefing on Office of Nuclear Materials Safety and
Safeguards (NMSS) Programs, Performance, and Plans--Waste Safety
(Public Meeting). (Contact: Teresa Mixon, 301-415-7474; Derek
Widmayer, 301-415-6677).
This meeting will be Webcast live at the Web
address--http://www.nrc.gov .
Wednesday, February 15, 2006 9:30 a.m. Briefing on Status of OCFO
Programs, Performance, and Plans (Public Meeting). (Contact:
Edward New, 301-415-5646). This meeting will be Webcast live at
the Web address--http://www.nrc.gov .
Week of February 20, 2006--Tentative There are no meetings
scheduled for the Week of February, 2006.
*The schedule for Commission meetings is subject to change on
short notice. To verify the status of meetings call
(recording)--(301) 415- 1292. Contact person for more
information: Michelle Schroll, (301) 415- 1662.
* * * * * The NRC Commission Meeting Schedule can be found on the
Internet at:
http//http://www.nrc.gov/what-we-do/policy-making/schedule.html.
* * * * * The NRC provides reasonable accommodation to
individuals with disabilities where appropriate. If you need a
reasonable accommodation to participate in these public meetings,
or need this meeting notice or the transcript or other
information from the public meetings in another format (e.g.,
braille, large print), please notify the NRC's Disability Program
Coordinator, August Spector, at 301-415-7080, TDD: 301-415- 2100,
or by e-mail at aks@nrc.gov. Determinations on requests for
reasonable accommodation will be made on a case-by-case basis.
* * * * * This notice is distributed by mail to several hundred
subscribers; if you no longer wish to receive it, or would like
to be added to the distribution, please contact the Office of the
Secretary, Washington, DC 20555 (301-415-1969). In addition,
distribution of this meeting notice over the Internet system is
available. If you are interested in receiving this Commission
meeting schedule electronically, please send an electronic
message to dkw@nrc.gov. Dated: January 12, 2006.
R. Michelle Schroll, Office of the Secretary.
[FR Doc. 06-524 Filed 1-17-06; 11:15 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-M
*****************************************************************
20 NRC: Regulatory Information Conference
The Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR) will join forces
with the Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research (RES) to provide
challenging technical and regulatory topics, along with research
activities and issues, to make RIC 2006 the best ever!
The 18th Annual RIC will be held Tuesday March 7, Wednesday
March 8, and Thursday March 9, 2006 at the Bethesda
North
Marriott Hotel and Conference Center. Opposite Metro's White
Flint Station on the Red Line and diagonal to NRC's
Headquarters, the hotel is located just off Route 355 (Rockville
Pike) at 5701 Marinelli Road, North Bethesda, Maryland 20852.
The conference will be open to the public and there is no
conference fee.
See the following for detailed conference information:
+ Conference Program
+ Keynote Speakers
+ Conference Registration
+ On-Line Registrant List
+ Sponsored Events
+ Hotel Reservations and Area Information
+ Travel Information
+ Past RIC Information
+ Frequently Asked Questions
+ Contact Us About RIC
Throughout the RIC pages, you will see icons. The Exit icon is
placed directly after an external link to let you know that the
link is going to take you away from the NRC pages. For more
information, refer to the Site Disclaimer.
Last revised Tuesday, January 17, 2006
*****************************************************************
21 SABCnews.com: Govt remains committed to nuclear project
South African Broadcasting Corporation Copyright 2000 - 2005
SABC
January 19, 2006, 10:15
The South African government remains committed to developing the
Pebble Bed Modular Reactor (PBMR), the public enterprises
department said today. Although under fire in the press, the
government believed the nuclear power plant would prove a safe,
cost-competitive solution to fast-growing local, regional and
global energy requirements.
The PBMR design was based on a German power plant that ran for
21-years and could "therefore hardly be termed experimental".
Nuclear power was enjoying a resurgence in popularity because it
was cost-competitive and the only power source capable of
delivering clean energy economically and in large volumes. The
government therefore believed it would have the right technology
at the right time. The department said the world market for new
power stations was $100 billion a year.
Project highly profitable
"A 3% share of this market, which the government believes is
achievable, would make this project highly profitable and create
almost 56 000 jobs locally. The potential rewards from this
project are so great that they far outweigh the risks of
failure, as some critics would like to believe," the public
enterprises department said.
Pebble-bed reactor technology uses spheres or pebbles of coated
uranium dioxide encased in graphite. When fully loaded, the
reactor holds about 452 000 fuel spheres each of which is 60cm
in diameter.
The nuclear reaction that takes place in the reactor is cooled
by helium gas, which enters the top of a vessel at approximately
500C, flows down between the spheres and leaves the bottom of
the vessel having been heated to 900C. This heated gas then
passes through a gas turbine that drives an electricity
generator. - Sapa
*****************************************************************
22 NZ: Scoop: Ecologist: Taking The Wind Out Of Nuclear Power
Thursday, 19 January 2006, 4:50 pm
Opinion: Pacific Ecologist
FROM PACIFIC ECOLOGIST, issue 11 - pp 51 - 57.
learning from the U.K. experience - (Part one)
Pacific Ecologist issue 11 summer 2005/2006
PETER BUNYARD exposes the dangerous and uneconomic reality
behind the myths of nuclear energys cheapness, safety and low
greenhouse gas emissions.
What can the nuclear industry do for us?
Advocates have long seen nuclear power as the saviour of
industrial society, delivering unlimited energy, cheaply and
safely. Its now being promoted as the answer to the growing
global energy crisis, apparently providing an attractive
alternative to fossil fuels, while also reducing their damaging
influence on global climate.[1] For example, the World Energy
Council recently said: Nuclear power is of fundamental
importance for most WEC members because it is the only energy
supply which already has a very large and well diversified
resource (and potentially unlimited resource if breeders are
used), is quasi-indigenous, does not emit greenhouse gases, and
has either favourable or at most slightly unfavourable
economics. In fact should the climate change threat become a
reality, nuclear is the only existing power technology which
could replace coal in base load.[2]
But before we become dependent on nuclear power to solve our
ever-increasing need for energy, we should check the basic facts
and make the relevant comparisons.
Conservation, greenhouse gas and nuclear plants
Firstly, lets consider the benign potential of energy
conservation. Amory Lovins, William Keepin and Gregory Kats
(Energy Policy, December 1988) of the Rocky Mountain Institute
have shown energy conservation strategies are far more effective
in reducing carbon dioxide emissions than constructing power
stations of whatever type. Nuclear power only produces
electricity and can only possibly displace electricity plants,
not the bulk of CO2 emissions which come from cars, trucks,
factory smokestacks and home furnaces. ADVERTISEMENT
They also looked at the costs of nuclear versus improved energy
efficiency and found every dollar invested in energy efficiency
displaces 6.8 times more carbon than the same investment in
nuclear power. To the extent investments in nuclear power
divert funds away from efficiency, the study concludes, the
pursuit of a nuclear response to greenhouse warming would
effectively exacerbate the problem. Obviously it would be much
better to replace investment in nuclear power with investment in
energy efficiency, for example insulating drafty buildings or
installing energy-efficient light bulbs.
Is nuclear power a realistic option?
Today, 440 nuclear reactors, with a capacity totalling 363
gigawatts (109 watts), provide 16 percent of electricity used
worldwide,[3] and 6 percent of total energy worldwide. The
reactors need about 67,000 tonnes of natural uranium annually.
Uranium, like petroleum is a finite resource. Once the
high-grade uranium ores are exhausted, the energy required to
extract and process the more common but much poorer grade ores
for continuing use in nuclear reactors will result in the
production of more CO2 than if fossil fuels were burned
directly. Hence, a massive worldwide nuclear programme will add
cumulatively to energy demands, rather than solve them.[4]
+ Current uranium reserves, according to 2003 data from the
World Nuclear Association, are about 3.5 million tonnes, enough
to last 50 years but only at present consumption rates. If large
numbers of nuclear reactors were to be built to satisfy our
ever-increasing demand for electricity, reserves of high-grade
ore would be rapidly exhausted, leaving huge quantities of
low-grade ores most of which would cost more energy to utilise
than it would deliver in electricity. Even if useful uranium
resources were found to be much larger than now estimated, it
would only satisfy global demand for several decades and then
the world would be left with huge quantities of radioactive
waste with no source of energy to sequester it safely. [4]
+ According to detailed research published this year (2005),
if all the worlds electricity, currently 55 exajoules (1018
joules) or 15,000 terawatt(1012 watts)-hours, could be generated
by nuclear reactors, the worlds known uranium reserves would
last only 3.5 years, if full dismantling costs of nuclear plants
are included. [4]
+ As 2003 data from the World Nuclear Association shows, there
is not even enough uranium left to provide the worlds current
annual total electrical production of 55 EJ for a decade, even
if the large amount of energy needed to properly dismantle the
reactor is also used, thus leaving the dangers of radioactive
waste pollution of the environment for future generations to
bear. [4]
+ A disturbing feature of the cost of nuclear power is many
of the costs will have to be paid by unborn generations, who
will not have benefitted from the nuclear-produced energy - see
section below, Is nuclear power safe? A great deal of fossil
fuel is needed after a nuclear power plant has stopped producing
energy. To date none of these huge debts incurred by existing
nuclear power plants have been paid. [4]
+ Nuclear power actually requires large amounts of fossil
fuel, carbon dioxide-producing energy, used in the mining of
uranium, its milling and enrichment; in the building of nuclear
plants and reactors, the transport and storage of large
quantities of highly dangerous radioactive waste for millennia;
and in the decommissioning and final dismantling of nuclear
plants. An analysis shown in the study Nuclear Power, The Energy
Balance of the complete lifecycle of nuclear power, shows
generating electricity from nuclear power emits 20-40% of the
carbon dioxide per kiloWatt hour of a gas-fired system. [4]But
this is a temporary situation, true only as long as rich,
high-grade uranium ores are available. Once high-grade ores are
exhausted, and lower grades used, the carbon dioxide emissions
from nuclear power will increase until more energy is used than
produced.
+ Nuclear power also emits other greenhouse gases besides
carbon dioxide with far stronger global warming consequences,
such as CFCs. - see article, Nuclear power creates potent
climate warming gas by Dr Caldicott.
+ Seawater contains 3.3 milligram of uranium per cubic metre
of seawater and has been considered a possible future source for
energy use. Total seawater volume is estimated at 1.37 billion
cubic kilometres, with the oceans containing around 4.5 billion
tonnes of uranium. Its technically possible to extract uranium
from seawater but enormous, prohibitive energy and chemical
inputs would be necessary as the uranium is in such dilute
quantities in the vast oceans. [4] Existing research shows
uranium from seawater cant be considered a practicable option
for the global energy supply. Energy consumption of the
extraction processes would equal the energy content of the
uranium.
Aside from the scarcity of high-grade nuclear ore, if the world
were to embark on the construction of nuclear plants to replace
all coal-fired power plants, it would require one gigawatt-sized
nuclear reactor to be built every two and a half days for 38
years. According to William Keepin, [5],[6] in his 1990 report
for Greenpeace, 5,000 nuclear plants would be needed to displace
the estimated 9.4 terawatts of coal required for electricity
generation in the world by 2025. With highly optimistic
assumptions about capital costs and plant reliability, total
electricity generation costs (1990 US dollars) would average
$525 billion per year.
Lengthy construction time
Nuclear power has a record of long construction times, measured
in decades. The last reactor to come on-line in the United
States took 23 years to complete. Fifteen years has been the
average time taken in many Eastern European countries using USSR
technology. In France, the average time taken from construction
to operation is 8 years.
In the 1970s, nuclear physicist Alvin Weinberg, then director of
the U.S. governments Oak Ridge Nuclear Laboratories in
Tennessee, called his vision of a future fuelled by nuclear
energy a Faustian Bargain. He envisaged a future time when
fossil fuels would be in short supply and too expensive to fuel
a consumer society. On the basis of the 1970s average U.S.
standard of living becoming the standard for all inhabitants of
the world, and taking into account, a population expanded to 8
billion by 2025, he reckoned we would need tens of thousands of
large fast reactors worldwide, operating simultaneously, as
cheaper sources of uranium would by then have long since
vanished. A way to deal with the problem, he thought would be to
bombard the commonest uranium isotope (uranium-238) with
neutrons, so converting the uranium into plutonium. Fast
reactors are so-called because they operate with neutrons that
have not been reduced in speed by a moderator (material in the
reactor core). [7]
Colossal threat of fast breeders
In 1995, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC),
published a report which considered several options to mitigate
climate change, including global expansion of nuclear power. [8]
(The IPCC consists of several hundred scientists and
contributors, recognised internationally as experts in their
field, and was convened by the U.N. and World Meteorological
Society to assess climate change.)
The IPCC report assumed installed nuclear capacity would grow
from 1995s 330 GW capacity to about 3,300 GW in 2100, with a
tenfold increase in nuclear reactors over this century. But they
found there would also be a huge increase in spent nuclear fuel
and radioactive waste generated. The IPCC calculated if this
plan was followed, it would lead to 6.3 million tons of
accumulated spent fuel by 2100. They also analysed the
possibility of reprocessing, separating plutonium from the spent
nuclear fuel, for use in Fast Breeder Reactors, burning
plutonium instead of uranium as fuel. Accumulated volumes of
high-level nuclear waste for disposal would be around 200,000 m3
by 2100. Between 0.1 - 3 million kg/year of plutonium would be
generated, depending on the mix of technologies used, resulting
in a plutonium inventory of between 50-100 million kg. They
concluded the security threat created by such massive amounts of
plutonium were colossal. A nuclear bomb powerful enough to
destroy a city requires only 10 kg of plutonium.
Credible claims fast breeders would provide energy essentially
forever are no longer heard, as Storm van Leeuwen and Philip
Smith say. [9] Programmes to develop fast-neutron breeders
demand huge investment, not only of money, but of fossil fuels.
While it would be unwise to claim breeders can never be a viable
energy source, after half a century of failed attempts in the
U.S. the U.K. France and Germany, the dreams appear to be pipe
dreams. Nuclear fusion is another pipe dream. Even optimists
dont expect the enormous technical problems to be conquered in
an acceptable timeframe.
Is nuclear power safe?
+ Reprocessing spent fuel over the past 40 years, at
Sellafield in Cumbria and similar plants at Cap de la Hague over
the Channel in Normandy, has led to the spread of radioactive
material, such as tritium and carbon-14 into the Irish Sea and
in waters around the Channel Islands. Many, including the Irish
government, believe significant increases in childhood cancers
around Sellafield and Downs syndrome in Ireland, have resulted
from radioactive contamination. [10 a-e] Imagine the long-term
consequences of a world deriving its energy primarily from
plutonium.
+ Currently, in Western Europe, with numerous nuclear power
plants, rivers are used for disposing of the cooling water from
the reactors of nuclear power plants, as well as being used for
drinking water. The cooling water becomes highly-tritium
radioactive. The long-term effects and biochemical reactions of
tritium and carbon-14 in living organisms are not understood. A
sustainable energy system would require all tritium be
sequestered from the biosphere. But this has not been done
because of the huge costs of trying to safely keep very large
numbers of containers with tritiated waste, which would also
require a similar immense use of energy. [4] /li>
+ A leaked document from the UK Parliamentary Office of
Science &Technology reported by New Scientist magazine on
26/5/04, said a terror attack such as a large plane crashing
into a reactor could release as much radioactivity as the
Chernobyl accident in 1986, while a crash into waste tanks at
Sellafield in Cumbria could cause at worst, several million
fatalities. According to a 16/5/05 BBC report there are 10,000
tonnes of high and intermediate level radioactive waste in the
U.K., 90% of which is stored at Cumbria's Sellafield nuclear
plant, until another solution can be found. This is set to grow
to half a million tonnes of nuclear waste by the end of this
century even without any new plants being built. Do we really
want to generate more nuclear reactors producing even more waste
when we don't know what to do with all the waste that is
building up? asked M.P. Mr Michael Meacher.
+ Other reports reveal although no-fly zones around nuclear
sites in the U.K. have been doubled since the Sept 11 attack in
the US., there have been many breeches by both military and
civilian aircraft straying into the no-fly zones. An accident
could also claim millions of lives. The 2004 leaked report
acknowledges the risks are difficult to assess because so much
information - including operators' estimates of the health
impacts of radiation releases - is kept secret. But it concludes
it would be possible for terrorists to cause a radioactive
release - and that the UK's current emergency arrangements may
not be sufficient to cope. It is totally unacceptable that the
information we need to judge the risks is kept confidential, and
that we have to take so much on trust, says Llew Smith, a Welsh
MP investigating the risks of nuclear attacks by terrorists.
+ Uranium-238, the most prevalent isotope in uranium ore, has
a half life of about 4.5 billion years. Its associated decay
products, thorium-230 and radium -226 will remain hazardous for
thousands of years. Current U.S. regulations only cover a period
of just 1000 years for mill tailings, although the half lives of
the principal radioactive components of mill tailings,
thorium-230 and radium -226 are about 75,000 years and 1,600
years respectively. This means future generations, far beyond
the promised protection limits of these regulations will face
significant risks from our uranium mining, milling and
processing activities. [11a]
+ Continuing to store depleted uranium hexafluoride, DUF6, the
by-product of uranium enrichment, in cylinders requires constant
maintenance and monitoring because the estimated lifetime of the
cylinders is measured in decades, whereas the half-life of the
main constituent of DU, uranium-238 is about 4.5 billion years.
Storage cylinders must be regularly inspected for evidence of
corrosion and leakage. Long-term storage presents environmental,
health and safety hazards, due to the instability of UF6. When
exposed to moist air, it reacts with water in the air to produce
uranyl fluoride and hydrogen fluoride, both of which are toxic.
[11b]
+ Sloppy maintenance in the nuclear industry raises serious
concerns. Radioactive material leaked unnoticed for eight months
from a fractured pipe from a fractured pipe for eight months
from August 2004 until April 2005, at the British Nuclear Fuels
thermal oxide reprocessing plant at Sellafield. [12] No one
noticed concentrated nitric acid, containing 20 tonnes of
uranium and 160 kilograms of plutonium spewing onto the concrete
floor. No alarm bells rang. Spillage of highly radioactive
nuclear waste containing enough fissile material for several
nuclear weapons does not inspire confidence.
+ The recent sacking of international radiation expert, Keith
Baverstock, from the UK government's Committee on Radioactive
Waste Management, highlights continuing problems in disposing
dangerous radioactive nuclear waste. Baverstock and another
committee member, David Ball, told the responsible minister, the
Committee was: deciding the fate of hazardous material, thought
by some to be the most dangerous in the world, in the way one
might decide on the location of next year's village fete. [13]
(Observer, 24 April, 2005).
+ Huge costs of shoring up the nuclear plants when equipment
fails are another concern. On 26/3/05, Rob Edwards, in New
Scientist, reported British Energy unexpectedly discovered
cracks in the graphite cores of its Advanced Gas Reactor (AGR).
The blocks have the double function of moderating the nuclear
fission process and providing structural channels for nuclear
fuel and control rods. Potential failure of the graphite
compromises safety, so its highly likely the UKs 14 AGRs,
currently supplying nearly one-fifth of the U.K.s electricity,
will be shut down prematurely, instead of lasting to 2020 or
beyond. Use of fossil fuel reserve capacity to replace the
damaged AGRs will inevitably lead to a surge in greenhouse gas
emissions.
Nuclear industry subsidies &deceptions
More recently, on 18/7/05, The Guardian reported the government
paid a subsidy of 184m, for spent fuel liabilities, in March
to help prop-up British Energy, (already bailed out of
bankruptcy in 2003). The liabilities result from long-standing
reprocessing contracts with state-owned British Nuclear Fuels,
at Sellafield in Cumbria. BNFL is paid to take away used fuel
and dissolve it in acid to recover the plutonium and uranium.
For the privatised British Energy this is an expensive,
unnecessary process as it has no use for the plutonium and
uranium. BNFL is therefore paid to store it. As the reprocessing
contracts would damage the viability of British Energy, the
government has agreed to pick up the bill for this work and the
storing of the waste until the contracts expire in 2086. The
subsidy means most of the costs of dealing with the highly
radioactive and dangerous spent fuel taken out of British
Energy's advanced gas-cooled reactors will fall on the taxpayer.
The 184m payment, or similar amounts, will be repeated every
year to pay the costs of British Energy's contracts with BNFL.
In effect, the company's shareholders will be able to get
profits from the generation of electricity without having to pay
the cost of disposing of the fuel afterwards. The payment will
appear as operating income from customers in BNFL's accounts,
whereas, although not revealed in BNFL's annual accounts
published in June, it is in effect a direct payment from the
taxpayer via British Energy. The government's use of taxpayer's
money to prop up both British Energy and BNFL may prove more
embarrassing. The money goes directly to subsidising the
reprocessing plant at Sellafield, shut down in April because of
a leak. So it is being paid for a suspended service which may
never be able to be provided.
In the past and before privatisation of the electricity supply
industry, the U.K.s state-owned Electricity Generating Boards
sought to maintain the fiction of nuclear powers cheapness.
They managed to convince successive governments, but not the
Committee for the Study of the Economics of Nuclear Electricity
(CSENE) who unravelled the distortions and assumptions used. In
its 1981 report the committee lambasted the Central Electricity
Generating Board (CEGB) for using discredited accounting methods
to promote nuclear power over other systems, such as holding to
historic costs rather than inflation-adjusted ones. Since all
U.K. nuclear power stations had experienced massive cost
overruns, historic accounting minimised generating costs and
prejudiced results favourably against other forms of electricity
generation.
Year after year, in its annual reports, the CEGB declared
nuclear power gave the cheapest electricity. In fact, the
reverse was true as the industry was being hugely subsidised by
coal-fired generation.
As the CSENE report stated:
The Generating costs of nuclear power stations in the UK, based
on conventional criteria are, and have always been, greater than
those of contemporary coal-fired plant. Add to those costs of
nuclear power, the costs of ensuring obsolete plants are
properly dismantled; that environmental contamination with the
radioactive wastes is kept to a minimum; that adequate steps are
taken to ensure that accidents involving major releases of
radioactivity are avoided; that full insurance costs are taken
into account, then clearly nuclear power becomes wholly
uneconomic.
Meanwhile, in speculating about future generating costs from a
new nuclear power station, such as proposed for Sizewell, the
Electricity Board devised all manner of accounting sleights of
hand to prove the country would save money by bringing them on
stream well ahead of any shortfall in generating capacity.
Huge costs make nuclear industry unprofitable
The CSENE report showed, in sharp contradiction to the Boards
analysis, that a station such as Sizewell B would cost 2
billion more (1980's money) over its lifetime than a
comparable-sized conventional thermal power station such as Drax
B in Yorkshire. Include inflation and cheaper electricity
generation from natural gas, from imported coal, or even better
from combined cycle plants which convert fossil fuel heat into
electricity more than twice as efficiently and comparative
lifetime losses from operating one new nuclear plant could top
5 billion. Costs of pursuing the nuclear option are simply
enormous.
Twenty years on, the current financial crisis facing the nuclear
industry, despite having its capital costs largely written off,
is proof of CSENEs original analysis.
Just how unprofitable the industry is, became embarrassingly
clear after the government sold its nuclear assets. In 1996, for
1.5 billion, newly created British Energy acquired seven
Advanced Gas Reactor (AGR) stations and the countrys only
commercial Pressurized Water Reactor (PWR). Actual construction
costs amounted to more than 50 billion, with more than 3
billion recently spent on the newly commissioned Sizewell PWR.
The government sell-off of what was to become the U.K.s largest
electricity producer might have seemed a give-away at the time,
but, in 2002, having to compete for electricity sales against
non-nuclear energy generators, British Energy found its losses
piling up. [14] In less than a year, in the biggest write-off of
capital in the UK, the companys market value plummeted to
little more than 100 million. Basically British Energy could
not go on trading and had to call on government to salvage it.
If British Energy had been generating electricity from any other
source, coal for instance, or even wind-power, the government
would have let it go to the wall, but despite complaints of
favouritism from non-nuclear companies, in 2002 the government
agreed to loan 410 million to British Energy, shortly after
raising it to 650 million. (Additionally, Energy Minister Brian
Wilson had told Parliament on 27/1/02 that government would
provide the 200 million for the decommissioning fund.)
Such support for the nuclear industry was economic nonsense to
Dale Vince, managing director of Ecotricity. In an interview
with Terry Macalistair of The Guardian (19/9/02), he said: If
we were given 410 million instead of British Energy, we could
have built enough onshore wind energy to power 10 percent of the
countrys electricity needs.
&&
SIDEBAR: PROBLEMS WITH NEW NUCLEAR HOPE - THORIUM
Thorium, a naturally occurring radioactive metal, as well as
uranium, can be used as fuel in a nuclear reactor. Given a start
with some other fissile material (U-235 or Pu-239), a breeding
cycle similar to but more efficient than that with U-238 and
plutonium (in slow-neutron reactors) can be set up. The Th-232
absorbs a neutron to become Th-233 which normally decays to
protactinium-233 and then U-233. The irradiated fuel can then be
unloaded from the reactor, the U-233 separated from the thorium,
and fed back into another reactor as part of a closed fuel cycle.
Problems include the high cost of fuel fabrication due partly to
the high radioactivity of U-233 which is always contaminated
with traces of U-232; the similar problems in recycling thorium
due to highly radioactive Th-228; some weapons proliferation
risk of U-233; and the technical problems (not yet
satisfactorily solved) in reprocessing. Much development work is
still required before the thorium fuel cycle can be
commercialised, and the effort required seems unlikely while (or
where) abundant uranium is available.
Thorium, abundantly found in Australia and India is about 3
times more abundant than uranium. The hitch with using thorium
as a fuel is that breeding must occur before any power can be
extracted from it, and that requires neutrons. Some engineers
have proposed using particle accelerators to generate the needed
neutrons, but this process is hugely costly, and the only
practical scheme at the moment is to combine the thorium with
conventional nuclear fuels (made up of either plutonium or
enriched uranium or both), the fissioning of which provides the
neutrons to start things off.
Previous work on thorium elsewhere in the world did not lead to
its adoption, largely because its performance in water reactors,
such as the first core at the Indian Point power station, did
not live up to expectations. Given this history, it may come as
a surprise that thorium-based nuclear fuels are once again being
considered, this time as the means to stem the potential
proliferation of nuclear weapons. Using thorium to prevent
plutonium buildup, requires the fuel to be configured
differently than in most past experiments. Those trials
incorporated highly enriched uranium (now discouraged because of
proliferation worries) and presupposed the spent fuel would be
reprocessed to extract its fissile contents. Neither practice is
now envisaged. The thorium-based fuel assemblies currently being
designed are different from past examples in other ways too. For
example, they can withstand greater exposure to the heat and
radiation inside the core of a reactor, without exploding, which
allows more of the fertile thorium-232 to be converted into
fissile uranium-233. But whether enough energy to generate
neutrons can be supplied by a particle accelerator on the scale
required is an unanswered question, as is whether any government
is willing to take on the risks involved in financing such a
gigantic project.
DANGERS - Powdered thorium metal is often pyrophoric and should
be handled carefully. Thorium disintegrates with the eventual
production of thoron, an isotope of radon (220-Rn). Radon gas
is a radiation hazard. Good ventilation of areas where thorium
is stored or handled is therefore essential. Exposure to thorium
in the air can lead to increased risk of cancers of the lung,
pancreas and blood. Exposure to thorium internally leads to
increased risk of liver diseases. Thorium-232 decays very slowly
(its half-life is about three times the age of the earth) but
other thorium isotopes occur in the thorium and uranium decay
chains. Most of these are short-lived but much more radioactive
than Th-232.
Sources: Wikipedia Commons; The Uranium Information Centre;
American Scientist Sept/Oct 2003; Storm van Leeuwen, J.W. and
Smith, P., August 2005. Nuclear Power: the Energy Balance,
Chapter 3.
&&
Decommissioning costs skyrocket
An update on huge nuclear plant decommissioning costs was
reported in The Guardian Weekly, 12/8/05, with Paul Brown,
writing that costs of cleaning up more than 50 years of
Britains nuclear waste had risen by 8bn to 56bn and will rise
further. Sir Anthony Cleaver, chairman of the Nuclear
Decommissioning Authority, said on 11/8, if another 100 tonnes
of plutonium plus thousands of tonnes of uranium stored at
Sellafield, are also classified as waste, the bill will rise by
a further 10bn. The stored materials are currently guarded by
armed men day and night because of the terrorist threat.
You cant just shut down nuclear stations and walk away. Safety
systems, including core-cooling, must be kept running as long as
fuel is in the core. Then, when the spent fuel is extracted, you
have to make multi-billion dollar decisions about what to do
with it. Do you send it to loss-making British Nuclear Fuels
(BNFL) for reprocessing, with all that entails like discharges
of radioactive waste into the Irish Sea and the atmosphere? Do
you continue sanctioning production of Mixed Oxide Fuel (MOX), a
decision that makes economic nonsense, is a dubious at best
saving on uranium, and is a security nightmare? Or do you reduce
costs by storing the spent fuel intact, in the expectation BNFL
demands compensation for broken contracts? Whatever they decide,
government will be forced to make nuclear power a special case,
an exception to rules laid down for the rest of the electricity
supply industry.
Other costs and security/terrorism risks
Many critics have repeatedly said the gains of using MOX are far
outweighed by economic and environmental problems. Using France
as an example, reprocessing spent fuel to extract plutonium for
MOX fuel manufacture will contribute only 5 to 8 percent of the
fresh uranium needed. But, as experience in France and Britain
has shown, reprocessing spent reactor fuel leads to well over a
hundred-fold increase in volume of radioactive wastes. [15]
Finally, all materials used, including tools, equipment and even
buildings become radioactive and must be treated as a
radioactive hazard.
Its also highly questionable that MOX fuel use will reduce the
amount of plutonium generated from half a century of operating
reactors, both military and civil. Worldwide, more than 1500
tonnes of plutonium has been generated, from which 250 tonnes
have been extracted for bomb-making and another 250 tonnes
extracted as a result of reprocessing spent fuel from civilian
reactors. Apart from its military-grade plutonium, which is
relatively pure in the 239 isotope(239Pu), Britain now has 50
tonnes of lower quality reactor-grade plutonium contaminated
with other, less readily-fissionable isotopes such as 241Pu.
All plutonium, whether weapons or reactor-grade, can be used to
make a nuclear bomb. As Frank Barnaby pointed out in the
CornerHouse Briefing, [16] the worlds nuclear powers (the
United States, Britain, France, Russia and China) have
accumulated more than enough weapons-grade plutonium for bomb
manufacture. Yet, because of continued reprocessing of spent
reactor fuel in commercial reprocessing plants in Britain,
France, Russia and Japan, the world will have around 550 tonnes
of separated civil plutonium by the year 2010, enough, says
Barnaby, to produce 110,000 nuclear weapons. [17]
A few kilograms only is required for a nuclear bomb, hence
concerns terrorist organisations such as Al Qaeda will one day,
if not already, acquire sufficient material to make an effective
bomb. Mixed oxide fuel, containing up to 5 percent plutonium, is
ideal for terrorists, being no more than mildly radioactive
compared with spent reactor fuel, and in a form from which
plutonium can be easily extracted. Just one MOX fuel assembly
contains 25 kilograms of plutonium, enough for two weapons. A
reactor, modified to take 30 percent of the plutonium-enriched
fuel in the reactor core, has 48 MOX fuel assemblies.
Currently 23 light water reactors - 5 in Germany, 3 in
Switzerland, 13 in France and 2 in Belgium - have been converted
to use MOX fuel. Five countries, Britain, Belgium, France, Japan
and Russia, are manufacturing the fuel. With BNFLs new MOX
plant up and running, supply will exceed demand by a factor of
two, at least until 2015. The excess will force prices down
below costs, hence the scam of the UK government taking over the
plants capital costs, so turning a loss-making venture into one
that might appear profitable.
BNFL claims use of MOX fuel will help burn up stocks of
plutonium, including those from dismantled weapons. But the very
operation of civilian reactors, with their load of the
plutonium-generating uranium isotope, the 238 isotope (238U),
makes it inevitable more plutonium is generated than consumed.
According to Barnabys calculations, a 900 megawatt pressurized
water reactor, modified to take MOX fuel will burn a little less
than one tonne of plutonium every ten years, whereas plutonium
production will be about 1.17 tonnes, i.e. about 120 kilograms
more.
BNFL has been operating its MOX Demonstration Facility since
1993. For safety, the plutonium must be uniformly well-mixed
with the uranium in each of the pellets contained in a fuel rod.
289 rods make one fuel assembly. If the plutonium is not well
mixed, parts of the rod could overheat, damaging the cladding.
Aside from problems in controlling a reactor core running
unevenly, fission products will escape from damaged cladding,
adding to radioactive discharges from the reactor into the
immediate environment.
Testing for fuel discrepancies is expensive and time-consuming.
BNFL routinely inspects about one pellet in every 40,000, and a
high 20 percent are found to be of inferior grade. Quality
control of MOX fuel became a major issue in 1999 when Japanese
customers discovered BNFL falsified inspection data and was
forced in 2002 at great cost to return the fuel to the U.K. A
chorus of dismay greeted the nuclear convoy from countries
around the world close to the ships passage. An accident (not
to mention deliberate attack), causing release of even a
fraction of the plutonium contained in such shipments would have
a devastating impact on the environment and public health.
Plutonium is highly radiotoxic with a half life of 24,000 years.
Accidents happen. According to worldwide statistics, the average
fire on ships burns for 23 hours at high temperatures. Tests on
plutonium MOX material has shown it will start to break down
within 15 minutes in temperatures of only 430 degrees centigrade.
Disasters like those at Three Mile Island and Chernobyl have
aroused public concern about the consequences of nuclear
accidents. But its the highly uneconomic costs of nuclear
power, which has caused its failure to make its mark as a major
energy source in the world. In the U.S. where nuclear technology
originated, all civilian reactors were ordered between 1963 and
1973, with huge subsidies from government. No new ones have been
ordered since 1973, six years before the accident at Three Mile
Island.
A sustainable energy system would not bring about irreversible
effects in the environment. Why waste diminishing fossil fuel
resources, and huge sums of money, on more nuclear plants, using
diminishing uranium resources which can provide only temporarily
a fraction of our energy needs AND leave massive amounts of
long-lasting toxic waste for future generations to deal with
which cannot be successfully sequestered for eons from the
environment?
Its time to give up the dangerous, costly pursuit of nuclear
energy. Renewable energy - wind-power, tidal and wave power,
solar heating and photovoltaics are the truly promising options
for a viable, safe, sustainable future. (See Part 2, next
article in this issue.)
&&
Peter Bunyard, science editor of The Ecologist, U.K. This
article has been compiled from a larger article by Peter and
updated for Pacific Ecologist by its editor.
References
1. NEA (2002) Nuclear Energy and the Kyoto Protocol. Paris: OECD.
2. See for example website of World Nuclear Energy Association -
http://www.worldenergy.org/wec-geis/publications/reports/etwan/po
licy_actions/
3. World Nuclear Association, 2005. Nuclear Power in the world
today. Information and issue brief, January 2005.
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf01.htm
3. see Storm van Leeuwen, J.W. and Smith,P, August 2005, Nuclear
Power: the Energy Balance, Chapter 2; based on 2003 data from
the World Nuclear Association
4. Storm van Leeuwen, J.W. and Smith, P., August 2005. Nuclear
Power: the Energy Balance. http://www.oprit.rug.nl/deenen/.
Chapter3.
5. William Keepin. On costs and limitations of a large-scale
nuclear power programme. Greenpeace, OUP 1990.
6. William Keepin and Gregory Kats. On greenhouse gas emissions
from the use of nuclear power in the USA. Energy Policy December
1988.
7. Fast reactors are so-called because they operate with
neutrons that have not been reduced in speed by a moderator.
Fast neutrons, surplus to maintaining the power of the reactor
are allowed to interact with a sleeve of depleted uranium,
hence uranium rich in uranium-238, placed around the core of a
fast reactor. By picking up a neutron and emitting beta
radiation (a supercharged electron) the uranium gains a proton
so turning it into plutonium-239. Plutonium production means
reprocessing spent radioactive fuel to extract fissile material.
8. IPCC working group II (1995) Impacts, Adaptations and
Mitigation of Climate Change : Scientific-Technical Analyses.
Climate Change 1995 IPCC working group II.
9. Jan Willem Storm van Leeuwen and Philip Smith., Chapter 3,
August 2005. Nuclear Power: the Energy Balance. .
10a. Plutonium from Sellafield in all children's teeth -
Government admits plant is the source of contamination but says
risk is 'minute'. The Observer, Antony Barnett, public affairs
editor 30/11/2003.
10b. "Childhood Cancer and Nuclear installations."Edited by V.
Beral and E. Roman, Imperial Cancer Research Fund, Cancer 9.
Epidemiology Unit, Oxford University, and M Bobrow, Division of
Medical Molecular Genetics St Thomas Hospitals London, 1993,
summary.
10.c. The Ecologist Vol. 16, No. 4/5 1986, "The Sellafield
Discharges" Marine Pollution
10.d. . "Additional Evidence of Failure to Reduce and Eliminate
Marine Pollution from Nuclear Reprocessing Discharges since
1992", OSPAR Ministeral Meeting,. Submitted to Ministeral
Meeting of the OSPAR Commission 1998, by Greenpeace
International.
10e. The Independent, August 1, 2001.
11a. pgs 33 in Appendix 1: in Uranium: its uses &Hazards in
Uranium Enrichment, Just plain Facts October 2004 by Arjun
Makhijani, Lois Chalmers, Brice Smith. Prepared by Institute for
Environmental Research for the Nuclear Policy Research Institute.
11b. pg 38 in Appendix 3: Depleted Uranium in the United States
in Uranium: its uses &Hazards in Uranium Enrichment, Just plain
Facts October 2004 by Arjun Makhijani, Lois Chalmers, Brice
Smith. Prepared by Institute for Environmental Research for the
Nuclear Policy Research Institute.
12. Nuclear Engineering International 2005 New plant culture 27
July 2005 ; BBC NEWS 12/6/05 Legal threat over Sellafield leak.
13. The Observer, 24 April, 2005.
14. . see Guardian Special Report: The Nuclear Industry
http://www.guardian.co.uk/nuclear/0,2759,181325,00.html
15.. Sellafield working paper 5:2001 - The volume of
radioactive waste is 189 times greater when reprocessed at THORP
than it would be if the spent fuel is stored as waste on shore.
-
16.Frank Barnaby. CornerHouse Briefing (No. 17, December 1999).
17. See also Nuclear Control Institute - The Plutonium Threat.
ENDS
THIS ISSUE Lead NZ News NZ Politics World News
Features
Comment &Opinion
Al Gore Defends the Intent of the Framers of the Constitution -
Congressman Barr and I have disagreed many times over the years,
but we have joined together today with thousands of our fellow
citizens-Democrats and Republicans alike-to express our shared
concern that America's Constitution is in grave danger. In spite
of our differences over ideology and politics, we are in strong
agreement that the American values we hold most dear have been
placed at serious risk by the unprecedented claims of the
Administration to a truly breathtaking expansion of executive
power. See... Al Gore: America's Constitution is in Grave Danger
ALSO:
+ Buzzflash Editorial: Thankyou Al Gore
+ Michael Collins: Al Gores Devastating Indictment of President
Bush
+ Sam Smith: Getting Reacquainted With Al Gore
+ William Rivers Pitt: The New Fascism
+ "Shallow Throat": Do Dems Have a Death-Wish?AND:
+ Jason Leopold: NSA Spying Evolved Pre-9/11
+ FULL COVERAGE: The NSA Domestic Spying Scandal
The Sensitive New Age Muscle Car?- There is
something quite satisfying about having a big bore straight six
under the bonnet when sitting at traffic lights. Instant power
can offer instant gratification, something particularly true of
Aussie muscle cars. But once upon a time, Aussie muscle cars
were all about brawn sophistication wasnt really part of the
equation... See... MOTORNET: Ford's F6 Typhoon - Gentle Giant?
MORE SCOOP COMMENTARY:
+ Jay Shaft: In Memory of Specialist Doug Barber
+ Stateside: 21st Century Slavery
+ Public Address 17/01/06 - One More Time
+ Marjorie Cohn: Alito Threatens Dr. King's Dream
+ David Swanson: Woolsey's Way to Peace
+ Jason Miller: How the West and the West Bank Were Won
+ G.C. Fraser: The Dogs of Israel Hunt Palestine
+ Sanjay Upadhya: Nepal - Spine, Head And Heart Of The Matter
+ Narconews: Delegate Zero Nears Quintana Roo
+ Narconews: Zapatistas Will Not Attend Bolivia Inauguration
+ Chile Bolivia And The Rightwing Backlash
*****************************************************************
23 PRN: Interstate Power and Light and FPL Energy Move Closer to
Completion of DAEC Sale
Alliant Energy is the parent company of two public utility
companies--Interstate Power and Light Company (IPL) and Wisconsin
Power and Light Company (WPL)--and of Alliant Energy Resources,
Inc. (AER), the parent company of Alliant Energy's non-regulated
operations. (PRNewsFoto)
MADISON, WI USA 07/18/2005
MPUC Approves DAEC Sale Transaction, IUB Reaffirms Previous
Decision Allowing
DAEC Sale to Move Forward
CEDAR RAPIDS, Iowa, Jan. 19 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- Interstate
Power and Light Company (IP), a subsidiary of Alliant Energy
Corporation (NYSE: ) and FPL Energy LLC, a subsidiary of FPL
Group, Inc. (NYSE: ) announced today that the companies received
affirmative regulatory decisions regarding the sale of the Duane
Arnold Energy Center (DAEC), its nuclear generating facility
located near Palo, Iowa.
(Logo: )
Today, the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission (MPUC) approved
the sale of DAEC by a 4-1 margin, determining that the sale
transaction was in the public interest. Yesterday, the Iowa
Utilities Board (IUB) reaffirmed its November 30, 2005 Order
approving the DAEC sale.
The transaction has already received regulatory approval from the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Illinois Commerce
Commission (ICC), IUB and Public Service Commission of Wisconsin.
FPL Energy and IP also received approval from the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission to transfer the company's DAEC nuclear
operating license to FPL Energy.
"Our company is pleased that the regulatory process is nearing a
conclusion and our company appreciates the diligent work of our
regulatory entities," says Tom Aller, President-IP. "We look
forward to working with FPL Energy to close the transaction and
commencing a long-term energy partnership with the company."
"The MPUC's decision and IUB's reaffirmation of their November
2005 decision are major milestones in the regulatory approval
process," states Mike O'Sullivan, Senior Vice President of
Development -- FPL Energy, LLC. "Our company applauds the efforts
of the regulators to ensure that the process was equitable and
transparent to all parties."
Alliant Energy Corporation is an energy-services provider with
subsidiaries serving more than three million customers. Providing
its customers in the Midwest with regulated electricity and
natural gas service remains the company's primary focus.
Interstate Power and Light, the company's Iowa utility
subsidiary, serves 535,000 electric and 238,000 natural gas
customers. Alliant Energy, headquartered in Madison, Wis., is a
Fortune 1000 company traded on the New York Stock Exchange under
the symbol LNT. For more information, visit the company's Web
site at .
Alliant Energy Forward-Looking Statement
This press release includes forward-looking statements. These
forward-looking statements can be identified as such because the
statements include words such as "intend" or other words of
similar import. Similarly, statements that describe future plans
or strategies are also forward-looking statements. Such
statements are subject to certain risks and uncertainties that
could cause actual results to differ materially from those
currently anticipated. Actual results could be affected by such
factors as: the parties' ability to obtain regulatory approval of
the sale of the DAEC; unanticipated events (for example, a
shutdown) at the DAEC prior to closing of the sale; unanticipated
legal or regulatory challenges to the sale of DAEC; and changes
in legislation or the regulatory climate applicable to the DAEC.
These factors should be considered when evaluating the
forward-looking statements and undue reliance should not be
placed on such statements. The forward-looking statements
included herein are made as of the date hereof and Alliant Energy
and IPL undertake no obligation to update publicly such
statements to reflect subsequent events or circumstances.
FPL Energy is a leading wholesale generator of clean power
utilizing natural gas, wind, solar, hydroelectric and nuclear. It
is the nation's leader in wind energy, with 44 wind facilities in
operation in 15 states. It is a subsidiary of FPL Group, one of
the nation's largest providers of electricity-related services
with annual revenues of more than $10 billion. FPL Group's
principal subsidiary is Florida Power & Light Company, one of the
nation's largest electric utilities, serving 4.3 million customer
accounts in Florida. Additional information is available on the
Internet at , and .
FPL Group Cautionary Statements And Risk Factors That May Affect
Future Results
In connection with the safe harbor provisions of the Private
Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (Reform Act), FPL Group,
Inc. and its subsidiaries (FPL Group) is hereby providing
cautionary statements identifying important factors that could
cause FPL Group's actual results to differ materially from those
projected in forward-looking statements (as such term is defined
in the Reform Act) made by or on behalf of FPL Group in this
press release, in presentations, on its website, in response to
questions or otherwise. Any statements that express, or involve
discussions as to, expectations, beliefs, plans, objectives,
assumptions or future events or performance (often, but not
always, through the use of words or phrases such as will likely
result, are expected to, will continue, is anticipated, believe,
could, estimated, may, plan, potential, projection, target,
outlook) are not statements of historical facts and may be
forward-looking. Forward-looking statements involve estimates,
assumptions and uncertainties. Accordingly, any such statements
are qualified in their entirety by reference to, and are
accompanied by, the following important factors (in addition to
any assumptions and other factors referred to specifically in
connection with such forward-looking statements) that could cause
FPL Group's actual results to differ materially from those
contained in forward-looking statements made by or on behalf of
FPL Group.
Any forward-looking statement speaks only as of the date on which
such statement is made, and FPL Group undertakes no obligation to
update any forward-looking statement to reflect events or
circumstances, including unanticipated events, after the date on
which such statement is made. New factors emerge from time to
time and it is not possible for management to predict all of such
factors, nor can it assess the impact of each such factor on the
business or the extent to which any factor, or combination of
factors, may cause actual results to differ materially from those
contained in any forward-looking statement.
The following are some important factors that could have a
significant impact on FPL Group's operations and financial
results, and could cause FPL Group's actual results or outcomes
to differ materially from those discussed in the forward-looking
statements:
-- FPL Group is subject to changes in laws or regulations,
including the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978, as
amended (PURPA), the Public Utility Holding Company Act of 1935,
as amended (Holding Company Act), the Federal Power Act, the
Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, the Energy Policy Act of
2005 and certain sections of the Florida statutes relating to
public utilities, changing governmental policies and regulatory
actions, including those of the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission (FERC), the Florida Public Service Commission (FPSC)
and the utility commissions of other states in which FPL Group
has operations, and the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC),
with respect to, among other things, allowed rates of return,
industry and rate structure, operation of nuclear power
facilities, operation and construction of plant facilities,
operation and construction of transmission facilities,
acquisition, disposal, depreciation and amortization of assets
and facilities, recovery of fuel and purchased power costs,
decommissioning costs, return on common equity (ROE) and equity
ratio limits, and present or prospective wholesale and retail
competition (including but not limited to retail wheeling and
transmission costs). The FPSC has the authority to disallow
recovery by Florida Power & Light Company (FPL) of any and all
costs that it considers excessive or imprudently incurred.
-- The regulatory process generally restricts FPL's ability to
grow earnings and does not provide any assurance as to
achievement of earnings levels.
-- FPL Group is subject to extensive federal, state and local
environmental statutes, rules and regulations relating to air
quality, water quality, waste management, wildlife mortality,
natural resources and health and safety that could, among other
things, restrict or limit the output of certain facilities or the
use of certain fuels required for the production of electricity
and/or require additional pollution control equipment and
otherwise increase costs. There are significant capital,
operating and other costs associated with compliance with these
environmental statutes, rules and regulations, and those costs
could be even more significant in the future.
-- FPL Group operates in a changing market environment influenced
by various legislative and regulatory initiatives regarding
deregulation, regulation or restructuring of the energy industry,
including deregulation of the production and sale of electricity.
FPL Group and its subsidiaries will need to adapt to these
changes and may face increasing competitive pressure.
-- FPL Group's results of operations could be affected by FPL's
ability to renegotiate franchise agreements with municipalities
and counties in Florida.
-- The operation of power generation facilities involves many
risks, including start up risks, breakdown or failure of
equipment, transmission lines or pipelines, use of new
technology, the dependence on a specific fuel source, including
the supply and transportation of fuel, or the impact of unusual
or adverse weather conditions (including natural disasters such
as hurricanes), as well as the risk of performance below expected
or contracted levels of output or efficiency. This could result
in lost revenues and/or increased expenses. Insurance, warranties
or performance guarantees may not cover any or all of the lost
revenues or increased expenses, including the cost of replacement
power. In addition to these risks, FPL Group's nuclear units face
certain risks that are unique to the nuclear industry including
the ability to store and/or dispose of spent nuclear fuel, as
well as additional regulatory actions up to and including
shutdown of the units stemming from public safety concerns,
whether at FPL Group's plants, or at the plants of other nuclear
operators. Breakdown or failure of an FPL Energy, LLC (FPL
Energy) operating facility may prevent the facility from
performing under applicable power sales agreements which, in
certain situations, could result in termination of the agreement
or incurring a liability for liquidated damages.
-- FPL Group's ability to successfully and timely complete its
power generation facilities currently under construction, those
projects yet to begin construction or capital improvements to
existing facilities within established budgets is contingent upon
many variables and subject to substantial risks. Should any such
efforts be unsuccessful, FPL Group could be subject to additional
costs, termination payments under committed contracts, and/or the
write-off of its investment in the project or improvement.
-- FPL Group uses derivative instruments, such as swaps, options,
futures and forwards, to manage their commodity and financial
market risks, and, to a lesser extent, engage in limited trading
activities. FPL Group could recognize financial losses as a
result of volatility in the market values of these contracts, or
if a counterparty fails to perform. In the absence of actively
quoted market prices and pricing information from external
sources, the valuation of these derivative instruments involves
management's judgment or use of estimates. As a result, changes
in the underlying assumptions or use of alternative valuation
methods could affect the reported fair value of these |
contracts. In addition, FPL's use of such instruments could be
subject to prudency challenges and if found imprudent, cost
recovery could be disallowed by the FPSC.
-- There are other risks associated with FPL Energy. In addition
to risks discussed elsewhere, risk factors specifically affecting
FPL Energy's success in competitive wholesale markets include the
ability to | efficiently develop and operate generating assets,
the successful and timely completion of project restructuring
activities, maintenance of the qualifying facility status of
certain projects, the price and supply of fuel (including
transportation), transmission constraints, competition from new
sources of generation, excess generation capacity and demand for
power. There can be significant volatility in market prices for
fuel and electricity, and there are other financial, counterparty
and market risks that are beyond the control of FPL Energy. FPL
Energy's inability or failure to effectively hedge its assets or
positions against changes in commodity prices, interest rates,
counterparty credit risk or other risk measures could
significantly impair FPL Group's future financial results. In
keeping with industry trends, a portion of FPL Energy's power
generation facilities operate wholly or partially without
long-term power purchase agreements. As a result, power from
these facilities is sold on the spot market or on a short-term
contractual basis, which may affect the volatility of FPL Group's
financial results. In addition, FPL Energy's business depends
upon transmission facilities owned and operated by others; if
transmission is disrupted or capacity is inadequate or
unavailable, FPL Energy's ability to sell and deliver its
wholesale power may be limited.
-- FPL Group is likely to encounter significant competition for
acquisition opportunities that may become available as a result
of the consolidation of the power industry, in general, as well
as the passage of the Energy Policy Act of 2005. In addition, FPL
Group may be unable to identify attractive acquisition
opportunities at favorable prices and to successfully and timely
complete and integrate them.
-- FPL Group relies on access to capital markets as a significant
source of liquidity for capital requirements not satisfied by
operating cash flows. The inability of FPL Group, FPL Group
Capital Inc (FPL Group Capital) and FPL to maintain their current
credit ratings could affect their ability to raise capital on
favorable terms, particularly during times of uncertainty in the
capital markets, which, in turn, could impact FPL Group's ability
to grow its businesses and would likely increase interest costs.
-- FPL Group's results of operations are affected by the growth
in customer accounts in FPL's service area. Customer growth can
be affected by population growth as well as economic factors in
Florida, including job and income growth, housing starts and new
home prices.
Customer growth directly influences the demand for electricity
and the need for additional power generation and power delivery
facilities at FPL.
-- FPL Group's results of operations are affected by changes in
the weather. Weather conditions directly influence the demand for
electricity and natural gas and affect the price of energy
commodities, and can affect the production of electricity at wind
and hydro-powered facilities.
-- FPL Group's results of operations can be affected by the
impact of severe weather which can be destructive, causing
outages and property damage, may affect fuel supply and could
require additional costs to be incurred. At FPL, recovery of
these costs is subject to FPSC approval.
-- FPL Group is subject to costs and other effects of legal and
administrative proceedings, settlements, investigations and
claims, as well as the effect of new, or changes in, tax laws,
rates or policies, rates of inflation, accounting standards,
securities laws or corporate governance requirements.
-- FPL Group is subject to direct and indirect effects of
terrorist threats and activities. Generation and transmission
facilities, in general, have been identified as potential
targets. The effects of terrorist threats and activities include,
among other things, terrorist actions or responses to such
actions or threats, the inability to generate, purchase or
transmit power, the risk of a significant slowdown in growth or a
decline in the U.S. economy, delay in economic recovery in the
United States, and the increased cost and adequacy of security
and insurance.
-- FPL Group's ability to obtain insurance, and the cost of and
coverage provided by such insurance, could be affected by
national, state or local events as well as company-specific
events.
-- FPL Group is subject to employee workforce factors, including
loss or retirement of key executives, availability of qualified
personnel, collective bargaining agreements with union employees
and work stoppage.
The issues and associated risks and uncertainties described above
are not the only ones FPL Group may face. Additional issues may
arise or become material as the energy industry evolves. The
risks and uncertainties associated with these additional issues
could impair FPL Group's businesses and financial results in the
future. SOURCE Alliant Energy Corporation Web Site:
Photo Notes: AP Archive: PRN Photo Desk,
Copyright 1996- PR Newswire Association LLC. All Rights
bReserved.
*****************************************************************
24 Business Day: Faulty unit at Koeberg to remain shut
Posted to the web on: 19 January 2006
I-Net Bridge
THE faulty unit at Eskoms Koeberg nuclear power station in the
Western Cape is likely to remain shut down for a minimum of
three months while Eskom works to find and install replacement
parts for the generator, Eskom CEO Thulani Gcabashe said today.
He said that a bolt had been responsible for the damage to the
generator of Unit 1 at Koeberg. The unit had been shut down for
scheduled maintenance in December, with Unit 2 at Koeberg
supplying the majority of the Western Capes power supply.
On December 25, when the unit was to return to service,
generator problems caused an automatic shutdown, which have left
it out of service ever since.
Gcabashe said that the preliminary results of an investigation
by a team from Eskom and experts from French energy group Alstom
had determined that an 8cm-long bolt, normally found on the
outside of the unit and used to close the covers, had caused
extensive damage to the generators rotor and stator, as well as
to more than half of the stator bars (electrical wiring inside
the circular stator unit) and to the cooling systems of the
generator.
"We are unsure for now how the bolt got there, but this is the
subject of the ongoing investigation," said Gcabashe.
"We havent ruled out anything, including sabotage. It is most
unlikely to be due to a lack of proper maintenance procedures,
but if it is established that negligence is the cause, some form
of discipline would be called for, including even instituting
criminal charges."
Eskom had decided that the best and quickest way forward would
be to find a replacement rotor and stator from similar power
stations in Europe - ones that were currently spare, either new
or used, the CEO said.
He was unsure of the cost of the large equipment. At the same
time, they would attempt to repair the damage, the cost of which
was also unkown.
"Our best estimate at this point is that it will take a minimum
of three months to do the repairs and return the unit back to
service," he said.
"It is, however, possible that the repair could take longer than
three months. This will be announced once established."
Currently, the Western Capes electricity supply is dependent on
Koebergs Unit 2 and transmission transfers from power stations
in the north of the country.
This unit is currently running well and was being closely
monitored, Gcabashe said. To meet morning and evening peak
demand requirements, additional back-up and emergency generation
based in the Western Cape is being used.
Unit 2 is currently scheduled for a shutdown for routine
maintenance and re-fueling in March, but Gcabashe explained that
Eskom believed this shutdown could be delayed by a further two
months if necessary, subject to the approval of the National
Nuclear Regulator.
The utility had not yet decided what the shutdown timeframe for
Unit 2 would be, as it depended on how quickly it was able to
find the spare parts and make Unit 1 operational again.
He cautioned that the risk of further power outages in the
region had risen, however, due to Eskoms reliance on only one
unit for baseload power generation over the next three months.
"Should there be any faults in Unit 2, though, there will be
faults in the system," warned Gcabashe.
"Vigilance has been heightened to ensure this doesnt happen.
"As things stand we will have enough power for the current
period, and Unit 1 should be back in service before winter," he
added.
"I want to extend a sincere apology to our customers in the Cape
for any uncertainty this has caused, and would like to reassure
them that this matter is receiving attention at the highest
level," concluded Gcabashe.
Eskom has already invested or has plans to invest a total of
R5,7bn in projects to improve the generation and transmission of
electricity in the Western Cape.
The parastatal spent R657m to improve transmission capacity
north of its DAar station and some R1,1bn on transmission
capacity south of the station between 2002 and 2004.
A R463m project to strengthen the southern Capes transmission
grid had been approved in April 2005 and was expected to be
completed in May 2007.
Finally, construction had just gotten underway on two new open
cycle gas turbines for new power plants at Atlantis (outside
Cape Town) and Mossel Bay at a combined cost of R3,5bn.
These plants are expected to supply an additional 1,000
megawatts of power to the region once they come on line in June
2007.
BDFM Publishers (Pty) Ltd disclaims all liability for
*****************************************************************
25 Deseret News: Release the fallout report
[deseretnews.com]
Thursday, January 19, 2006
Deseret Morning News editorial
In a letter more than five years ago to the consortium trying to
store high-level nuclear waste in Utah, then-Gov. Mike Leavitt
harked back to the state's sorry legacy of nuclear mistrust.
"Utahns have experienced an epidemic of cancer and other
radiation-related illnesses as a result of radioactive fallout
from U.S. Atomic Energy Commission nuclear weapons testing in
the Fifties and Sixties," he wrote, adding that the commission's
"dishonesty and manipulation of information are indelible
lessons."
Which makes it difficult to understand today why Leavitt,
who now is secretary of health and human services, won't release
a final report on the extent of injuries caused by those tests.
Perhaps in his new position he is sensitive to the possible
extent of the federal government's liability. A preliminary
report released by the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention in 2002 found that virtually everyone who has lived
in this country since 1951 has been exposed to radioactive
fallout.
But then, if that preliminary finding is true, shouldn't
Americans know?
In these parts, people like to point out the ironies of
life 40 or 50 years ago. In those days, people here spent a lot
of time worrying about a possible nuclear attack from the Soviet
Union, when in fact Utah and Nevada faced more danger from their
own government. Between 1951 and 1963, more than 200
above-ground nuclear weapons tests were conducted by the U.S.
government. More than half of those were in Nevada, where winds
often carried nuclear fallout over wide parts of southern Utah
and beyond.
Congress finally and reluctantly approved compensation
for people in parts of Utah, Nevada and Arizona who suffered
from certain types of cancers. But the report released in 2002
suggests that testing might have made many more people sick and
caused perhaps 11,000 or more deaths in the United States. More
recent estimates, including one reported in this newspaper by
reporter Joe Bauman, place the number of deaths, including
potential future deaths, at between 13,695 and 16,390. That was
based on the work of three experts with the National Cancer
Institute.
The specific effects of nuclear fallout are difficult to
isolate, considering the Soviets, French, Chinese and British
also were conducting above-ground tests during the same time
period. But cancer rates in parts of the American West are
difficult to ignore.
The government had said it wouldn't release the final
report until the National Academy of Sciences had a chance to
review it. But that review ended in 2003.
The Deseret Morning News has filed a Freedom of
Information Act request with Leavitt's department to see the
final report. A public-interest group, the Alliance for Nuclear
Accountability, filed a similar request two days later.
Perhaps this hasn't made it far enough up the ladder to
reach Leavitt's attention. But the sad irony is that the
department's reluctance to release the report only adds to the
mistrust Leavitt spoke of in the letter he wrote to the nuclear
waste consortium as governor.
2006 Deseret News Publishing Company [ /]
*****************************************************************
26 APP.COM: Radionuclides in well prompt its shutdown
| Asbury Park Press Online
Thursday, January 19, 2006
BY TOMS RIVER BUREAU
POINT PLEASANT Concern that radiation found in water from the
Hardenbergh Avenue well in 2005 exceeded the allowable level
prompted borough officials to quietly close the well and begin
work on a treatment system to remove the contaminant.
Borough Councilman Shawn McCarthy, chairman of the water and
sewer committee, said the decision to close the well, which
provided one-third of the town's drinking water, was made late
last year after the council realized the level of what are
called radionuclides in the water might exceed the state
standards.
McCarthy said that since then he has been told that the well's
average level of radionuclides, which occur naturally, was 15.7
picocuries per liter, 0.7 picocuries higher than allowed by the
state Department of Environmental Protection. Although the state
would have allowed the borough to continue monitoring the levels
for another year, McCarthy said, the council took the initiative.
"We will always make sure our citizens are given safe water,"
McCarthy said. "It's why we took the proactive stance we did and
shut down the well. If we are going to give water to the
citizens, it is going to be 100 percent clean."
Certain minerals, or radionuclides, are radioactive and may emit
a form of radiation, according to the federal Environmental
Protection Agency. An EPA fact sheet says most radionuclides
found in drinking water are naturally occurring.
To make up for the closing of the well which had operated 24
hours, seven days a week the borough has more than tripled the
amount of water it buys from the Brick Township Municipal
Utilities. The Brick authority had been providing the borough
with about 200,000 gallons per day.
In an e-mail to the Brick authority's commissioners, Kevin
Donald, the authority executive director, said the borough took
an average of 640,000 gallons of water per day last week. The
authority's contract with the MUA allows the borough to take an
average of 600,000 gallons daily.
The increased flow to Point Pleasant does not present a problem
to the Brick authority during the winter, but Donald cautioned
the commissioners to plan for the impact the borough's increased
demand will have in warm weather, especially as they continue to
negotiate to sell water to United Water Toms River.
Brick MUA Chairman Andrew P. Nittoso Jr. said the authority is
close to reaching a deal with United Water. DEP spokesman Fred
Mumford said the Brick MUA has a yearly water allocation limit
of 3.7 billion gallons per year and is currently using less than
that amount.
McCarthy said Point Pleasant is continuing to negotiate for an
interconnection with the New Jersey American utility, which
provides water to some of the municipalities on the barrier
island.
Once that deal is finalized, which could be within the next few
months, the borough would no longer need as much water from
Brick, McCarthy said.
Slightly elevated levels
Borough officials were first notified of the slightly higher
level of radionuclides found in Well No. 8 in September. Once it
became apparent that the level remained high, McCarthy said, the
council decided to close the well and have Schoor DePalma, the
borough engineering firm, proceed with plans to build a new
water treatment plant at that site.
On Wednesday, McCarthy said Borough Engineer Robert Forsythe
presented the borough's plan to build the plant to state
officials. Forsythe could not be reached for comment.
Work is already under way. The plant is expected to be completed
in spring 2007, McCarthy said. He expects the treatment facility
will cost more than $500,000.
Barker Hamill, assistant director of the DEP's Bureau of Safe
Drinking Water, said water systems with high radionuclide levels
one year are given a second year to monitor the level. If the
amount continues to be above the state threshhold for safety,
the borough would be forced to shut down the well, Hamill said.
Wednesday, Hamill said many municipalities have opted to shut
down water system facilities before being ordered by the state.
The allowable level of radiation in drinking water is 15
picocuries per liter. An average level of 15.7 picocuries was
found in drinking water from well No. 8 on Hardenbergh Avenue in
Point Pleasant during 2005.
Drinking water with more than the allowable amount of radiation
may cause cancer over many years, according to the federal
Environmental Protection Agency.
Copyright 2006 Asbury Park Press. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
27 Hawaii Health Guide: DU exposure investigation called for
All Islands Health Talk Toxic Hawaii Toxic Hawaii
Jan 19, 2006 /
http://www.kevcom.com/kevsnews/
] U.S. ARMY PHOTO VIA ASSOCIATED PRESS
Discussion of health effects of external exposure, ingestion,
and inhalation of depleted uranium.
By Rod Ohira- A coalition of environmental and Native Hawaiian
rights groups are calling for an independent investigation and
disclosure by the Army of depleted uranium munitions use in
Hawai'i based on recently obtained information confirming its
presenc
+
Heavy metals affecting wildlife too:Hunting, recreational
shooting, and fishing deposit thousands of tons of lead
ammunition and tackle into the environment annually, exposing
dozens of bird species and other wildlife to the toxic effects
of lead poisonin
Whoops, looks like depleted uranium was found on Oahu at the
U.S. Army's Schofield Barracks despite repeated assurances to
the public that it was never used in the state:
A coalition of environmental and Native Hawaiian rights groups
are calling for an independent investigation and disclosure by
the Army of depleted uranium munitions use in Hawai'i based on
recently obtained information confirming its presence at
Schofield. The Army said yesterday that the depleted uranium in
question poses no threat. The coalition DMZ Hawai'i/ Aloha 'Aina
cited a Sept. 19 e-mail message from Samuel P. McManus of the
U.S. Army Engineering and Support Center in Huntsville, Ala., to
Ronald Borne, an Army employee involved with preparations for
the Stryker brigade at Schofield Barracks. The e-mail involved
the high cost of unexploded ordnance removal in preparation for
the construction of a new Stryker brigade battle area complex at
Schofield. In the e-mail, McManus noted, "We have found much
that we did not expect, including the recent find of depleted
uranium."
During a news conference yesterday, the groups said the Army has
repeatedly assured the public that the heavy metal was never
used in Hawaii.
"These recent revelations, then, indicate that the Army is
either unaware of its DU (depleted uranium) and chemical weapons
use or has intentionally misled the public. Both possibilities
are deeply troubling," said Kyle Kajihiro, program director of
the American Friends Service Committee and member of
DMZ-Hawaii/Aloha Aina.
The clearing was being done to prepare for the expansion of
additional training space and the construction of a rifle and
pistol range for a new Stryker brigade combat team.
Depleted uranium is a byproduct of radioactive enriched uranium
and has been used by the U.S. military in bullets and other
weapons designed to pierce armor.
Some researchers suspect exposure to depleted uranium might have
caused chronic fatigue and other symptoms in veterans of the
first Gulf War.
Ann Wright, a retired diplomat and retired Army colonel, said
she supports passage of a bill before the Legislature that calls
for helping Hawai'i National Guard troops returning from Iraq
and the Persian Gulf in obtaining federal treatment services
that include health screenings capable of detecting low levels
of depleted uranium.
Gail Hunter, a registered nurse, cancer survivor and Makaha
resident for more than 20 years, wants more proof that there's
no depleted uranium at training sites in Makua, Kahuku,
Schofield and Pohakuloa that could be threatening drinking
water, land and air.
2006 Hawaii Health Guide all rights reserved
*****************************************************************
28 CDC: NIOSH: Dose reconstruction proposal
FR Doc E6-542
[Federal Register: January 19, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 12)]
[Notices] [Page 3095-3096] From the Federal Register Online via
GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr19ja06-89]
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention
National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health; Proposed
Changes to the Dose Reconstruction Target Organ Selection for
Lymphoma Under the Energy Employees Occupational Illness
Compensation Program Act of 2000 Authority: 42 CFR 82.32, 67 FR
22335-22336. AGENCY: Department of Health and Human Services
(HHS), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). ACTION:
Notice for public comment.
SUMMARY: The National Institute for Occupational Safety and
Health (NIOSH) proposes to change the selection of target organs
used in dose reconstructions NIOSH produces under the Energy
Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act of 2000
(EEOICPA) for energy employees with lymphoma cancers. This
proposed change is in response to an evaluation by NIOSH of
current scientific data on lymphoma, which revealed that the site
of the radiation injury can differ from the site of the tumor or
cancer origin documented in the medical files of a lymphoma
cancer patient. The new process for selecting dose reconstruction
target organs for energy employees with lymphoma cancers would
include selecting the target organ that would have received the
highest radiation dose from among relevant, possibly irradiated
organs, as determined through the dose reconstruction process,
when the identity of the target organ is in question. This change
would result in the Department of Labor calculating higher
probability of causation determinations for select lymphoma cases
among previously decided and current EEOICPA cancer claims.
DATES: NIOSH must receive public comments on this proposed change
on or before 15 days after the date of publication in the Federal
Register.
ADDRESSES: Mail comments concerning this proposed change to Larry
Elliott, Director, Office of Compensation Analysis and Support,
National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, 4676
Columbia Parkway, Mailstop C-46, Cincinnati, Ohio 45226. Submit
electronic comments to OCAS@CDC.GOV.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Larry Elliott, Director, Office
of Compensation Analysis and Support, National Institute for
Occupational Safety and Health, 4676 Columbia Parkway, Mailstop
C-46, Cincinnati, OH 45226, Telephone: (513) 533-6800 (This is
not a toll-free number).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: NIOSH conducts radiation dose
reconstructions under EEOICPA in compliance with the dose
reconstruction methods specified in HHS regulations at 42 CFR
part 82. These regulations provide for NIOSH to update its dose
reconstruction methods as necessary on the basis of improved
scientific understanding and specify a process for deciding and
implementing such updates (41 CFR 82.30-82.33). Accordingly,
NIOSH is currently proposing to update its method for
reconstructing radiation doses in cases involving certain
lymphoma cancers. Specifically, NIOSH is proposing to change its
method for identifying the target organ for which radiation doses
will be reconstructed in these cases, for the reasons described
below. As required for certain updates in dose reconstruction
methods, NIOSH will present the proposed change to the Advisory
Board on Radiation and Worker Health for its comments. NIOSH will
also consider all public comments concerning this change that are
received prior to the comment deadline, as specified above.
NIOSH has re-examined the appropriateness of the current
method of selecting dosimetry target organs for lymphoma cases in
light of the current scientific knowledge on the diagnosis and
etiology of the various forms of lymphoma.\1\ This re-examination
has revealed that for many non-Hodgkin's lymphomas, there are two
problems with NIOSH's current target organ selection method.
First, the site of occurrence of the tumor is not necessarily the
site of the original radiation injury. Second, the site listed in
the diagnosis may not actually be the site of primary
involvement. Rather, it is common to list the site of the biopsy,
which may be selected on the basis of medical considerations in
terms of the clinical symptoms and condition of the patient and
the ease of surgical access. Both of these problems contribute to
the possibility that under current methods for select lymphoma
cases, NIOSH is not certain to be basing its dose reconstruction
on the organ that has the highest radiation dose and may have
been the site of origin of the lymphoma of the energy employee.
\1\ Crowther, M. Consultant's Report, Dose Reconstruction
Project. Prepared for the National Institute for Occupational
Safety and Health Office of Compensation Analysis and Support.
2005; Eckerman, K.F. Target Organs for Lymphatic and
Hematopoietic Cancers Comments/Suggestions. Prepared for the
National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health Office of
Compensation Analysis and Support. 2005. Available online at:
http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/ocas/ocasdose.html. (This information
can be found on the aforementioned Web page under the
``Miscellaneous Items'' heading in the section ``Evaluation of
Target Organ for Lymphomas.'')
As a result of this re-evaluation, NIOSH proposes to modify
the selection of target organs in select lymphoma cases so that
the organ that would have received the highest radiation dose
from among relevant, possibly irradiated organs, as determined
through the dose reconstruction process, is used in the dose
reconstruction. For the subset of lymphomas where tumor location
is informative about the probable site of the original radiation
injury (e.g. Hodgkin's disease, lymphosarcoma, etc.), information
related to the site of diagnosis would be considered in target
organ selection.
This proposed change pertains only to the selection of the
appropriate target organ as the site of radiation injury (i.e.,
for calculation of effective radiation dose during the dose
reconstruction process). It has no bearing on the selection of
the appropriate Interactive Radiological Epidemiology Program
(IREP) cancer risk model for determining probability of
causation, nor does it impact the cancer risk models themselves.
This proposed change in NIOSH dose reconstruction methods
would be likely to have a substantial effect on certain EEOICPA
cancer cases involving lymphomas. NIOSH would review all relevant
completed dose reconstructions for cases that have not been
compensated to identify those for which this new method is
applicable, and would re-complete these dose reconstructions
using this new method, and would apply this new method to all
current and future cases undergoing dose reconstruction.
Application of this new method would result in the Department of
Labor calculating higher probability of causation determinations
for select lymphoma cases among previously decided and current
EEOICPA cancer claims.
[[Page 3096]]
The proposed change may be discussed at meetings of the
Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health on January 9, 2006
(teleconference) and January 24-26, 2006 in Oak Ridge, TN. Only
after the close of the public comment period will NIOSH make a
final decision regarding the proposed change.
The Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, has
been delegated the authority to sign Federal Register notices
pertaining to announcements of meetings and other committee
management activities for both the Centers for Disease Control
and Prevention and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease
Registry.
Dated: January 10, 2006. Alvin Hall, Director, Management
Analysis and Services Office, Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention.
[FR Doc. E6-542 Filed 1-18-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4163-18-P
*****************************************************************
29 Vermont Guardian: Top county official questions radiation levels
By Kathyrn Casa | Vermont Guardian
Posted January 19, 2006
BRATTLEBORO Windham Countys top regional planner is asking the
Department of Health to explain how radiation emitted from
Vermont Yankee will stay within state levels after the plant
increases power output by 20 percent.
In a Jan. 17 letter to Health Commissioner Paul Jarris, Windham
Regional Council Executive Director James Matteau asked whether
the plants fence line radiation dose will be significantly
higher than previously expected or predicted.
I was recently told that relevant state agencies have been
advised by [Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee] that the fence line
dose after power uprate will be significantly higher than
previously expected or predicted, Matteau wrote. In fact, it was
told to me, ENVY has advised the state that operation at full
uprate conditions will make it virtually impossible to maintain
fence line radiation at or below state standard.
Although he declined to reveal his sources of that information,
Matteau said they were well-placed within state government and
reliable.
The states annual radiation dose limit is 20 millirem, five
millirem below the federal standard. A rem is a unit of ionizing
radiation equal to the amount that produces the same damage to
humans as one roentgen of high-voltage X-rays. A millirem is
one-thousandth of a rem.
In his letter, Matteau asked Jarris, What is the currently
expected fence line radiation, after uprate, based on your
departments most recent information?
Two days after the letter was sent, a spokesman for the Health
Department said Jarris wants to make a carefully analysis of the
situation before he responds.
In his letter, Matteau points out that in the docket of the
uprate case before the state Public Service Board, on which the
boards conditional approval of the power increase is based, it
states, The uprate will not affect Entergys commitment to meet
the 20 [millirem] standard for offsite release of radiation
contained in the current Vermont Department of Health
regulations. However, there remains a chance that a reduction in
power uprate might be necessary in order to meet that standard.
The uprate will increase radiation levels at the fence line
because steam, which contains a radioactive isotope, will be
moving faster through the steam lines to the turbine. The
isotope has a decay period of a only few seconds, but because
its moving faster, more of it will be at full radiation emission
level when it gets to the states monitors at the fence line.
The state is currently negotiating with Vermont Yankee about
radiation dosage, after a fence line reading in the final
quarter of 2004 registered levels that may have exceeded state
limits by as much as 24 percent.
Entergy says Vermont Yankee released about 12 millirem of direct
gamma radiation, rather than the 24.9 millirem detected on one
of the states four monitors on the fence near the reactor.
The discrepancy arises out of a different way of measuring the
radiation. State regulations assume that one unit of absorbed
radiation equals one unit of radiation dose, but Entergy uses a
Nuclear Regulatory Commission conversion factor that assumes
that one unit of absorbed radiation equals .71 percent of a unit
of radiation dose.
The NRC approved use of the so-called alternate source term
after a radiation release at the Three Mile Island reactor in
Pennsylvania indicated the agencys radiation calculations had
been overly conservative.
VYs fence line calculation methodology, contained in the plant's
Offsite Dose Calculation Manual (OCDM), is used by the company
to ensure compliance with the federal offsite dose requirement
of 25 millirems, according to NRC Spokesman Neil Sheehan.
If the uprate review is approved, we would as part of our OCDM
methodology inspection effort review the results of the
company's power ascension radiation surveys to confirm that the
dose to a member of the public would continue to meet the annual
limit under uprate conditions, Sheehan noted.
In his letter, Matteau asks Jarris: If the fence line dose now
is expected to be exceeded a. By how much? b. Beginning when? C.
For how long?
If the fence line dose actually is exceeded a. Would that be a
violation of state regulations? b. If so, what are the
consequences. c. And if so, what would it take to regain
compliance.
The questions posed in this letter exemplify a lack of
communication between state and local officials on an uprate
widely expected to be approved by the NRC next month. Entergy
applied for federal and state approval of the uprate which, at
20 percent, is the largest allowable under federal regulations
more than two years ago.
The NRC has never denied an uprate application. The state Public
Service Board has issued conditional approval, which has yet to
be finalized. The board has yet to decide whether an NRC
inspection of the reactor meets state specifications.
The top radiation protection official in the Health Department,
Larry Crist, did not return phone calls for this story.
Vermont Yankee officials Brian Cosgrove and Rob Williams also
did not return calls. Vermont Yankee has refused repeated
requests in recent weeks to provide information to the Vermont
Guardian.
Vermont Guardian
PO Box 335
Winooski, VT 05404
Southern Vermont: 139 Main Street, Suite 702, Brattleboro, VT
05301
Contact: 802.861.4880 (ph) | 802.861.6388 (fax) | 877.231.5382
(toll-free)
2005 Vermont Guardian |
Visit us: www.vermontguardian.com
This document can be located online:
www.vermontguardian.com/local/012006/RadiationStudy.shtml
*****************************************************************
30 Las Vegas SUN: Miss Nevada is cheerleader for Yucca Mountain
Today: January 19, 2006 at 17:52:26 PST
ASSOCIATED PRESS
LAS VEGAS, Nev. (AP) - Hoping for world peace is one thing.
Supporting the construction of the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste
facility in Nevada is quite another, especially if you're a
Nevadan.
Miss Nevada Crystal Wosik apparently tried to put to rest any
concerns about the safety of the proposed nuclear repository
during Thursday's preparation for Saturday night's Miss America
pageant in Las Vegas.
The matter came up during her interview with the judges,
according to Nancy Ames, Nevada's state pageant director.
"They asked her what she thought about Yucca Mountain and she
told them that it has to go someplace, and that (Yucca Mountain)
was the best-built facility in the country," Ames told the Reno
Gazette-Journal in a story posted on the newspaper's Web site
Thursday afternoon.
"Then they said something like, 'But what if people could die?'
And she answered that, 'We just have to take one for the team.'
That's just Crystal. She's pretty outspoken," Ames said.
The Energy Department plans to use Yucca Mountain as a geologic
repository to entomb 77,000 tons of nuclear waste about 90 miles
northwest of Las Vegas.
Gov. Kenny Guinn and Nevada's congressional delegation has been
united in trying to derail the plan in Congress and the state
has filed several lawsuits in an attempt to block construction.
Wosik, 23, Las Vegas, will compete Saturday night at the first
Miss America pageant to be held outside of Atlantic City in
about 85 years of the event.
---
Information from: Reno Gazette-Journal, http://www.rgj.com
All contents copyright 2005 Las Vegas SUN, Inc.
*****************************************************************
31 Santa Fe New Mexican: Sandia gets Yucca Mountain contract
Thu Jan 19, 2006 10:39 pm
By Andy Lenderman The New Mexican |
Sandia National Laboratories in Albuquerque has been selected to
coordinate science work for the Yucca Mountain Project in
Nevada, a proposed long-term storage facility for spent nuclear
fuel and high-level nuclear waste.
Part of the reason for the decision by the U.S. Department of
Energy was Sandias prior work as a scientific adviser to the
Waste Isolation Pilot Plant in Carlsbad, where transuranic
nuclear waste is stored.
Sandia will provide technical support on science and help with
Yucca Mountains application for a license from the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission, U.S. Sen. Pete Domenici, R-N .M., said
Wednesday.
Wednesdays announcement means that Sandia will be a major
contributor to research and work done on nuclear waste issues,
which is the key to the future of nuclear power development in
our country, Domenici said in a news release.
Sandia spokesman Michael Padilla said the work will involve
about 60 employees, including subcontractors, at a cost of about
$60 million. The work is currently overseen by Bechtel SAIC, a
subcontractor for the Department of Energy.
Responsibility for the work will transfer from Bechtel to Sandia
at an unspecified date.
Handling of the nations high level wastes is integral to the
development of future nuclear power systems, Padilla said by
e-mail .
Yucca Mountain has been studied by the Department of Energy as a
long-term storage solution since 1978, according to the
government.
*****************************************************************
32 BBC: Call for UK nuclear clean-up plan
Last Updated: Thursday, 19 January 2006
[Dungeness nuclear power station]
Nuclear waste can be hazardous for thousands of years
A plan should be formed to dispose of the UK's existing
radioactive waste, says government adviser Nirex.
Its data suggests 241,000 cubic metres of intermediate-level
waste and 1,340 of high-level waste will need disposal.
Tony Blair last month launched a review of UK energy needs, and
is believed to be convinced of the case for more nuclear power
stations.
Science academy the Royal Society has also called for a new
commission to advise how to store waste more safely.
NUCLEAR WASTE MAP
Where waste is produce and stored around the UK
Nirex has published its latest inventory of current radioactive
waste totals in the UK, and its forecast of waste totals to be
created from the operation and decommissioning of existing
nuclear facilities.
The figures, based on stocks in April 2004, show an 11% decrease
in high-level waste - from 1,510 cubic metres - since the 2001
inventory.
This waste is so radioactive it generates heat and corrodes all
containers, and would cause death within days following direct
exposure to it.
There was a 1.7% rise - from 237,000 cubic metres in 2001 - in
intermediate-level waste.
A 35% increase in only mildly radioactive low-level waste - from
1.51 million cubic metres to 2.04 million - was due to recent
declaration of suspect contaminated land, said Nirex.
Material hazard
All low-level waste is currently disposed of, most of it at a
purpose-built store in Drigg, Cumbria.
But no facilities have been developed for disposal of
intermediate and high-level waste, which can remain a potential
hazard for thousands of years.
John Dalton, Nirex corporate communications manager, said: "We
have been generating this stuff for 50 years or so - surely we
have responsibility to deal with the waste we have got now.
"We don't want to just be passing it on to future generations."
Energy needs
The latest forecasts assume that no new nuclear power stations
will be built.
But BBC political editor Nick Robinson says Mr Blair is convinced
that building more nuclear power stations is the only way to meet
energy needs and stick to the targets on climate change.
"Surely it would be sensible for us to consider what we are going
to do with this waste before we enter into a new-build scenario,"
said Mr Dalton.
David Wild, director of communications at Nirex, later clarified
Mr Dalton's comments by saying the group recognised that waste
currently exists.
"The waste exists now in 37 different sites around the UK and
needs to be dealt with properly whether or not there are any new
power stations," Mr Wild added.
The government-appointed Committee on Radioactive Waste
Management (CoRWM) is due to recommend final disposal options in
July this year.
It is trying to arrive at "consensus choices" on the best way to
look after waste for the medium and long term. It will not,
however, consider sites where the waste could be put - only how
it should be dealt with.
A report earlier this month from the Royal Society recommended
that the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
creates a successor to CoRWM.
It said there was a need for an independent body to continue to
develop management strategies after July.
*****************************************************************
33 reviewjournal.com: YUCCA MOUNTAIN: Laboratory gets expanded duties
Jan. 19, 2006
Nuclear waste repository duties revamped
WASHINGTON -- The Department of Energy on Wednesday expanded the
role of government science laboratories at Yucca Mountain,
continuing its reorganization of the nuclear waste repository
project.
DOE designated Sandia National Laboratories as the lead agency to
coordinate science and technical work for the Nevada repository,
where the government wants to bury 77,000 tons of high level
spent nuclear fuel.
Sandia has been involved in the Yucca Mountain program since its
inception in the early 1980s, with cadres of scientists that
have contributed to performance assessments, field and
laboratory testing and quality assurance, according to the
laboratories' Web site.
The new designation greatly expands the role of the
Albuquerque-based institute, one of 14 government science
facilities that support Energy Department activities nationwide.
Paul Golan, acting Yucca Mountain director, said increasing
Sandia's role will improve the credibility of the Yucca project
with scientists and federal regulators.
Golan said Sandia performed a similar role in coordinating
research at the Waste Isolation Pilot Project in Carlsbad, N.M.,
a repository that began receiving transuranic nuclear waste for
disposal in 1999.
"The independent, expert review that the scientists at Sandia
will perform will help ensure that the technical and scientific
basis for the Yucca Mountain repository is without question,"
Golan said.
It was not clear how the change might affect Yucca personnel,
most of whom are based in Las Vegas.
The program employs about 100 federal workers in Nevada and
about 2,000 others who work for contractors and national
laboratories.
One source within the program said Sandia has been recruiting
from among contractors who are facing potential layoffs.
Sandia National Laboratories employs about 60 people on the
Yucca project.
The Energy Department announced several management and technical
changes to the nuclear waste project over the past four months.
The Yucca effort has missed self-imposed deadlines, and been
confronted budget and legal challenges and fresh questioning by
critics and outside reviewers.
A Nevada official who coordinates the state's official
opposition to Yucca Mountain said he doubted Sandia's new role
will spark the project.
"It's difficult to call Sandia independent, since they have had
a major role to play in the program all along," said Bob Loux,
director of the state Agency for Nuclear Projects. "In this
case, the new boss is the same as the old boss. They've been
part of the problem."
Sandia will take over project segments that focus on the
placement of waste canisters within Yucca Mountain, the
anticipated water flows through rock and the long-term
environmental conditions that will gradually corrode the metal
containers, officials said.
That work will be assumed from Bechtel SAIC, the project's
management and operations contractor. Bechtel will now focus on
developing above ground facilities where nuclear waste will be
transferred from trucks or rail cars and positioned for burial.
Bechtel's initial five-year contract to manage the Yucca project
expires in March. DOE and corporate officials are negotiating a
new deal that will likely reflect the scaled back work scope,
officials said.
Sen. Pete Domenici, R-N.M., chairman of the Senate Energy and
Natural Resources Committee, applauded DOE's move.
"Sandia features some of the best scientists in the country and
will be able to provide the Yucca Mountain Project with strong,
centralized leadership," said Domenici, who is an active
supporter of nuclear laboratories in New Mexico.
In another move reflecting greater reliance on the national
labs, DOE said a building on the campus of the Idaho National
Laboratory will be transferred to the Office of Civilian
Radioactive Waste Management, which runs the Yucca Mountain
project.
The TAN-607 building will be used to train nuclear fuel handlers
for Yucca Mountain, the department said.
The 153,000-square-foot facility includes the nation's largest
"hot shop," a shielded fuel-handling room where radioactive
materials can be manipulated by radio-controlled cranes.
The announcement is the latest element in DOE's reorganization
of Yucca Mountain. In the fall, officials announced they will
redesign nuclear waste canisters and the above ground complex at
the site to simplify fuel handling.
Last week, the department said Yucca Mountain management offices
in Las Vegas and Washington were being reorganized.
Copyright Las Vegas Review-Journal, 1997 - 2006
*****************************************************************
34 Salt Lake Tribune: Legislators would be able to overturn a veto on
Envirocare
Article Last Updated: 01/19/2006 09:46:20 AM
Legistature 2006: Bill would weaken guv's power to block N-waste
By Judy Fahys The Salt Lake Tribune
A showdown is shaping up between lawmakers and the governor over
radioactive waste in Utah's west desert.
A bill that emerged Wednesday would make it possible for
Envirocare of Utah to double in size over the objections of Gov.
Jon Huntsman Jr.
SB70, sponsored by Sen. Howard Stephenson, would allow lawmakers
to override Huntsman's veto with a two-thirds vote. Under a
16-year-old law, no expansion can me made without explicit
approval of the governor.
Huntsman, predictably, opposes the measure.
"The governor needs a strong hand when it comes to looking out
for the safety of all Utahns," said spokesman Mike Mower. But
Stephenson, a Draper Republican, insists his bill is not "a
reaction to anything." Describing current law as giving the
executive branch "super authority," he said the bill would
"address an imbalance in political power."
"It's just a balance of power issue to me," he said.
Outside his role as part-time lawmaker, Stephenson is president
and registered lobbyist of the Utah Taxpayers Association, a
nonprofit business group of which Envirocare is a member.
Meanwhile, House Speaker Greg Curtis and Sen. Curt Bramble are
among Capitol leaders who recently expressed doubts about the
Legislature's ability to shrink Huntsman's authority over
Envirocare expansion.
In November, Huntsman shocked company officials and some
legislators by saying he would oppose the company's request to
increase from 543 acres to 1,079 at its landfill site, about 80
miles west of Salt Lake City.
Tim Barney, Envirocare's senior vice president, said his company
has not decided whether to push forward with its expansion plans,
given the governor's opposition.
"We are not lobbying for the bill," said Barney. "We're neutral
on it. We certainly didn't ask him to run it."
While Envirocare may not have a position now, the company was
deeply involved in the legislative discussions that set up the
hazardous-waste approval law in 1990. At that time, several waste
companies were elbowing one another for the opportunity to join
Envirocare in the waste business.
Then-Gov. Norm Bangerter and the late Sen. Steve Rees
grandfathered Envirocare and two other facilities that already
had received licenses, then required all future applicants to
receive approval from political leaders in addition to
regulators. The governor and Legislature have never before been
asked to approve a new or expanded facility under the law.
Envirocare's supporters in the Legislature already had
legislation prepared in the fall to give final approval for the
expansion. But Huntsman came out in opposition to Envirocare's
plan.
Jason Groenewold, executive director of the advocacy group
Healthy Environment Alliance of Utah, HEAL, said lawmakers would
be taking a dramatic and dangerous step in passing SB70. Unlike a
tax bill, it could not be reversed if it does not work out the
next year.
"This is a decision that Utah will live with not just for
centuries, but for thousands of years to come," he said.
"This is about the Legislature taking power from the governor and
giving it to Envirocare and anyone else who wants to dump nuclear
or toxic waste in Utah."
fahys@sltrib.com --- Tribune reporter Glen Warchol contributed to
this report.
© Copyright 2006, The Salt Lake Tribune.
*****************************************************************
35 SouthofBoston.com: Tax the rods?
MPG Newspapers 9 Long Pond Rd. Plymouth, MA 02360 (508) 746-5555
By Genevieve Wheeler MPG Newspapers
PLYMOUTH (Jan. 18) n Ask your state officials what it's like to
talk with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), and you'll get
one adjective: frustrating.
"It's mind-boggling that we have absolutely no control," state
Sen. Therese Murray, D-Plymouth, said of Pilgrim Nuclear Power
Station's license renewal. "They've given FERC (the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission) authority through the next
quarter-century to remove the waste so we can't even bring that
up."
True to its word, the NRC limited relicensing discussion to the
plant's environmental impact and its aging components when it met
with town and state officials last Thursday.
And, Murray said, as it seems clear Pilgrim will likely receive
its new license without any discussion of Plymouth's concerns,
which include evacuation plans, security, and spent fuel rod
storage, the best course of action is to make sure Plymouth gets
the most compensation possible for hosting the plant.
At the request of selectmen, Murray, Rep. Vinny deMacedo,
R-Plymouth, and Rep. Tom O'Brien, D-Kingston, filed special
legislation that, if passed, would allow the town to receive
payment for the spent fuel rods stored within its borders.
So far, the legislation filed would allow the town to charge
plant owner and operator Entergy a minimum of $2 million per
year to store spent fuel rods on site as it does today. The
board will debate whether that minimum is sufficient before
formally endorsing the legislation.
"To me, $2 million seems low," selectman Anthony Schena said. "I
would like the minimum to start closer to $4 or 5 million and go
from there. The dollar amount is very important to the town.
That $2 million represents policemen responding to the plant,
security out on the ocean, our fire department having to rent
equipment."
If the board decides the minimum charge must be greater than $2
million per year, Murray, deMacedo and O'Brien will amend the
filed legislation to reflect that.
The federal government already charges nuclear power companies
fees, which are intended to remove all spent fuel rods in
America to one remote location. The plan to transport all spent
nuclear fuel rods to Yucca Mountain in Nevada, however, has been
tied up in federal court for years, with little progress in
sight.
"I think we're realizing the fuel rods are not going anywhere
anytime soon," deMacedo said.
If passed, the town could charge taxes over and above any
payment in lieu of taxes (PILOT) agreement with Entergy.
Murray, deMacedo and O'Brien admitted passing this proposed
state law presents a challenge. The federal government denied
the passage of similar legislation years ago. Murray, deMacedo
and O'Brien have tried to craft this bill differently.
"Plymouth is, in some ways, a facility that stores spent fuel
rods and it should be compensated for that," deMacedo said.
MPG Newspapers, 9 Long Pond Rd., Plymouth, MA 02360
Telephone: (508) 746-5555
*****************************************************************
36 PE.com: Water board chief opposed to delaying a July hearing
Inland Southern California | San Bernardino Metro
PERCHLORATE: A firm that once operated a Rialto facility is
accused of polluting area wells.
12:10 AM PST on Thursday, January 19, 2006
By JENNIFER BOWLES / The Press-Enterprise
LOMA LINDA - The region's chief water-quality regulator signaled
Wednesday that she would refuse to delay a July hearing for a
company accused of being a key contributor to perchlorate
contamination that has closed 20 drinking-water wells in the San
Bernardino Valley.
Carole Beswick, chairwoman of the Santa Ana Regional Water
Quality Control Board, said she would decide Monday after Emhart
Industries Inc. has a chance to refine its plan to determine the
company's role in the pollution.
"It's sounding like it has no traction," Beswick said of a
delay, after hearing board members and the public argue against
it.
Attorneys and consultants for Emhart, a subsidiary of Black &
Decker, sought a delay until October, saying they planned to
conduct soil testing and install at least three groundwater
wells around its former Rialto facility that operated in the
1950s.
"We're at a juncture where we believe that cooperation is the
right course rather than confrontation," said Bob Wyatt, an
attorney for Emhart, which had argued for the last few years
that it is not tied to the perchlorate contamination.
Representatives for some of the cities affected by the pollution
-- Rialto and Colton -- and the water agencies that serve them,
along with the Center for Community Action and Environmental
Justice, said Emhart's recently unveiled investigation plan
lacked an aggressive strategy.
They urged the board to keep the hearing date. Such a hearing is
similar to a court trial and would include evidence, testimony
and board members acting as the judge and ruling on what the
company must do.
Emhart has fought previous orders from the board in court. The
company can appeal to the state water board if the regional
panel rules against it.
"It is an environmental and financial crisis in Rialto," said
Scott Sommer, an attorney for the city.
"I can't underscore the importance of this to Rialto to keep
this process moving."
In the 1950s, Emhart's predecessor company, West Coast Loading,
made explosive cartridges, photoflash cartridges, flares and
other incendiary devices containing perchlorate.
The underground plume of perchlorate has since stretched several
miles from the 160-acre industrial site where Emhart and others
later operated.
Studies have shown that perchlorate can impair the thyroid,
which regulates metabolism and produces hormones essential for
brain and bone development in fetuses and newborns.
Goodrich Corp., the other company accused of being a major
pollution contributor, gave $4 million to the water agencies to
treat contaminated wells and reached a settlement with the board
in November to drill up to nine test wells.
Reach Jennifer Bowles at 951-368-9548 or jbowles@pe.comMore
2006, The Press-Enterprise Company
*****************************************************************
37 News & Star: Ruling in pollution dispute
Published on 19/01/2006
[In : Undated PA file photo of the Sellafield Nuclear power plant
in Cumbria run by BNFL, who are being criticised by the
advertising watchdog for making environmental claims, Wednesday
29 October 2003. The company boasted in a newspaper advert that
its management of the site in Cumbria meant that ìthe future of
the environment is in safe handsî. See PA story INQUIRY BNFL. PA
Photo.]
In : Undated PA file photo of the Sellafield Nuclear power plant
in Cumbria run by BNFL, who are being criticised by the
advertising watchdog for making environmental claims, Wednesday
29 October 2003. The company boasted in a newspaper advert that
its management of the site in Cumbria meant that ìthe future of
the environment is in safe handsî. See PA story INQUIRY BNFL. PA
Photo. 1 of 2
By Chris Story
A JUDGE in a European court has ruled Ireland breached EU rules
in its long-running dispute with the UK over Sellafield.
The Dublin government launched legal action with the United
Nations in 2001 over marine pollution on the Irish coast from
the west Cumbrian nuclear plant.
But yesterday, an Advocate-General at the European Court of
Justice backed the European Commission’s case that Ireland
should have tried to settle its dispute under EU jurisdiction.
It is the first legal action involving an EU rule which obliges
the member states not to take a dispute concerning EU law to
“any other means of settlement”.
The conflict over Sellafield and its mixed oxide plant, argued
the commission, was a matter which should be tackled with the EU.
Yesterday’s “opinion” is not a final verdict, which will
be delivered later this year.
In a majority of cases the final result reflects the views of
the Advocate-General.
Lawyers for the Irish government maintained Dublin was right to
turn to the UN because the case against the UK concerned the
alleged flouting by the Sellafield plant’s operators of marine
environmental protection obligations under the UN Tribunal on
the Law of the Sea.
*****************************************************************
38 DOE: DOE Technology Helps NASA Seek New Horizons
January 19, 2006
[Photo: RTG Sitting at NASA
- Photo Credit: NASA]
WASHINGTON, D.C.The New Horizons spacecraft, powered by deep
space battery technology developed by the Department of Energys
national laboratories, was successfully launched today from
Floridas Kennedy Space Center on a 9 year journey to explore
Pluto and its moons. The spacecraft will receive heat and
electricity from a long-lasting plutonium-238 powered generator
developed and assembled by scientists and engineers at the
Idaho, Oak Ridge and Los Alamos National Laboratories.
This is an amazing mission when you think about the time,
distance and harsh environment that the spacecraft will
encounter, said Secretary of Energy Samuel Bodman. Developing
the technology to sustain the instruments in deep space over a
long period of time required Americas best and brightest minds.
Im honored that our labs' scientists and engineers could play
such a significant role in helping to make this mission a
success.
For the mission, the Department of Energy developed and
delivered a radioisotope thermoelectric generator, or RTG.
This space battery provides an uninterrupted and reliable
source of heat and electricity in remote and harsh environments
such as deep space. The RTG will provide power and heat for
many years to the New Horizons spacecraft and its on-board
scientific equipment through the radioactive decay of nuclear
material. Heat generated by the radioactive decay of
plutonum-238 is converted into electricity by solid-state
thermoelectrics.
RTGs provided by DOE have enabled American scientists to explore
the solar system for many years. Prior to New Horizons, the
Apollo missions to the Moon, the Viking missions to Mars, and
the Pioneer, Voyager, Ulysses, Galileo and Cassini missions to
the outer solar system all used this safe, efficient and
long-lasting power source.
For more details on the New Horizons mission, visit the NASA Web
site at www.nasa.gov. Additional information on the
Departments role in developing nuclear energy technologies for
space exploration may be found at the Office of Nuclear Energy,
Science and Technologys Web site, www.nuclear.gov.
Media contact(s):
Mike Waldron, 202/586-4940 [ ]
U.S. Department of Energy | 1000 Independence Ave., SW |
Washington, DC 20585
1-800-dial-DOE | f/202-586-4403 |
*****************************************************************
39 Santa Fe New Mexican: Move to separate LANL pension fund irks employees
Thu Jan 19, 2006 10:39 pm
By Heather Clark The Associated Press |
ALBUQUERQUE A University of California Board of Regents
committee voted Wednesday to separate a pension fund covering
Los Alamos National Laboratory employees from the universitys
overall retirement fund.
The change now goes to the full Board of Regents for a vote
today in San Diego, UC spokesman Chris Harrington said.
The move has outraged employees at the nuclearweapons lab who
have been concerned about their benefits during a competition to
manage the lab that began in 2003. Los Alamos National Security
a team headed by UC and Bechtel Corp. was picked to manage
the lab last month. Its contract starts June 1.
People are just livid at this point, said Charles Mansfield ,
president of the Laboratory Retiree Group Inc., after
Wednesdays vote. The group represents about 750 households .
Its unconscionable because the retirees were promised that we
would be a part of the University of California retirement
plan, Mansfield said. This leaves us in a very tenuous
situation.
Regents Chairman Gerald Parsky said the university would stand
by its commitment to lab employees and retirees to provide
substantially equivalent pension benefits .
We will honor that, he said at Wednesdays meeting.
UC President Robert Dynes recommended that the Board of Regents
Special Committee on Compensation approve creating a cloned
plan for lab employees.
The separate fund called the UCRP-LANL Plan would provide
the same monthly benefit formulas as the regular UC retirement
plan. It would cover active, inactive and retired members,
according to a report from Dynes office.
Dynes recommended that the new fund become effective by March 31
or as soon as administratively feasible, the report said.
Creating the new pension plan would support a smoother
transition for lab employees who transfer to LANS and would be
covered under the corporations pension funds, Dynes office
said in a news release ahead of Wednesdays vote.
A Dec. 1 report by an outside consulting firm showed the Los
Alamos lab portion of the UC pension fund was underfunded by $54
million last July. That compares with being overfunded by $265.7
million the previous year.
Harrington said that even with the shortfall, this is an
extremely healthy plan at 99 percent especially when compared
to other pensions nationwide.
The shortfall has been affected by market forces and higher
salaries and an aging work force at the lab, Harrington said.
Mansfield said the shortfall is not a major concern to retirees.
Their main fear is that management of the fund would be
subcontracted to another firm.
If you get away from very stable institutions, like the
University of California, there are real problems. United
Airlines is one example right now, he said.
LANS this year must submit two pension plans and a benefits
package to the National Nuclear Security Administration for
approval. The NNSAs evaluation board has said any new
compensation package would have to be substantially equivalent
to employees current benefits.
The U.S. Department of Energy is expected to hand down a
decision on LANS pension and benefits packages by March 15 so
the company can begin making offers to employees, according to
the labs transition Web site.
Michelle Locke in San Diego contributed to this report.
*****************************************************************
40 Newsday.com: BNL's economic impact goes beyond LI --
BY RANDI F. MARSHALL STAFF WRITER
January 20, 2006
When Brookhaven National Laboratory managed to save one of its
key nuclear physics experiments last week by using private
financing to fill in federal budget gaps, the effect wasn't
limited to the lab itself.
In broader terms, the lab's economic impact statewide is far more
significant. Between 1993 and 2003, it added up to 79,000 jobs,
$9.2 billion and a host of new technologies that cannot be
entirely quantified, according to a report released Thursday by
Long Island Association chief economist Pearl Kamer.
The report, which has been two years in the making, shows that
the lab is one of the top five high-technology employers on the
Island, with 2,750 employees. But what with visiting scientists,
the development and marketing of new inventions, and the ripple
effect of new technology created in the lab, it's really
responsible for tens of thousands of additional, secondary jobs
for the state, in industries such as construction, retail and
business services, the report said.
And in the future the lab's economic effects could be even
greater, with another $5.6 billion and 91,000 jobs statewide by
2014, Kamer's report predicts. Much of the trickle-down effect
occurs on the Island, she said, as workers spend money and the
economy grows.
"We need entities like Brookhaven," Kamer said in an interview.
"We need it to grow, we need it to spin off new technologies and
we need it to come up with new solutions to the energy problems,
too."
Kamer's report noted that the lab's research on fuel-oil
efficiency has saved about $6 billion for oil-heated homes in
the U.S.
The lab also helps the regional and state economies through the
work it does, officials said.
"I think what it tells the people on Long Island is that they
have a bit of a technological gem here," said John Hauser, the
lab's assistant director of finance. "That puts Long Island on
the map as a national player in applied research, and for the
state it's a unique facility, too."
But the lab's mostly well-paying and highly skilled jobs are
especially important in an economy where job growth has been
mediocre, Kamer said.
The federal budget cuts announced late last year, which
threatened to endthe Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider, a $13
million project that aims to recreate the "big bang," did more
than just hurt the one experiment, Kamer said. Although the
RHIC, as it is known, was saved by private investment, cuts in
the future could hurt more, she added.
"By thwarting technology, you're thwarting future job growth,"
Kamer said.
http://www.newsday.com.
. Copyright 2006 Newsday Inc.
*****************************************************************
41 Aiken Today: SRS salt waste plans progress
Thursday, January 19, 2006
By PHILIP LORD Senior writer
The U.S. Department of Energy is moving forward with its plans
to dispose of low-level salt waste at the Savannah River Site
following years of debate.
The plan announced by DOE calls for approximately 39 million
gallons of waste currently held in 49 underground tanks to be
disposed of through a variety of processes.
Under a two-phase interim plan, the lowest activity waste will
be treated through a process involving deliquification,
dissolution and adjustment of waste starting this year, once all
needed S.C. Department of Health and Environmental Control
permits are received.
DHEC, which has long supported the proposed treatment plan, was
stalled in issuing permits as a result of political wrangling
over the issue in Washington, D.C.
In 2007 Savannah River Site personnel will start the second
phase of the interim plan, working with salt waste with a
slightly higher level of activity using an actinide removal
process and a modular caustic side solvent extraction unit.
The resolution of the salt waste issue was pushed by Sen.
Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., and Rep. Gresham Barrett, R-S.C., who
said the site needed to treat salt waste in order to empty the
tanks.
“Senator Graham is encouraged by today’s announcement the
Department of Energy has issued a Salt Waste Determination for
the Savannah River Site,” said spokesman Kevin Bishop. “This
marks a step forward in implementing the tank-cleanup
legislation Senator Graham helped push through the Congress in
2004. That agreement between the state and DOE ensured the tanks
will be cleaned up in an environmentally friendly and
cost-effective manner.”
He added, “As long as the tanks at the site remain open, there
is a risk to the workers and the surrounding environment. It’s
time we get the cleanup efforts moving forward to protect our
environment. Every day we delay increases the risks to the local
community and the Savannah River that these tanks, some of them
50 years old, will leak and create even greater problems down
the road.”
Waste removed during the interim phase of the program will be
stored at Saltstone, an existing SRS facility being modified to
store the waste.
Current plans call for a new Salt Waste Processing Facility
currently being redesigned by Parsons to be in place sometime in
2011. This facility will then treat the salt waste from the
underground tanks.
Parsons was informed in November that DOE wanted a more
“robust” facility than originally designed during a two-year
concept phase in Aiken, Parsons project manager Chuck Terhune
said during a December event. Now Parsons is working to upgrade
the facility following the two-year delay caused by actions in
Washington, D.C.
Current DOE estimates show 38 million gallons of the Cold
War-era waste stored at the site is salt waste. The remaining
2.6 million gallons are a high-level radioactive sludge that has
settled to the bottom of the tanks.
“Today’s announcement clears the way for the removal and
treatment of this waste, but more importantly, protects the
health and safety of our workers, the surrounding communities
and the environment,” said James Rispoli, assistant secretary
of Energy for Environmental Management. “This determination
will allow us to move forward in emptying the tanks to the
greatest extent feasible.”
Contact Philip Lord at plord@aikenstandard.com 2005 The
AikenStandard. All Rights Reserved
*****************************************************************
42 The State: Waste removal plan criticized
01/19/2
Concerns raised over removing radioactive material from SRS
By JACOB JORDAN The Associated Press
The Department of Energys plan to begin removing tons of
radioactive waste from 49 underground tanks stored at the
Savannah River Site has raised the ire of some nuclear watchdog
groups concerned about health and environmental impacts.
The DOE said Wednesday it hopes by this summer to begin removing
some of the roughly 36 million gallons of radioactive waste left
over from Cold War bomb making. About 33.8 million gallons of
the waste stored in the tanks is made up of salt waste, which
the agency considers low-activity and can be left behind at the
site.
The program to remove the radioactive waste in the tanks was
halted for two years after a federal lawsuit in Idaho challenged
the way the agency was going to leave waste behind. Federal
legislation that allowed the agency to reclassify the waste
followed the lawsuit and called for a review by the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission. That agency recently approved the DOEs
plans.
Todays announcement clears the way for the removal and
treatment of this waste, but more importantly, protects the
health and safety of our workers, the surrounding communities
and the environment, assistant energy secretary for
environmental management James Rispoli said in a statement.
This determination will allow us to move forward in emptying
the tanks to the greatest extent feasible.
The process of removing the waste from the tanks includes
sending some of it to a salt waste processing facility and some
of the high-level radioactive sludge to the defense waste
processing facility, which converts the waste into glass logs
for eventual burial in a geological repository.
But the salt waste facility is scheduled to open in 2011, about
two years behind schedule. That delay, as well as an interim
plan to begin this summer, concerns Geoff Fettus, a National
Resources Defense Council lawyer.
Fettus, who brought the successful lawsuit challenging DOEs
attempt to reclassify tank waste without congressional action,
questioned why the agency would issue its decision even though a
final report from the National Academy of Sciences on the issue
has not yet been released.
The process has been reviewed, and its been found to be safe,
DOE spokesman Bill Taylor said.
Tom Clements, a nuclear consultant and former senior adviser to
Greenpeace International, said its ludicrous for DOE to claim
that this will benefit the environment.
DOEs singular focus on cutting costs with this program will
save money but negatively impact SRS jobs and threaten the
TheStateOnline
*****************************************************************
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:
*****************************************************************