*****************************************************************
04/10/06 **** RADIATION BULLETIN(RADBULL) **** VOL 14.85
*****************************************************************
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 Guardian Unlimited: Bush Says He Declassified Pre-War Intel
2 Nuking Iran: 3 Million Dead, 35 Million Exposed Says UCS
3 [NukeNet] Entire Middle East May Be Engulfed In War
4 [NYTr] US Intent on Toppling Iranian Govt
5 [NYTr] Hersh Defends His Report on US Plotting Against Iran
6 [southnews] Krugman: Iran war- "Yes He Would"
7 [southnews] Nuking Iran 'Madness', Say Australian Peace Groups
8 [NYTr] McReynolds: The Iran Crisis - What You and I Can Do
9 Guardian Unlimited: Iran Dismisses Reports of U.S. Plans
10 Guardian Unlimited: U.S. Tries to Dampen Talk of Iran Strike
11 Guardian Unlimited: Solana: EU Should Consider Iran Sanctions
12 Guardian Unlimited: Bush Dismisses Reports Iran Attack Planned
13 Guardian Unlimited: Europe proposes limited sanctions to halt
14 IRIB PERSIAN NEWS: Mussa stresses Iran's nuclear rights
15 AFP: Bush says Iran attacks reports 'wild speculation'
16 AFP: US says it wants to settle Iran nuclear crisis through diplomac
17 AFP: UN nuclear inspectors at work in Iran
18 IRNA: Iran does not need nuclear weapons - Ambassador
19 IRNA: Daily urges diplomacy to resolve Iran N-case
20 IRNA: MP: access to nuclear know-how, Iran's sovereign right
21 Guardian Unlimited: China: N. Koreans Warming to Negotiations
22 US: [NukeNet] Got drones? Nuclear industry is short on workers --
23 US: [NukeNet] US to Detonate 700-Ton Bomb on Western Shoshone Land
24 US: Salt Lake Tribune: American policy seeds a new arms race
25 US: Salt Lake Tribune: Time to find out how the war was sold
26 US: SMT: Ronald Reagan Missile Defense at Vandenberg Monday-Nancy Re
27 UN Official Calls For Breaking Logjam On Nuclear Disarmament Front
28 Exhibition At UN Headquarters Highlights Kazakhstan Nuke Tests, Econ
29 Xinhua: UN official calls for new momentum in nuclear disarmament
30 UPI: Saudi Arabia may join nuclear club
NUCLEAR REACTORS
31 [NukeNet] Chernobyl Film- What Villages Look Like
32 Scotland: The Resurrection : Chernobyl 20 years on
33 [NukeNet] Scotland: Leading scientists attack Blair over
34 US: Scotland: Information tsar slams Executive plans to charge for
35 Scotland: Visions of Gamma Girl: Chernobyl: one woman's
36 Ahead of Chernobyl's 20th Anniversary
37 US: Guardian Unlimited: Nuclear Commission Chairman Plans to Leave
38 US: NRC: NRC Begins Special Inspection at Hatch Nuclear Plant to Rev
39 US: New York Times: Town Sees Nuclear Plans as a Boon, Not a Threat
40 US: MiamiHerald.com: Taking a fresh look at nuclear energy
41 US: Bradenton Herald: Proposed law would make it easier to approve p
42 US: NRC: NRC to Discuss 2005 Performance Assessment for Pilgrim Nucl
43 Platts: Japan's Onagawa nuclear plant may restart No. 1 unit in July
44 TCS Daily - Wasted Energy
45 US: Brattleboro Reformer: Group may challenge VY's water permit
46 US: NRC: Statement of NRC Chairman Nils J. Diaz
47 US: Boston Globe: Environmental group may challenge VY discharge per
48 Hawaii Reporter: Chernobyl, 20 Years Later
NUCLEAR SECURITY
NUCLEAR SAFETY
49 US: [DU List] WMD - Why locals say FU to DU - 'agent Orange of
50 US: Philadelphia Inquirer: Editorial | Put public safety first
51 US: Deseret News: Planned Nevada test blast worries watchdog groups
52 US: USATODAY.com: Nuclear compensation program questioned
53 US: AmericanHeritage.com: Disaster in the Deep
54 US: reviewjournal.com: Fallon cancer lawsuit rejected
55 US: ALERT: Comments Needed on DHS Radiation Exposure proposal
56 US: UPI: New research on uranium's effect on DNA
NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE
57 US: Deseret News: Nuclear fight isn't over; Cannon's fight has just
58 US: StarTribune.com: Nuclear waste storage is unsolved question
59 US: newsobserver.com: Bury it here?
60 US: RIA Novosti: Russia mulls uranium production abroad - official
61 reviewjournal.com: Propagandists (Yucca)
62 reviewjournal.com: An energy precipice (Yucca)
63 Platts: BNG plans to return Thorp reprocessing plant to UK's NII
64 US: Deseret News: Fight nuclear waste, Utahns urged
65 News & Star: Lethal nuclear beam inquiry is launched
66 News & Star: Sellafield starts pond clean-up
67 US: Salt Lake Tribune: Anti-nuke Goshutes lose round in court
68 US: Salt Lake Tribune: Utah firm showing interest in nuke-waste
PEACE
US DEPT. OF ENERGY
69 Knox News: $500,000 - Who gets it, how should it be spent?
70 KnoxNews: Price of K-770 nuclear cleanup grows
71 Knox News: Venture fund announces new partner
72 DOE: Pilot Plant (WIPP) continues to comply with the ``Environmental
*****************************************************************
*****************************************************************
FULL NEWS STORIES
*****************************************************************
*****************************************************************
1 Guardian Unlimited: Bush Says He Declassified Pre-War Intel
From the Associated Press
[UP]
Tuesday April 11, 2006 12:16 AM
AP Photo WHGH107
By DEB RIECHMANN
Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON (AP) - President Bush said Monday that he
declassified sensitive prewar intelligence on Iraq back in 2003
to counter critics who claimed the administration had
exaggerated the nuclear threat posed by Saddam Hussein.
``I wanted people to see the truth and thought it made sense for
people to see the truth,'' Bush said during an appearance at
Johns Hopkins University's Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced
International Studies.
``You're not supposed to talk about classified information, and
so I declassified the document,'' he said in a
question-and-answer session after delivering a speech on Iraq.
``I thought it was important for people to get a better sense
for why I was saying what I was saying in my speeches. And I
felt I could do so without jeopardizing ongoing intelligence
matters, and so I did.''
It was Bush's first comment since more detail about the release
of a prewar intelligence document surfaced last week in a court
filing by U.S. prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald.
In the filing, Fitzgerald wrote that Vice President Dick
Cheney's former chief of staff, I. Lewis Libby, told a grand
jury that Bush authorized him, through Cheney, to leak
information from a classified document that detailed
intelligence agencies' conclusions about weapons of mass
destruction in Iraq.
A lawyer knowledgeable about the case said Saturday that Bush
declassified sensitive intelligence in 2003 and authorized it to
be publicly disclosed to rebut Iraq war critics. But the lawyer
said Bush did not specifically direct Libby to disseminate
information about prewar intelligence to reporters.
Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., sent a letter to Bush on Monday
asking him for details about how the document was declassified.
``There are many questions that the president must answer so
that the American people can understand that this
declassification was done for national security purposes, not
for immediate political gain.''
Bush's decision in July 2003 to disclose sensitive prewar
intelligence assessments came amid a growing public realization
that Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction. The failure to
find such weapons undermined a chief rationale Bush and Cheney
used for the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq.
On Sunday, Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., said Bush and Cheney
should speak publicly about the CIA leak case so people can make
their own judgments about what happened. But Bush said he can't
talk about an ongoing legal proceeding.
``You're just going to have to let Mr. Fitzgerald complete his
case,'' Bush said. ``And I hope you understand that. It's a
serious legal matter that we've got to be careful in making
public statements about it.''
Libby faces charges of perjury, obstruction and lying to the FBI
regarding the disclosure that Valerie Plame, the wife of war
critic Joseph Wilson, worked for the CIA. Libby is accused of
making false statements about how he learned of her CIA
employment and what he told reporters about her.
Plame's CIA employment was disclosed by conservative columnist
Robert Novak eight days after her husband, Wilson, accused the
Bush administration of manipulating prewar intelligence to
exaggerate the Iraqi threat from weapons of mass destruction.
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006
*****************************************************************
2 Nuking Iran: 3 Million Dead, 35 Million Exposed Says UCS
Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2006 12:15:01 -0400
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_security/nuclear_weapons/nuclear-bunker-buster-rnep-animation.html
Hersch on Bush Iran Nuke PlansThe Union of Concerned Scientists
has an excellent online video which describes the effects of a
one-megaton bunker-buster weapon dropped on Esfahan [Isfahan],
which is said to be the primary location of the Iranian nuclear
weapons program.
UCS calculates 3 million dead, 35 million exposed to significant
amounts of radioactive fallout, with the fallout extending to
Pakistan, Afghanistan and India.
see:
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_security/nuclear_weapons/nuclear-bunker-buster-rnep-animation.html
*****************************************************************
3 [NukeNet] Entire Middle East May Be Engulfed In War
Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2006 15:15:02 -0700
NukeNet Anti-Nuclear Network (nukenet@energyjustice.net)
The attack came as the American ambassador to
Iraq, Zalmay Khalilzad, said in an interview with
the BBC that if a unified government was not
formed soon, a sectarian war could erupt in Iraq
and that such a war could engulf the entire Middle
East.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/08/world/middleeast/08iraq.html?hp&ex=1144555200&en=bb02c793dbb595a6&ei=5094&partner=homepage
If such a catastrophic scenario should take
place let's remember that Israel has at least 100
nuclear weapons, probably many more. Nuclear
reactors, weather directly attacked via ground,
missile or bombing present another extreme danger.
_______________________________________________________________________
Subscribe/Unsubscribe Here: http://www.energyjustice.net/nukenet/
Change your settings or access the archives at:
http://energyjustice.net/mailman/listinfo/nukenet_energyjustice.net
*****************************************************************
4 [NYTr] US Intent on Toppling Iranian Govt
Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2006 02:09:24 -0400 (EDT)
Via NY Transfer News Collective * All the News that Doesn't Fit
sent by Sanjoy Mahajan (activ-l)
"In Britain, Jack Straw told the BBC that the idea of a US nuclear strike
against Iran was 'completely nuts'."
Which is what Straw said about the invasion of Iraq, so it means that
the US and UK are making joint plans, and maybe a few years later we'll
get more Downing Street memos to confirm it.
"There is also rising concern in the US military and abroad that Mr
Bush's goal in Iran is not counter-proliferation but regime change"
Shocking!
Operation Iranian Liberation.
-Sanjoy
***
The Guardian - Apr 10, 2006
http://www.guardian.co.uk/frontpage/story/0,,1750680,00.html
US plans strike to topple Iran regime - report
- US 'intent on Iran attack'
- Bush accused of 'messianic' mission
by Julian Borger in Washington and Bob Tait in Tehran
The US is planning military action against Iran because George Bush is
intent on regime change in Tehran - and not just as a contingency if
diplomatic efforts fail to halt its suspected nuclear weapons programme, it
was reported yesterday.
In the New Yorker magazine, Seymour Hersh, America's best known
investigative journalist, concluded that the Bush administration is even
considering the use of a tactical nuclear weapon against deep Iranian
bunkers, but that top generals in the Pentagon are attempting to take
that option off the table.
Hersh, who helped break the story of the Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse scandal,
quoted an unnamed Pentagon adviser as saying the resurgence of interest in
tactical nuclear weapons among Pentagon civilians was "a juggernaut that has
to be stopped" and that some senior officers and officials were considering
resignation over the issue.
There is also rising concern in the US military and abroad that Mr Bush's
goal in Iran is not counter-proliferation but regime change, the article
reports. The president and his aides now refer to the Iranian president,
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, as a potential Adolf Hitler, according to a former
senior intelligence official.
Another government consultant is quoted as saying Mr Bush believes he must
do "what no Democrat or Republican, if elected in the future, would have the
courage to do" and "that saving Iran is going to be his legacy".
"The word I'm hearing is messianic," Mr Hersh said yesterday on CNN. "[Bush]
is politically free. He really thinks he has a chance and this is his
mission."
There was no formal response from the White House yesterday but Fox News
television quoted unnamed officials as saying Mr Hersh's article was "hyped,
without knowledge of the president's thinking". In Britain, Jack Straw told
the BBC that the idea of a US nuclear strike against Iran was "completely
nuts".
Military action against Iran was "not on the agenda", the foreign secretary
said. "They [the Americans] are very committed indeed to resolving this
issue ... by negotiation and by diplomatic pressure."
An Iranian foreign ministry spokesman, Hamid Reza Asefi, dismissed the
reports as "psychological war, launched by Americans because they feel angry
and desperate regarding Iran's nuclear dossier".
Vincent Cannistraro, a former CIA counter-terrorism operations chief said Mr
Bush had not yet made up his mind about the use of direct military action
against Iran.
"There is a battle for Bush's soul over that," he said, adding that Karl
Rove, the president's chief political adviser is adamantly opposed to a war.
However, Mr Cannistraro said covert military action, in the form of special
forces troops identifying targets and aiding dissident groups, is already
under way.
"It's been authorised, and it's going on to the extent that there is some
lethality to it. Some people have been killed."
He said US-backed Baluchi Sunni guerrillas had been involved in an attack in
Sistan-Baluchistan last month in which over 20 Iranian government officials
were killed and the governor of the provincial capital was wounded. The
Iranian government had blamed British intelligence for the incident.
Last week, the Iranian regime made a public show of its combat readiness by
test-firing some of its missile technology during seven days of war games in
the Gulf, images of which were broadcast repeatedly on state television.
The Washington Post reported yesterday that Pentagon and CIA planners had
been exploring possible targets, including a uranium enrichment plant at
Natanz and a uranium conversion site in Isfahan, as part of a broader
strategy of "coercive diplomacy" aimed at forcing Iran to abandon its
nuclear ambitions. But that report made no mention of the possible use of a
tactical nuclear bunker-buster, such as the B61-11, against deep underground
targets, reported by Mr Hersh.
The UN security council has given Iran until the end of this month to
suspend its uranium enrichment programme, which most western governments
believe is intended to produce a nuclear warhead, not generate electric
power as Tehran insists. There is no consensus in the security council over
what steps to take if the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) reports
back that Iran has failed to comply. The IAEA director, Mohamed ElBaradei is
due in Tehran this week for talks.
The US ambassador to the UN, John Bolton said last week the US would explore
other diplomatic and economic options if the security council fails to
agree. He has also told British parliamentarians that he believes that
military action could halt or at least set back the Iranian nuclear
programme by striking it at its weakest point.
The Washington Post reported that while no military action is likely in the
short term, the possible targets went beyond suspected nuclear installations
and included the option of a "more extensive bombing campaign designed to
destroy an array of military and political targets".
It is a widespread belief in Washington's neo-conservative circles that a
comprehensive air assault would disorient the Tehran government and
galvanise the Iranian people into bringing it down. The departure of senior
neo-conservatives from the administration after Mr Bush's 2004 re-election
was thought to have weakened their clout, but Mr Hersh's report suggested
that the president's personal convictions may yet prove decisive.
(c) Guardian Newspapers Limited 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
================================================================
*****************************************************************
5 [NYTr] Hersh Defends His Report on US Plotting Against Iran
Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2006 02:12:56 -0400 (EDT)
Via NY Transfer News Collective * All the News that Doesn't Fit
sent by Mark Graffis (activ-l) - Apr 10, 2006
ThinkProgress.org - Apr 9, 2006
http://thinkprogress.org/2006/04/09/hersh-military/
Hersh: Our Military Is 'Very Loyal to the President,
But They're Getting to the Edge'
This morning on CNN, New Yorker journalist Seymour Hersh addressed the
uproar at the highest levels of the U.S. military over plans to launch a
massive strike against Iran that would include nuclear weapons:
"What I'm writing here is that if this [plan to use nukes] isn't removed -
and I say this very seriously, I've been around this town for 40 years -
some senior officers are prepared to resign. They're that upset about the
fact that this plan is kept in... [O]ne thing about our military, they're
very loyal to the president, but they're getting to the edge. They're
getting to the edge with not only Rumsfeld, but with Cheney and the
President."
Hersh also addressed claims today by British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw
that the idea of a nuclear strike on Iran is "completely nuts." Hersh's
response: "He didn't deny there's serious planning about the military
strike, is the point. He's absolutely right about a nuclear option, but
there is planning for conventional war."
Full transcript:
HERSH: When the JCS, the Joint Chiefs and the planners then wanted to walk
back that option [to use nuclear weapons], what happened is about three or
four weeks ago, the White House - people in the White House, in the Oval
Office, the Vice President's office - said "No, let's keep it in the plan.
That doesn't mean it's going to happen." They refuse to take it out. What
I'm writing here is that if this isn't removed - and I say this very
seriously, I've been around this town for 40 years - some senior officers
are prepared to resign. They're that upset about the fact that this plan is
kept in. Again, let me make the point, you're giving a range of options
early in the planning, to be sure of getting rid of it, you give that
option. .
BLITZER: Some senior military officers are prepared to resign?
HERSH: I'm saying if this isn't walked back and if the President isn't told
that you cannot do it - and once the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, some
senior members of the military say to the President, let's get the nuclear
option off the table, it will be taken off. He will not defy the military in
a formal report. Unless something specific is told to the White House that
you've got to drop the dream of a nuclear option, and that's exactly the
issue I'm talking about, people have said to me they would resign.
BLITZER: Do you want to name names?
HERSH: Are you kidding?
BLITZER: I'm giving you the opportunity.
HERSH: No. You know why? Because this is a punitive government right now.
This is a government that pretty much has its back against the wall, as
you've been saying all morning in iraq, and in the military - one thing
about our military, they're very loyal to the president, but they're getting
to the edge. They're getting to the edge with not only Rumsfeld, but with
Cheney and the President.
*
================================================================
.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
================================================================
*****************************************************************
6 [southnews] Krugman: Iran war- "Yes He Would"
Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2006 18:47:03 -0500 (CDT)
by Paul Krugman
The New York Times - Apr 10, 2006
"But he wouldn't do that." That sentiment is what made it possible for
President Bush to stampede America into the Iraq war and to fend off
hard questions about the reasons for that war until after the 2004 election.
Many people just didn't want to believe that an American president would
deliberately mislead the nation on matters of war and peace.
Now people with contacts in the administration and the military warn
that Mr. Bush may be planning another war. The most alarming of the
warnings come from Seymour Hersh, the veteran investigative journalist
who broke the Abu Ghraib scandal. Writing in The New Yorker, Mr. Hersh
suggests that administration officials believe that a bombing campaign
could lead to desirable regime change in Iran - and that they refuse to
rule out the use of tactical nuclear weapons.
"But he wouldn't do that," say people who think they're being sensible.
Given what we now know about the origins of the Iraq war, however,
discounting the possibility that Mr. Bush will start another
ill-conceived and unnecessary war isn't sensible. It's wishful thinking.
As it happens, rumors of a new war coincide with the emergence of
evidence that appears to confirm our worst suspicions about the war
we're already in.
First, it's clearer than ever that Mr. Bush, who still claims that war
with Iraq was a last resort, was actually spoiling for a fight. The New
York Times has confirmed the authenticity of a British government memo
reporting on a prewar discussion between Mr. Bush and Tony Blair. In
that conversation, Mr. Bush told Mr. Blair that he was determined to
invade Iraq even if U.N. inspectors came up empty-handed.
Second, it's becoming increasingly clear that Mr. Bush knew that the
case he was presenting for war - a case that depended crucially on
visions of mushroom clouds - rested on suspect evidence. For example, in
the 2003 State of the Union address Mr. Bush cited Iraq's purchase of
aluminum tubes as clear evidence that Saddam was trying to acquire a
nuclear arsenal. Yet Murray Waas of the National Journal reports that
Mr. Bush had been warned that many intelligence analysts disagreed with
that assessment.
Was the difference between Mr. Bush's public portrayal of the Iraqi
threat and the actual intelligence he saw large enough to validate
claims that he deliberately misled the nation into war? Karl Rove
apparently thought so.
According to Mr. Waas, Mr. Rove "cautioned other White House aides in
the summer of 2003 that Bush's 2004 re-election prospects would be
severely damaged" if the contents of an October 2002 "President's
Summary" containing dissents about the significance of the aluminum
tubes became public.
Now there are rumors of plans to attack Iran. Most strategic analysts
think that a bombing campaign would be a disastrous mistake. But that
doesn't mean it won't happen: Mr. Bush ignored similar warnings,
including those of his own father, about the risks involved in invading
Iraq.
As Joseph Cirincione of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
recently pointed out, the administration seems to be following exactly
the same script on Iran that it used on Iraq: "The vice president of the
United States gives a major speech focused on the threat from an
oil-rich nation in the Middle East. The U.S. secretary of state tells
Congress that the same nation is our most serious global challenge. The
secretary of defense calls that nation the leading supporter of global
terrorism. The president blames it for attacks on U.S. troops."
Why might Mr. Bush want another war? For one thing, Mr. Bush, whose
presidency is increasingly defined by the quagmire in Iraq, may believe
that he can redeem himself with a new Mission Accomplished moment.
And it's not just Mr. Bush's legacy that's at risk. Current polls
suggest that the Democrats could take one or both houses of Congress
this November, acquiring the ability to launch investigations backed by
subpoena power.
This could blow the lid off multiple Bush administration scandals.
Political analysts openly suggest that an attack on Iran offers Mr. Bush
a way to head off this danger, that an appropriately timed military
strike could change the domestic political dynamics.
Does this sound far-fetched? It shouldn't. Given the combination of
recklessness and dishonesty Mr. Bush displayed in launching the Iraq
war, why should we assume that he wouldn't do it again?
http://select.nytimes.com/2006/04/10/opinion/10krugman.html
The archives of South News can be found at
http://southmovement.alphalink.com.au/southnews/
*****************************************************************
7 [southnews] Nuking Iran 'Madness', Say Australian Peace Groups
Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2006 01:23:56 -0500 (CDT)
The possible use of nuclear weapons against Iran would set the US
outside the community of civilised nations. It would be a crime against
humanity.
IMMEDIATE USE 11/4/2006
FRIENDS OF THE EARTH AUSTRALIA
PEOPLE FOR NUCLEAR DISARMAMENT NSW
AUSTRALIAN PEACE COMMITTEE
NUCLEAR-FREE AUSTRALIA
Military action Against Iran 'Madness', Say Australian Peace Groups
Australian Peace groups say that military action against Iran, and
especially the possibility of nuclear strikes, would be 'madness', and
would in all probability bring about exactly the opposite of what they
were intended to bring about, ensuring the creation of a hostile and
nuclear - armed Iran.
The possible use of nuclear weapons against Iran would set the US
outside the community of civilised nations. It would be a crime against
humanity.
President Bush dismissed reports of possible military action including
the use of nuclear weapons as 'wild speculation'. Nonetheless, an
article yesterday by influential journalist Seymour Hersch was merely
the latest in a long series of articles from many sources along this line.
According to Friends of the Earth, People for Nuclear Disarmament NSW,
PND-WA, and APC,
"A military strike against Iran will serve no purpose other than to
transform Iran's currently ambiguous nuclear program into a program that
will be unambiguously aimed at getting nuclear weapons. So - called
'surgical' military strikes are unlikely to be able to set back Iran's
program by very much, but will certainly give the upper hand to those in
Tehran who want to go nuclear in spite of the Fatwa that currently
prevents them from doing so. The result will be a nuclear- armed Iran
that will be violently hostile to the west - exactly the opposite of
what we want."
"Options such as 'regime - change' are simply a disaster waiting to
happen. The US is currently unable to control Iraq - How will it ever be
able to enforce regime change in the much larger Iran even if it had the
military capability to do this which is doubtful."
"The final option canvassed by influential journalist Seymour Hersch
recently is the use of nuclear weapons. The use of nuclear weapons will
place the US outside the community of civilised nations, and will be
illegal under the 1996 ICJ decision on the use or threat of use of
nuclear weapons. Talking about their use is even in some respects more
dangerous, as again it will impel Iran to pursue its own nuclear
deterrent as the very highest priority. "
"We call on the Australian government to stand against this madness and
to urge on its great and powerful ally policies based on rationality and
commonsense."
Contact:
John Hallam 02-9810-2598 02-9319-4296
Hillel Freedman 0417506150
Cameron Schraner PND 0415-202060
Sue Gilbey APC 0411-413-122
_______________________________________-
It would be nuts to bomb Iran, says Britain
Tom Baldwin, Washington
The Times 11apr06
BRITAIN has tried to silence renewed sabre-rattling from within the US
administration for military action against Iran, saying the idea that
the White House wants a nuclear strike is "completely nuts".
Foreign Secretary Jack Straw insisted that Britain would not support
pre-emptive military action against Tehran, adding: "I'm as certain as I
can be sitting here that neither would the United States."
Many analysts in the West suspect Tehran is attempting to build its own
nuclear weapons. Over the weekend, Iran allowed UN inspectors to examine
some of the atomic plants which, it maintains, are designed solely for
production of electricity.
Speaking to the BBC, Mr Straw said: "There is no smoking gun, there is
no casus belli. We can't be certain about Iran's intentions and that is,
therefore, not a basis on which anybody would gain authority to go for
military action."
The idea that the White House wanted a nuclear strike was "completely
nuts", he said.
Mr Straw was responding to an article by award-winning investigative
journalist Seymour Hersh, published in The New Yorker. It has been
seized on as evidence that any hope of a diplomatic solution to the
standoff is being swept aside by White House hawks.
Hersh says US President George W.Bush now believes his historic purpose
is to stop Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, whom he is said to
regard asa "new Hitler", acquiring nuclear weapons.
The article suggests that Pentagon plans presented to the White House
include the use of a "bunker-buster" tactical nuclear weapon against
underground sites in Iran because of concerns that conventional strikes
would not be "decisive".
The Pentagon attempted to dismiss the report as being filled with
"fantastical, wrong and unsubstantiated allegations".
Hersh pointed out that the Pentagon had used similar language initially
to describe his revelations about abuses at Abu Ghraib prison in Baghdad.
His article says US troops have been ordered to infiltrate Iran to
collect target data and to cultivate relationships with indigenous
groups that oppose the Ahmadinejad Government.
It also claims that US carrier attack jets have been flying simulated
bombing runs within range of Iranian coastal radar.
Pentagon officials denied this. They said war planners had routinely
updated contingencies on Iran but this did not reflect any orders to
prepare for a military confrontation.
The US is thought to have taken limited steps that go beyond contingency
planning, such as flying drones over Iran.
The Iranian Foreign Ministry dismissed the US media reports as
"psychological warfare" that stemmed "from America's anger and
helplessness".
Last month, the UN Security Council gave Iran 30 days to halt its
nuclear research, or risk action such as sanctions.
Joseph Cirincione, of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace,
said: "I previously dismissed talk about US military strikes as
left-wing conspiracy theory ... but in just the past few weeks I've been
convinced that at least some in the administration have already made up
their minds that they would like to launch a military strike against Iran."
Mr Straw acknowledged that the US administration uses "slightly
different language" on the issue.
"President Bush says (military action) is not on the agenda, but they
don't rule out any option in theory. I believe it is not on the agenda
and they are very committed indeed to resolving this issue by negotiation."
Mr Straw said he was encouraged that Russia and China had joined the US
and European Union powers to apply diplomatic pressure to Tehran.
Kori Schake, a former staffer on Mr Bush's National Security Council,
told The Washington Post talk of a military strike was a "diplomatic
gambit to keep pressure on others".
____________________________________
Psy-War or Serious? Washington Mulls Iran Attack
by Jim Lobe
(Inter Press Service)April 11, 2006
Three years after the fall of Baghdad to U.S. forces, Washington is
abuzz about new reports that the administration of President George W.
Bush is preparing to attack Iran, possibly with nuclear weapons.
In just the past few days, lengthy articles detailing planning for
aerial attacks on as many as 400 nuclear and military targets have
appeared in the Washington Post; the London Sunday Times; The Forward,
the main weekly of the U.S. Jewish community; and The New Yorker.
The New Yorker account, written by legendary investigative reporter
Seymour Hersh, who two years ago was the first to disclose U.S. abuses
of detainees at Abu Ghraib prison, was the most spectacular, although it
relied heavily on unnamed sources outside the administration.
Among other assertions, Hersh's 6,300-word article, "The Iran Plans,"
alleged that U.S. combat forces have already entered Iran to collect
target data and make contact with "anti-government ethnic-minority
groups" assertions that the Post said it was unable to confirm. It
also claimed that efforts by senior military officials to get the
administration to eliminate contingency plans for the use of nuclear
weapons against specific hardened targets had been "shouted down" by the
Pentagon's civilian leadership.
Unlike other accounts that have argued that any U.S. attack was unlikely
to take place until after the November mid-term elections at the
earliest, Hersh also suggested that a U.S. attack could come at any time.
"The officials say that President Bush is determined to deny the Iranian
regime the opportunity to begin a pilot program, planned for this
spring, to enrich uranium," Hersh wrote, citing official sources. In an
interview on CNN Monday morning, the journalist insisted that planning
for an attack had moved into an "operational" phase, "beyond contingency
planning."
Without denying any of Hersh's assertions, Bush himself insisted Monday
that the latest reports constituted "wild speculation" and that his
administration remained committed to "diplomacy." At the same time,
White House spokesman Scott McClellan insisted that military force
remained an option.
The sudden spate of detailed stories has raised the question of whether
the administration really intends such an attack if not imminently,
then before it leaves office, as contended by the Sunday Times or if
it is carrying out a psychological warfare campaign designed to persuade
the Iranians and Washington's less warlike friends, especially in
Europe, that it will indeed take action unless Tehran agrees to U.S.
demands to abandon its enrichment program
There is no consensus on this question.
To some experts, the potential costs of such an attack from an
Iranian-inspired Shi'ite uprising in Iraq to missile attacks on Saudi
oil fields and skyrocketing energy prices (not to mention a rise in
anti-U.S. sentiment in Europe and the Islamic world) so clearly
outweigh the possible benefits that Bush's top political aides would
recognize them as exorbitant.
"Although they may be reckless with the security of the United States, I
think they are utterly cold-blooded realists when it comes to political
power," noted Gary Sick, an Iran policy expert at Columbia University,
who sees the latest reports and threats by senior administration
officials as an effort to intimidate Tehran.
"[O]ne of their strongest negotiating tools is the widespread belief
that they are irrational and capable of the most irresponsible actions.
That is their record, so they have no need to invent it. If they can use
that reputation to keep Iran and everybody else off balance, so much
the better," he added, noting, however, that if that analysis is
correct, "there is always the huge danger of miscalculation and accident."
Graham Fuller, a former CIA officer and Middle East specialist at the
RAND Corporation, echoed this view. He told The Forward that the recent
spate of articles "shows the fine hand of U.S. [maybe UK too]
disinformation and psychological warfare against Iran [that] may now
be intensified, perhaps out of frustration that the 'real thing' is not,
in fact, on the table any more."
Other analysts, however, do not see the administration as bluffing.
"For months, I have told interviewers that no senior political or
military official was seriously considering a military attack on Iran,"
wrote Joseph Cirincione, a nuclear proliferation specialist at the
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace (CEIP) last week.
"In the last few weeks, I have changed my view," he went on. "In part,
this shift was triggered by colleagues with close ties to the Pentagon
and the executive branch who have convinced me that some senior
officials have already made up their minds: They want to hit Iran."
"In recent months, I have grown increasingly concerned that the
administration has been giving thought to a heavy dose of air strikes
against Iran's nuclear sector without giving enough weight to the
possible ramification of such action," Wayne White, the State
Department's top Middle East analyst until 2005, told The Forward.
Whether psychological warfare or serious premeditation, leading the
charge are clearly the same aggressive nationalist and pro-Israel
elements within and outside the administration that were behind the
drive to war in Iraq.
Thus, the rhetoric of Vice President Dick Cheney and UN Ambassador John
Bolton two of the administration's most hawkish figures has been
particularly threatening in recent weeks, with Cheney vowing "meaningful
consequences" and Bolton "tangible and painful consequences" in speeches
last month to the American-Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) if
Iran did not freeze its nuclear program.
Similarly, neoconservatives closely associated with right-wing sectors
in Israel have been most outspoken in arguing that the benefits of an
attack strongly outweigh the possible costs.
Thus, while Hersh quoted Patrick Clawson, an Iran expert at the
AIPAC-created Washington Institute for Near East Policy, as calling for
war, if covert action, including "industrial accidents," is not
sufficient to set back Iran's nuclear program, the Sunday Times quoted
former Defense Policy Board chairman, Richard Perle, as asserting that
destroying the program would be much easier than many anticipate.
"The attack would be over before anybody knew what had happened," said
Perle, who told the AIPAC conference last month that a dozen B-2 bombers
could handle the problem overnight.
His colleague at the neoconservative American Enterprise Institute,
Michael Rubin, has also stressed that "the administration is deadly
serious and while everyone recognizes the problems of any military
action, there is a real belief that the consequences of Iran going
nuclear would be worse."
Indeed, as in Iraq, hardliners in and outside the administration may be
embarked on their own psy-war campaign against more moderate forces
within the administration, either to counter European pressure on
Washington to engage Iran in direct negotiations, to provoke Iran into
an overreaction that would offer a pretext for an attack, or to
rhetorically box the administration into a position where it would look
unacceptably weak if it did not take action.
"A sudden unexplained explosion at a U.S. embassy, a clash with militias
in Basra, or a thousand other things could call the administration's
bluff," according to Sick. "[T]here are certainly individuals in and
around the administration who would not hesitate for a second to
recommend a bombing attack on Iran."
The archives of South News can be found at
http://southmovement.alphalink.com.au/southnews/
*****************************************************************
8 [NYTr] McReynolds: The Iran Crisis - What You and I Can Do
Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2006 12:43:20 -0400 (EDT)
Via NY Transfer News Collective * All the News that Doesn't Fit
Seymour Hersh's article "The Iran Plans," (New Yorker, April 17, 2006 issue)
is at:
http://olm.blythe-systems.com/pipermail/nytr/Week-of-Mon-20060403/035299.html
sent by David McReynolds - April 10, 2006
The Iran Crisis and What You and I Can Do
by David McReynolds
Seymour Hersh is a national treasure, far more reliable in his reports than
the White House (or the British Foreign Secretary).
When he reports that Bush has on the White House table plans for military
strikes at Iran, including the "nuclear option" (tactical nuclear weapons
used as "bunker busters") he makes a great deal more sense than any of the
denials from Washington. Further, Hersh has reported that at least one
General will submit his resignation unless the nuclear option is taken off
the table. Seymour Hersh has a better track record of honesty and solid
contacts than anything the White House (or British Foreign Office) can
offer.
This is a situation I view as a crisis. I have certainly been wrong before
- I did not believe Bush would actually start the invasion of Iraq, because
it seemed clear it would be a disaster. I didn't believe he would launch
the war until I saw, on TV, the first bombs land. Now that it is clear that
the cabal that took control of the White House in 2000 will stop at nothing,
I am deeply worried. Impossible as it seems that Bush would launch a
military strike at Iran, under Bush the impossible seems to take on a life
of its own.
Some thoughts. No one wants another country to get a nuclear weapon. But we
must not let the handful of Bush loyalists still around persuade us that it
is unthinkable for Iran to have "the bomb". We lived with the Soviet
nuclear arsenal. We lived with the Chinese nuclear arsenal. Pakistan and
India have (thus far) survived. North Korea seems to have the bomb (which is
perhaps why it isn't on the list of targets on the White House table?). It
might be helpful for the friends of Israel, who are among the few drum
beaters for military action, to ponder two problems. One is that the entire
rush for Middle Eastern states to develop nuclear weapons FOLLOWED the
Israeli action in getting them. (And Israel's consistent refusal to engage
in any serious discussion of a nuclear free Middle East). Second, it is
fairly certain that if Iran is attacked it will strike back and Israel has
reason to fear an Iran which would have an immediate reason for targeting
Israel. Iran can also cut oil production and the flow of oil from the Middle
East - which will hurt Iran, will bring huge profits to the oil companies,
but will mean economic disaster for Japan, for China, for Europe, and very
high gasoline prices here.
Iran can actually intervene in Iraq, with which is shares a common border.
At the moment US policy has "handed Iraq" over to Iranian interests, and
actual Iranian intervention is very limited. (It hasn't been necessary - one
folly of the Bush/neoconservative policy has been to put Iranian political
interests at the center of Iraqi politics). However nothing stands in the
way of Iran shipping in a great deal more military equipment (and even
troops).
Diplomacy may well fail. We may well see a nuclear Iran - my hunch is that
eventually we will. Our diplomacy needs to orient to that, and to the need
to ease tensions with Iran and particularly, more broadly, with the Islamic
world.
But Bush may choose to go it alone - if Congress stands by and lets him. We
have an odd and oddly dangerous situation. Bush will not "improve in the
polls" if he launches a military strike. His credibility is down the tubes
and it won't go back up. In politics when you lose the trust of the voters,
you don't regain it. The GOP is eager to put as much distance between
themselves and Bush as they can - they fear a Democratic landslide in
November. When Arlen Spector, no radical, but a loyal (if occasionally
maverick) Republican Senator from Pennsylvania, who isn't up for re-election
this year, can call publicly (as he did today) for Bush and Cheneyto come
clean and explain the leaks, there is some hope. When John Murtha,
traditionally a "hawk" in the House, a friend of the military, speaks out
against the war, what you are really hearing, if you listen closely, is the
Pentagon speaking and saying it is fed up. When, as happened in the past two
weeks, two leading Generals spoke out in very sharp terms against the war
and particularly against Donald Rumsfeld, you realize the military is very
uneasy.
And when you realize that the CIA is furious over the White House leaking
sensitive material, then what you have is a President, a Vice President, a
Secretary of State, and Donald Rumsfeld, who are truly isolated - but still
in power. We are, at last, deep in Watergate territory. We know Bush is not
bright. But he may actually believe in a certain fundamental version of
Christianity. He may believe - there are hints he does - that he has a
divine mission. And since he isn't running for re-election, he may feel
there are no restraints on him.
We need to know this. We need to act on it. The April 29th demonstration
here in New York gains new importantance now. But I don't think we can wait
until then. People need to call their members of Congress, and their
Senators, and ask that Congress take immediate action to curb Bush. There
are strong hints from the statements we have had from Al Gore and John Kerry
that the timid have begun to find their voices (even if the media has given
only muted coverage - the Sunday New York Times put the Seymour Hersh story
on page 23 and it wasn't because they got it too late - I had already gotten
it on the internet from Havana 48 hours ago. This story is out there, it is
major news, it was top of the new tonight on BBC and CNN and I rather expect
the Times will catch up with it tomorrow).
We need to do what I'm trying to do here - to send what quick analysis I can
to friends and contacts, to urge you to send it on to your lists, and that
we all remember that we can and should write "letters to the editor". Not
just to the NY Times, but to our local papers. To those abroad, in countries
where reason still rules, speak to your own governments - and consider
organizing delegations to US Embassies and Consulates.
This is NOT a time for discussing what "the movement should do the day
after". This is a time for the movement - for us, as citizens - to discuss
what we do NOW.
Peace, and struggle,
David McReynolds
[David McReynolds was the Green Party's 2004 candidate for US Senate in New
York He ran for President on the Socialist Party ticket in 1980 and 2000.]
*
================================================================
.NY Transfer News Collective * A Service of Blythe Systems
. Since 1985 - Information for the Rest of Us .
.339 Lafayette St., New York, NY 10012 http://www.blythe.org
.List Archives: https://olm.blythe-systems.com/pipermail/nytr/
.Subscribe: https://olm.blythe-systems.com/mailman/listinfo/nytr
================================================================
*****************************************************************
9 Guardian Unlimited: Iran Dismisses Reports of U.S. Plans
From the Associated Press
[UP]
Monday April 10, 2006 10:16 PM
AP Photo XHS102
By NASSER KARIMI
Associated Press Writer
TEHRAN, Iran (AP) - Iran shrugged off reports that the United
States is drawing backup plans for military action, saying
Monday they were an attempt to scare it into halting its nuclear
program and warning any attack would bring a ``suitable
response.''
A top European Union official, meanwhile, rejected any use of
force against Iran in the confrontation over its nuclear
program.
But Javier Solana, the EU foreign policy chief, recommended the
25-nation bloc consider sanctions against Tehran - raising the
possibility of international punishment even if the U.S. and
Europe cannot persuade the United Nations to impose such
measures.
The statements came as the chief of the U.N. nuclear watchdog
agency, Mohammed ElBaradei, was due to visit Iran at mid-week
for talks on the standoff. Officials with his International
Atomic Energy Agency have said he is hoping to win at least
partial concessions from Iran. IAEA inspectors are currently in
Iran visiting two key facilities.
Several American media reports over the weekend said the Bush
administration was studying options for military strikes against
Iran to stop its nuclear program. The New Yorker magazine raised
the possibility of using atomic bombs against Iran's underground
nuclear sites.
President Bush said Monday the reports were ``wild
speculation.'' He said his vow to prevent Iran from developing
nuclear weapons ``doesn't mean force necessarily. In this case
it means diplomacy.''
But the White House was not ruling out a military response and
said ``normal defense and intelligence planning'' was under way.
Tehran insists its nuclear program aims to develop energy,
denying U.S. and Western accusations that it intends to build
weapons. Iran has rejected a U.N. Security Council demand that
it end uranium enrichment, a key process that can develop either
fuel for a reactor or the material needed for a warhead.
In a speech on Monday, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad
promised to announce ``good nuclear news'' in the next five
days.
He did not elaborate, but he could be hinting that Iranian
scientists have achieved progress in testing the centrifuges
used in uranium enrichment, a complex process that Iran has been
researching but so far has not said it has perfected.
Iran repeatedly has said it does not believe the U.S. will
attempt military action even as it vows the threat of U.N.
sanctions will not force it to give up enrichment completely.
But with tensions rising, it held military maneuvers in the Gulf
last week, displaying a series of what it called high-tech
missiles and torpedoes it said could fend off any American
attack.
Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Hamid Reza Asefi dismissed
the reports of U.S. military planning as ``as psychological
warfare, resulting from the Americans' anger and despair.''
Ali Larijani, the secretary of Iran's supreme National Security
Council, also played down the reports.
``If the U.S. commits such a mistake, it would receive a
suitable response,'' Larijani was quoted as saying by the state
news agency IRNA.
Ahmadinejad said Iran would not be dissuaded from its nuclear
goals.
``Our enemies know that they can't cause a minute's pause in our
nation's motion forward,'' Ahmadinejad told thousands of people
gathered in Mashad, capital of Razavi Khorasan province in
northeastern Iran. ``Unfortunately today some bullying powers
are unable to give up their bullying nature.
``There are some weak people who intend to frighten our nation,
he said in the speech, parts of which were aired on state
television. ``I do advise people not to be afraid when some
international power frowns.''
The U.N. Security Council gave Tehran until April 28 to give up
enrichment before the International Atomic Energy Agency reports
back to the council on its progress. The United States and
Europe are pressing for the U.N. to impose sanctions on Iran,
but Russia and China have opposed such a step.
China's U.N. Ambassador Wang Guangya, addressing the new
reports, said ``we believe the military or the tough measures
will not yield good results. It's not helpful.''
Solana ruled out the use of force, saying ``any military action
is definitely out of the question for us.''
But the EU should consider imposing its own sanctions if Iran
does not bend - including visa bans on some political leaders,
nuclear officials and scientists as well as formally suspending
negotiations on a free trade pact - Solana said in a report
presented to EU foreign ministers.
``Iran has to respond to the Security Council. We have to be
prepared in case they fail,'' said Solana.
Iran has called for negotiations, hinting that it could
compromise on large-scale enrichment of uranium. Its scientists
resumed small-scale enrichment research in February, prompting
the IAEA to report it to the U.N. Security Council.
Five inspectors from the IAEA visited Iran's Uranium Conversion
Facility in Isfahan on Sunday, which reprocesses raw uranium
into hexafluoride gas, the feedstock for enrichment.
The team was next due to visit the Natanz uranium enrichment
plant. The five inspectors are in Iran until Tuesday or
Wednesday.
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006
*****************************************************************
10 Guardian Unlimited: U.S. Tries to Dampen Talk of Iran Strike
From the Associated Press
[UP]
Monday April 10, 2006 7:16 AM
AP Photo NYET705
By NEDRA PICKLER
Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON (AP) - While stressing that diplomacy is the first
course for dealing with Iran's nuclear ambitions, the White
House is not ruling out a military response and says ``normal
defense and intelligence planning'' is under way.
The White House, sensitive to President Bush's image as a war
hawk, is trying to play down the possibility of a military
strike on the country that Bush included among nations forming
the ``axis of evil.''
``The president's priority is to find a diplomatic solution to a
problem the entire world recognizes,'' Bush counselor Dan
Bartlett told The Associated Press on Sunday. ``And those who
are drawing broad, definitive conclusions based on normal
defense and intelligence planning are ill-informed and are not
knowledgeable of the administration's thinking on Iran.''
Bush and other administration officials have said repeatedly
that the military option is on the table. Several reports
published over the weekend said the administration was studying
options for military strikes, and an account in The New Yorker
magazine raised the possibility of using nuclear bombs against
Iran's underground nuclear sites.
British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw, in an interview with the
British Broadcasting Corp., called the idea of a nuclear strike
``completely nuts.''
Straw said Britain would not launch a pre-emptive strike on Iran
and he was as ``certain as he could be'' that neither would the
U.S. He said he has a high suspicion that Iran is developing a
civil nuclear capability that in turn could be used for nuclear
weapons, but there is ``no smoking gun'' to prove it and
rationalize abandoning the plodding diplomatic process.
``The reason why we're opposed to military action is because
it's an infinitely worse option and there's no justification for
it,'' Straw said.
Defense experts say a military strike on Iran would be risky and
complicated. U.S. forces already are preoccupied with Iraq and
Afghanistan, and an attack against Iran could inflame U.S.
problems in the Muslim world.
The U.N. Security Council has demanded Iran suspend its uranium
enrichment program. But Iran has so far refused to halt its
nuclear activity, saying the small-scale enrichment project was
strictly for research and not for development of nuclear
weapons.
Bush has said Iran may pose the greatest challenge to the United
States of any other country in the world. And while he has
stressed that diplomacy is always preferable, he has defended
his administration's strike-first policy against terrorists and
other enemies.
``The threat from Iran is, of course, their stated objective to
destroy our strong ally Israel,'' the president said last month
in Cleveland. ``That's a threat, a serious threat. It's a threat
to world peace; it's a threat, in essence, to a strong alliance.
I made it clear, I'll make it clear again, that we will use
military might to protect our ally.''
Pentagon spokesman Lt. Col. Mark Ballesteros would not comment
Sunday on reports of military planning for Iran. ``The U.S.
military never comments on contingency planning,'' he said.
Stephen Cimbala, a Pennsylvania State University professor who
studies U.S. foreign policy, said it would be no surprise that
the Pentagon has contingency plans for a strike on Iran. But he
suggested the hint of military strikes is more of a public show
to Iran and the public than a feasible option.
``If you look at the military options, all of them are
unattractive,'' Cimbala said. ``Either because they won't work
or because they have side effects where the cure is worse than
the disease.''
---
On the Net:
http://www.whitehouse.gov
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006
*****************************************************************
11 Guardian Unlimited: Solana: EU Should Consider Iran Sanctions
From the Associated Press
[UP]
Monday April 10, 2006 10:46 AM
LUXEMBOURG (AP) - A top European Union official said Monday that
the 25-nation bloc should consider sanctions against Iran,
including a visa ban on nuclear officials, because Tehran
refuses to cooperate with the United Nations on its nuclear
program.
``We have to begin thinking about that possibility,'' EU foreign
policy chief Javier Solana told reporters outside an EU foreign
ministers meeting.
The ministers debated if the EU should get tougher with Iran
over its nuclear plan, which the West fears is geared toward
building nuclear weapons.
Solana ruled out, however, that EU would back any military
action.
``Any military action is definitely out of the question for
us,'' he said.
Solana said that the EU would await Iran's response to a U.N.
Security Council call for a halt to uranium enrichment before
considering any actions. Iran has so far rejected international
demands for clarity over its nuclear intentions.
``Iran has to respond to the Security Council. We have to be
prepared in case they fail,'' Solana said.
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006
*****************************************************************
12 Guardian Unlimited: Bush Dismisses Reports Iran Attack Planned
From the Associated Press
[UP]
Monday April 10, 2006 10:01 PM
AP Photo WHGH102
By DEB RIECHMANN
Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON (AP) - President Bush dismissed as ``wild
speculation'' reports that the administration was planning for a
military strike against Iran.
Bush did not rule out the use of force, but he said he would
continue to use diplomatic pressure to prevent Iran from gaining
a nuclear weapon or the know-how and technology to make one.
``I know here in Washington prevention means force,'' Bush said
at the Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies at
Johns Hopkins University. ``It doesn't mean force, necessarily.
In this case, it means diplomacy.''
Several weekend news reports said the administration was
studying options for military strikes. The New Yorker magazine
raised the possibility of using nuclear bombs against Iran's
underground nuclear sites.
``I read the articles in the newspapers this weekend,'' Bush
said. ``It was just wild speculation.''
Taking questions from the audience, Bush also said he
declassified part of a prewar intelligence report on Iraq in
2003 to show Americans the basis for his statements about the
threat posed by Saddam Hussein.
``I wanted people to see the truth,'' he told a questioner who
said there was evidence of a concerted effort by the White House
to punish war critic Joseph Wilson. Bush said he could not
comment on the CIA leak case because it is under investigation.
Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., sent a letter to Bush on Monday
asking him for details about how the document was declassified.
``There are many questions that the president must answer so
that the American people can understand that this
declassification was done for national security purposes, not
for immediate political gain.''
In Tehran, officials said the media reports about a possible
U.S. strike against Iran amounted to psychological warfare from
the West.
Iran's hard-line President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad told Iranians not
to be intimidated by other nations' attempts to stifle the
country's nuclear ambitions.
``Unfortunately, today some bullying powers are unable to give
up their bullying nature,'' Ahmadinejad said. ``The future will
prove that our path was a right way.''
The U.N. Security Council has demanded that Iran suspend all
enrichment of uranium - a key process that can produce either
fuel for a reactor or the material for a nuclear warhead. The
security council gave Tehran until April 28 to comply before the
International Atomic Energy Agency reports back to the council
on its inspection progress.
Iran has rejected the demand, saying the small-scale enrichment
it began in February was strictly for research and was within
its rights under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty.
Bush and other administration officials have said repeatedly
that the military option is on the table, and White House
officials acknowledge normal military planning is under way.
Defense experts say a military strike on Iran would be risky and
complicated, and could aggravate U.S. problems in the Muslim
world.
To pressure Iran, European Union foreign policy chief Javier
Solana on Monday recommended that the 25-nation bloc consider
sanctions against Iran, including a visa ban on some officials,
because of Iran's rejection of U.N. demands that it end uranium
enrichment.
Bush has said Iran may pose the greatest challenge to the United
States of any other country in the world. And while he has
stressed that diplomacy is always preferable, he has defended
his administration's strike-first policy against terrorists and
other enemies.
``The threat from Iran is, of course, their stated objective to
destroy our strong ally Israel,'' Bush said last month in
Cleveland. ``That's a threat, a serious threat. It's a threat to
world peace; it's a threat, in essence, to a strong alliance. I
made it clear, I'll make it clear again, that we will use
military might to protect our ally.''
---
On the Net:
The White House: http://www.whitehouse.gov
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006
*****************************************************************
13 Guardian Unlimited: Europe proposes limited sanctions to halt
Tehran's nuclear ambitions
Ewen MacAskill and Robert Tait in Tehran
Tuesday April 11, 2006
The Guardian
The European Union's foreign policy chief, Javier Solana,
yesterday recommended limited sanctions against Iran, including
visa bans on key figures, if Tehran continues to defy the United
Nations over its disputed nuclear programme.
Other proposed sanctions include a block on the transfer of
civilian nuclear technology, an arms embargo and suspension of
negotiations with Iran on a free trade pact. The EU would also
fund propaganda broadcasts against Tehran.
The sanctions were discussed at a closed meeting in Luxembourg of
foreign ministers from the EU's 25 countries. No decision will be
taken until the expiry of a 30-day deadline set by the UN
security council on March 29 for Iran to comply.
Jack Straw, the foreign secretary, who attended yesterday's
meeting, confirmed the EU was talking about sanctions but said it
was only on a contingency basis at this stage.
The German foreign minister, Frank-Walter Steinmeier, said the
EU would only adopt restrictions of its own against Iran if
there was deadlock in the security council, where both Russia
and China are resisting sanctions. The security council set Iran
the deadline to halt its uranium enrichment programme, which the
west claims Tehran has embarked on to secure a nuclear weapons
capability. Iran says it is only interested in the technology
for civilian purposes and refuses to comply.
Mr Solana made it clear the EU would not participate in military
action against Iran. "Any military action is definitely out of
the question for us," he told reporters.
His comment came after New Yorker magazine claimed George Bush
was considering various military options, including a tactical
nuclear strike against Iran's nuclear plants. Mr Bush yesterday
dismissed the report as "wild speculation".
However, a White House spokesman, Scott McClellan, said the
Pentagon was conducting "normal military contingency planning"
to deal with Tehran's nuclear ambitions. He would not confirm or
deny the New Yorker report that defence planners were studying
the option of using a nuclear "bunker buster" bomb.
"Those who are seeking to draw broad conclusions based on normal
military contingency planning are misinformed or not
knowledgeable about the administration's thinking," Mr McClellan
said.
Speaking to students in Washington, President Bush declared: "We
do not want the Iranians to have a nuclear weapon, the capacity
to make a nuclear weapon or the knowledge about how to make a
nuclear weapon. That's our stated goal."
He said, however, that preventing Iran acquiring a nuclear
weapon "doesn't mean force, necessarily. In this case, it means
diplomacy."
Iran's president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, responded to the reported
military threat in typically robust style yesterday, vowing in a
speech in the north-eastern city of Mashad not to retreat and
promising "very good news" on the nuclear programme in the next
few days.
He did not elaborate but his comments followed remarks by other
officials that Iran had reached the landmark of enriching
uranium to the 3.5% necessary to produce its own domestic fuel
cycle. Uranium used to produce an atomic bomb has to be enriched
to a much higher degree.
"On this issue, we will not step back one iota from the rights
of the Iranian nation," Mr Ahmadinejad told a crowd, which
chanted "nuclear energy is our absolute right".
British military chiefs and diplomats are deeply concerned about
the increasingly militant tone about Iran coming from
Washington. They are worried that the rhetoric and the
contingency planning could get out of hand and lead to polarised
positions from which it will be difficult to withdraw.
[UP]
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006
*****************************************************************
14 IRIB PERSIAN NEWS: Mussa stresses Iran's nuclear rights
2006/04/09
Damascus, April 9 - Secretary-General of Arab League Amr Mussa
in a meeting with the head of interests section of the Islamic
Republic of Iran in Egypt on Saturday said, "Peaceful use of
nuclear technology is an inalienable right of nations, including
Iranians".
Mohammad-Reza Sheybani quoted Mussa as saying, "The Arab League
(AL) supports Iran's right to use peaceful nuclear technology
and this is a permanent and firm stance of the AL."
According to Sheybani, Mussa emphasized that the region must be
free from nuclear and mass destruction weapons and in this
regard Zionist regime is not an exception.
At the meeting, Sheybani congratulated Amr Mussa on his
re-election as the secretary-general of Arab League for another
five years.
The two official also discussed regional developments,
especially Palestine and Iraq.
Copyright 2004,
All Rights Reserved By Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting
News Network
*****************************************************************
15 AFP: Bush says Iran attacks reports 'wild speculation'
Mon Apr 10, 1:25 PM ET
WASHINGTON (AFP) - The United States wants to settle the Iran" />
Irannuclear crisis through diplomacy, President George W. Bush"
/> President George W. Bushsaid describing reports of plans to
attack Iran as "wild speculation."
While the White House is still warning Iran about its uranium
enrichment, which Washington and its allies believe hides a
nuclear weapons programme, the administration went out of its
way Monday to play down reports of planning for military
strikes.
"The doctrine of prevention is to work together to prevent the
Iranians from having a nuclear weapon," Bush said at Johns
Hopkins University in Washington.
"I know we hear in Washington 'prevention means force'," he
added.
"In this case, it means diplomacy, by the way. I read the
articles in the newspapers this weekend -- it was wild
speculation," he said.
White House spokesman Scott McClellan said however that Bush is
not taking the military option off the table.
The UN Security Council set a 30 day deadline on March 29 for
Iran to suspend uranium enrichment activities, which Washington
and its allies believes hides a nuclear weapons programme.
Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad vowed again Monday not to
give in to the Security Council demand and many diplomats say
the United Nations" /> United Nationsmay be forced to take take
action.
The United States has let Britain, France and Germany take the
lead in international negotiations with Tehran, which insists
that its nuclear programme is peaceful.
Bush said that the international community is "making pretty
good progress" despite opposition from China and Russia to talk
of sanctions against Iran.
The US leader put Iran with Iraq" /> Iraqand North Korea" />
North Koreain an "axis of evil" in a speech in 2003. "I meant
it," he declared.
"I saw there is a problem. And now many others have come to the
conclusion that the Iranians should not have a nuclear weapon."
The Washington Post newspaper and New Yorker magazine reported
over the weekend about plans for possible military strikes.
The New Yorker said the US administration plans a bombing
campaign against Iran, including the use of bunker-buster
nuclear bombs to destroy the suspected main Iranian nuclear
weapons facility.
The Washington Post said Bush is studying options for military
strikes as part of a broader strategy of coercive diplomacy to
pressure Iran over its nuclear program.
Citing unnamed US officials and independent analysts, the
newspaper said no attack appeared likely in the short term, but
officials were using the threat to convince Iran that Washington
is serious.
Military experts said that any military strike would be full of
risk. European leaders have also spoken out against any
immediate military threat in the dispute.
McClellan told reporters: "We are pursuing a diplomatic solution
by working with the international community.
"Some of the media reports I've seen, which are based on
anonymous outside advisors and former officials, appear to me to
be based on people that do not know the administration's
thinking.
"I think it is a lot of wild speculation."
He said reports and comments "based on normal military
contigency planning are misinformed or not knowledgeable about
the administration's thinking."
"We've said multiple times that Iran is not Iraq."
But McClellan repeated the administration's warning to Iran,
saying that the nuclear programme is of "serious and growing
concern."
He said "no president takes options off the table but our focus
is on working with the international community to find a
diplomatic solution."
*****************************************************************
16 AFP: US says it wants to settle Iran nuclear crisis through diplomacy
Mon Apr 10, 12:02 PM ET
WASHINGTON (AFP) - The United States wants to settle the Iran" />
Irannuclear crisis through diplomacy even if President George W.
Bush" /> President George W. Bushdoes not rule out a military
option, the White House said.
"We are seeking to resolve this in a diplomatic way," said
White House spokesman Scott McClellan following a series of
media reports about how the United States has prepared plans for
possible military strikes against Iranian nuclear facilities.
McClellan described the media reports as "wild speculation" but
added: "No president is taking options off the table."
The UN Security Council set a 30 day deadline on March 29 for
Iran to suspend uranium enrichment activities, which Washington
and its allies believes hides a nuclear weapons programme.
Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad vowed again Monday not to
give in to the Security Council demand and many diplomats say
the United Nations" /> United Nationsmay be forced to take take
action.
The United States has let Britain, France and Germany take the
lead in international negotiations with Tehran.
But The Washington Post newspaper and New Yorker magazine
reported over the weekend about plans for possible military
strikes.
The New Yorker said the US administration plans a bombing
campaign against Iran, including the use of bunker-buster
nuclear bombs to destroy the suspected main Iranian nuclear
weapons facility.
The Washington Post said President George W. Bush is studying
options for military strikes as part of a broader strategy of
coercive diplomacy to pressure Iran over its nuclear program.
Citing unnamed US officials and independent analysts, the
newspaper said no attack appears likely in the short term, but
officials are using the threat to convince Iran that Washington
is serious.
Military experts said that any military strike would be full of
risk. European leaders have also spoken out against any
immediate military threat in the dispute.
McClellan told reporters: "We are pursuing a diplomatic solution
by working with the international community.
"Some of the media reports I've seen, which are based on
anonymous outside advisors and former officials, appear to me to
be based on people that do not know the administration's
thinking.
"I think it is a lot of wild speculation."
He said reports and comments "based on normal military
contingency planning are misinformed or not knowledgeable about
the administration's thinking."
But McClellan repeated the administration's warning to Iran,
saying that the nuclear programme is of "serious and growing
concern".
"The international community is united in its concern about the
regime obtaining a nuclear weapons capability, that's why we are
working with the international community to prevent that from
happening and we are seeking to resolve this in a diplomatic
way."
He said "no president takes options off the table but our focus
is on working with the international community to find a
diplomatic solution."
Copyright © 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The
*****************************************************************
17 AFP: UN nuclear inspectors at work in Iran
Mon Apr 10, 8:46 AM ET
TEHRAN (AFP) - A team of UN inspectors were visiting Iran" /> 's
controversial nuclear facilities ahead of a trip to the Islamic
republic by International Atomic Energy Agency" /> chief Mohamed
ElBaradei, a senior official said.
The deputy head of Iran's atomic organisation, Mohammad Saidi,
said Monday that the IAEA team were on a trip to a uranium
conversion site at Isfahan and would later visit an enrichment
facility at Natanz.
The five IAEA inspectors arrived in Iran on Friday.
ElBaradei's visit, due to begin on Wednesday according to
diplomats close to the agency, is his first to the country this
year and comes amid growing international pressure on Tehran to
suspend its uranium enrichment activities -- seen in the West as
a cover for weapons development.
It is not yet clear who ElBaradei will meet in Tehran, and
Iranian sources here said even the precise timing and content of
the visit had yet to be finalised.
Quoted by the official news agency IRNA, hardline President
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad also promised some "good nuclear news soon",
but did not elaborate.
Enrichment is the process used to manufacture fuel for the civil
nuclear power stations but can be also be extended to
manufacture the fissile core of an atomic bomb.
On March 29 the United Nations" /> Security Council has called
on Iran to suspend uranium enrichment to provide a watertight
guarantee that its nuclear programme is peaceful, and asked
ElBaradei to report on Iranian compliance after 30 days.
Iran categorically rejects charges that it is seeking atomic
weapons and has so far rejected the ultimatum.
Tensions over Iran have been mounting, with explosive new
reports in the United States saying that President George W.
Bush" /> is mulling military options to knock out the Islamic
republic's nuclear program.
The New Yorker magazine reported in its April 17 issue that the
administration is planning a massive bombing campaign against
Iran, including use of bunker-buster nuclear bombs to destroy a
key suspected Iranian nuclear weapons facility.
The article by investigative journalist Seymour Hersh said that
Bush and others in the White House have come to view Iranian
President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as a potential "Adolf Hitler."
Meanwhile, according to a report Sunday in the Washington Post,
Bush is studying options for military strikes against Iran as
part of a broader strategy of coercive diplomacy to pressure
Tehran.
Citing unnamed US officials and independent analysts, the
newspaper said no attack appears likely in the short term, but
officials are using the threat to convince Iranians of the
seriousness of its intentions.
The paper said Bush views Tehran as a serious menace that must
be dealt with before his presidency ends. The White House, in
its new National Security Strategy, labeled Iran the most
serious challenge to the United States posed by any country.
Iran has dismissed any talk of an attack against it as
"psychological warfare".
Copyright © 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The
*****************************************************************
18 IRNA: Iran does not need nuclear weapons - Ambassador
April 10, IRNA
Iran's Ambassador to Ankara Firouz Dowlatabadi said here Sunday
that the Great Prophet (PBUH) military exercise conducted in the
Persian Gulf waters last week proved that Iran does not need any
nuclear weapons.
In an exclusive interview with IRNA, he said, "Recent military
exercise was a response to futile allegations made by the US and
Zionist regime that Iran wants to manufacture nuclear weapons."
"The military exercise proved that Iran does not need nuclear
weapons and Iranian nuclear program has noting to do with
military aspect," he said.
"Successful test fire of missiles in the military exercise
showed that they can meet Iran's defensive requirement in modern
wars," he said.
Throughout the history, Iran has always played a direct role to
help neighboring states maintain security in the region, he said
and refuted allegations that the exercise of the armed forces
was a threat to Iran's neighbors.
"The Islamic Republic of Iran has had the best possible
relations with its neighbors, especially after triumph of the
Islamic Revolution," he underlined.
On Iran-Turkey military cooperation, he said the two countries
are now experiencing a developing military ties.
Referring to the last year visit of Iranian military delegation
to Turkey, he said, "We hope to witness further exchange of
visits by military delegations from Iran and Turkey."
Expansion of military cooperation between Iran and Turkey could
leave a positive impact on restoration of peace and security of
the region, he added.
*****************************************************************
19 IRNA: Daily urges diplomacy to resolve Iran N-case
Tehran, April 10, IRNA
Iran-Editorial-Nuclear
An Iranian daily advised the West on Monday to try to resolve
its nuclear standoff with Iran through diplomatic ways rather
than through threats, intimidation or possible use of military
action.
Commenting on the order of priorities of the Iranian
government, `Iran Daily' noted that it puts "peaceful and
permanent resolution of the three-year-old nuclear issue" top in
its 2006-07 agenda.
The editorial expressed regret that there "are radical elements
with a lot of clout" on each side who do not really want to see
the nuclear issue resolved.
It went on to say that Iran had repeatedly given assurances to
the international community regarding the peaceful nature of its
nuclear program such as the confidence-building measures it had
adopted.
It also noted that Iran had always left the door open for talks
to resolve the issue.
"However, it is obvious that the negotiations cannot and should
not be open-ended," stressed the paper.
Referring to the upcoming visit of IAEA chief Mohamed ElBaradei
to Tehran that would most probably take place on Friday, the
editorial said that the visit is another indication that Iran is
serious about both its commitments within the framework of the
nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
Reminding that intimidation, threats, economic sanctions or
even military action would never work with Tehran as proven in
the past quarter of a century, the daily advised "bullies of the
western type" to act on the basis of what lies in the interest
of the region and the world.
It concluded by urging Western powers "to stop making a
nuisance of themselves and come to the negotiating table with
practical and workable solutions."
*****************************************************************
20 IRNA: MP: access to nuclear know-how, Iran's sovereign right
Hormuzgan Prov, April 10, IRNA
An MP said on Monday that based on international regulations and
the International Atomic Energy Agency, access to modern nuclear
know-how is an inalienable right of the Iranian nation.
Deputy Head of Majlis Education and Research Commission,
Mohammad-Hassan Dogani, made the remark in an interview with
IRNA.
"Young scientists of the Islamic Iran, intellectuals and
academicians have acquired modern nuclear technology and will
never withdraw from new sciences," he said.
He added that on different occasions including Bahman 22
rallies (marking anniversary of the victory of the Islamic
Revolution), the Iranian nation along with government, Majlis
and all officials have stressed that they will not abandon
nuclear right and will support the Islamic system in the country.
The MP from Fassa pointed to efforts made by the global
arrogance and certain Western governments to throw obstacles in
the way of Iran's access to new nuclear know-how, saying,
"Iran's nuclear case was just a pretext to justify the presence
of occupiers in Iraq, Afghanistan and the region."
He assessed as sensitive the ongoing situation in Iran and in
the region and called for reinforcing solidarity among the
Iranian nation to confront with enemies' conspiracies.
"Unity among different people from various walks of life and
officials will be the strongest support for attaining ideals of
the country and its development in all fields," Dogani further
stated.
*****************************************************************
21 Guardian Unlimited: China: N. Koreans Warming to Negotiations
From the Associated Press
[UP]
Monday April 10, 2006 12:31 PM
AP Photo TOK105
By HANS GREIMEL
Associated Press Writer
TOKYO (AP) - A Chinese diplomat said Monday that North Korean
negotiators were warming toward a resumption of talks on ending
the North's nuclear weapons program, but the top U.S. envoy said
he has no plans to meet directly with his counterpart from
Pyongyang.
North Korea has shown ``some'' signs of positive commitment,
said Wu Dawei, China's top nuclear envoy, after meeting with the
North Korean delegation earlier in the day ahead of a two-day
security forum in Tokyo.
``We can expect some progress,'' he said, without giving
details. ``We will make an effort toward a positive direction.''
Wu's are the first positive comments following a flurry of
diplomatic meetings that have so far produced little progress in
resuming stalled dialogue on disarming North Korea.
North Korea has boycotted the talks since November, citing what
it says is a hostile U.S. attitude illustrated by financial
sanctions imposed by Washington on North Korean companies for
alleged financial crimes.
U.S. Assistant Secretary of State Christopher Hill has urged the
North Koreans to return to the talks, but said he has no plans
to meet one-on-one with the North Korean side while in Tokyo.
``The North Koreans have not yet decided to return to the
talks,'' Hill said after arriving at Tokyo's Narita
international airport, adding that both countries held
unproductive meetings on the matter in January and March.
``I'm not sure there's much more I can talk to them about,'' he
said. ``Everybody else is in, so we're waiting for them.''
The North agreed in the six-nation talks last year to abandon
its nuclear program in exchange for aid and security guarantees,
but the talks foundered and there has been little progress on
implementing the accord.
The presence of delegates from all six nations involved in the
talks - the United States, North Korea, South Korea, China,
Japan and Russia - at the privately-sponsored security
conference in Tokyo has raised hopes they could find a way
through the impasse.
The forum's agenda will focus on energy, efforts to bolster the
verification process regarding the North's nuclear program, and
on ways to ease tensions on the Korean Peninsula. The
conference, sponsored by a private Japanese organization and the
University of California, San Diego, brings together about 70
government officials and private researchers from the six
countries.
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006
*****************************************************************
22 [NukeNet] Got drones? Nuclear industry is short on workers --
Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2006 15:13:40 -0700
NukeNet Anti-Nuclear Network (nukenet@energyjustice.net)
See article below with the woes of an under-staffed nuclear industry -- The
world turns...and a whole lot of people thought that the nuclear industry
was DEAD--so why would you choose that career path? A whole lot of people
who did go that way in the 70's and 80's were snookered into it (I have
heard many stories about free tuition and offices with their name on the
door waiting for any poor lunk who decided to head back to school after too
"hanging out.") NOW the industry is supposedly coming back to life with the
injection of tax dollars. However the NAS finding in BEIR 7 (see:
http://www.nirs.org/radiation/radtech/nosafedose072005.pdf)
that current "allowable" occupational radiation doses result in 1 in 4
workers getting cancer is a powerful message to help un-recruit prospective
nuclear industry students -- if you are interested in doing campus-based
activism on this, a list of colleges and universities offering nuclear
engineering and related fields is available
at:
http://www.nei.org/index.asp?catnum=2&catid=289
-- Mary Olson (nirs@main.nc.us, 828-675-1792) NIRS
Southeast Office
Published: 04.09.2006
Nuclear plants find human resources difficult to replenish
Shortage comes as Congress OKs building funds
By Lance Gay
SCRIPPS HOWARD NEWS SERVICE
As the nuclear industry stirs with the first plans in 30 years to build new
power plants in the United States, there's an unexpected hurdle to be
overcome: There may not be enough nuclear engineers around anymore to build
and run them.
What's worse, the generation that built and ran America's nuclear plants is
aging and headed towards retirement, taking decades of know-how that have
kept reactors operating safely.
"This is a huge problem for the nuclear industry, because it goes without
saying it can't afford to make a single mistake," said David DeLong, a
research fellow at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology's AgeLab.
DeLong said 28 percent of the 58,000 workers in the U.S. nuclear-power
industry will be eligible to retire within five years, representing a huge
loss of institutional memory.
At the other end, America isn't producing enough new nuclear engineers to
fill the ranks of the retirees.
Student influx falling short
The Defense Science Board says the number of engineers produced at U.S.
universities has declined 10 percent since the Cold War ended in 1990. That
poses national security concerns because the military will need a new
generation of engineers to design and run the successors to America's
long-range nuclear strike systems like the Peacekeeper and Trident missiles.
The industry is already taking steps to encourage universities to attract
more students into engineering.
"We're watching this area very carefully," said Carol Berrigan, senior
project manager for advanced reactors at the Nuclear Energy Institute.
She said a low point came in 1998 when some universities threatened to
close nuclear programs because so few had enrolled. The number of students
has since increased, but "this is a gathering storm for science and
engineering nationally," she said.
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission said it also is feeling the pinch as it
looks for engineers who can oversee regulation of the nation's 103 nuclear
power plants already operating.
"The overall available crop of scientists and students is not what it used
to be," said NRC spokesman Scott Burnell.
Shortage at critical juncture
The engineering shortage comes as the nuclear industry is preparing the
first construction of power plants in 30 years. Construction of new nuclear
power plants stopped because of safety concerns after the 1979 Three Mile
Island accident.
What's spurred interest in new plants is legislation adopted by Congress
last year. It provides more than $3 billion in incentives to the industry
for new plants and limits damage awards from lawsuits in the event of
nuclear accidents.
The Nuclear Energy Institute expects 11 new plants to be built, and the
NRC's Burnell said the agency expects to consider the first requests for
new plants by next year or 2008.
David Lochbaum, director for nuclear-safety projects at the Union of
Concerned Scientists, said it's not just the lack of experienced engineers,
but other specialists who will be required to build the plants.
"When you move beyond the blueprint, it requires welders and pipe fitters
and others with specialized knowledge," he said.
The industry says the new plants will incorporate three decades of new
knowledge, with new designs known in the industry as "Generation 3-Plus"
that will make the reactors safer to operate. Newer generations of nuclear
plants have upgraded electrical systems and rely less on mechanical
switches that can be subject to human error, and more on natural-gravity
devices to deal with emergencies.
Advocates of nuclear power argue that after five decades, the technology
has shown it can be operated safely, but opponents point to the Three Mile
Island accident and the 1986 meltdown at Chernobyl for what can go wrong.
Lochbaum noted that since 1952, when the first electricity-producing
nuclear reactor opened, 40 of the 130 reactors that have operated in the
United States have been shut down for safety reasons for more than a year a
measure of the dangers of the technology.
All content copyright © 1999-2006 AzStarNet, Arizona Daily Star and its
wire services and suppliers and may not be republished without permission.
All rights reserved. Any copying, redistribution, or retransmission of any
of the contents of this service without the expressed written consent of
Arizona Daily Star or AzStarNet is prohibited.
empty.gif
14ddaa.jpg
s_i_gpaper202
_______________________________________________________________________
Subscribe/Unsubscribe Here: http://www.energyjustice.net/nukenet/
Change your settings or access the archives at:
http://energyjustice.net/mailman/listinfo/nukenet_energyjustice.net
Attachment Converted: empty1.gif: 00000001,3bab627c,00000000,00000000
Attachment Converted: 14ddaa.jpg: 00000001,3bab627d,00000000,00000000
Attachment Converted: s_i_gpaper202: 00000001,3bab627e,00000000,00000000
*****************************************************************
23 [NukeNet] US to Detonate 700-Ton Bomb on Western Shoshone Land
Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2006 18:46:28 -0700
NukeNet Anti-Nuclear Network (nukenet@energyjustice.net)
From: shundahai@shundahai.org
Date: Wed, 5 Apr 2006 21:18:28 -0700 (PDT)
List-Subscribe:
Hello Everyone,
Yesterday, we sent out a joint press release with the Western
Shoshone Defense Project. There are also plans underway for a
protest action on June 2, should the US military persist in its
plans. We'll keep you informed.
Western Shoshone Defense Project
Shundahai Network
Joint Press Release - April 4, 2006
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE : U.S. DEFIES U.N. DECISION AND CONTRADICTS
EARLIER PUBLIC STATEMENT PLANS MASSIVE MILITARY DETONATION ON
WESTERN SHOSHONE LAND
WESTERN SHOSHONE CALL FOR HALT TO PLANNED JUNE 2 "BUNKER BUSTER"
DETONATION AT THE NEVADA TEST SITE
Speaking with media last week, US military spokesman James Tegnelia
confirmed U.S. plans to detonate a 700 ton explosion at the Nevada
Test Site on June 2, 2006 in a test called "Divine Strake." The
location of this test would be on Western Shoshone land, and would be
in direct violation of a recent decision by the United Nations
Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD). In its
decision, made public March 10, 2006, the CERD Committee urged the
United States to "freeze", "desist" and "stop" actions being taken,
or threatened to be taken, against the Western Shoshone Peoples of
the Western Shoshone Nation. In its decision, CERD stressed the
"nature and urgency" of the Shoshone situation informing the U.S.
that it goes "well beyond" the normal reporting process and warrants
immediate attention under the Committee's Early Warning and Urgent
Action Procedure.
The CERD decision explicitly cited ongoing weapons testing at the
Nevada Test Site as well as efforts to build an unprecedented
high-level nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain, NV.
James Tegnelia of the Defense Threat Reduction Agency was quoted by
Agence France Presse as saying, "I don't want to sound glib here but
it is the first time in Nevada that you'll see a mushroom cloud over
Las Vegas since we stopped testing nuclear weapons," and notes
further that this is the "largest single explosive that we could
imagine." The Department of Defense announced in late October 2005
that the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrating (RNEP) weapon project was
being dropped in favor of a more conventional methodology.
The detonation plan also runs contrary to earlier public statements
made in late March to the Las Vegas Review-Journal by Linton F.
Brooks, administrator of the National Nuclear Security
Administration. In his statement, Mr. Brooks announced that the Bush
administration had no plans to start detonating warheads at the
Nevada Test Site. "We have absolutely no evidence that we're going to
need to test. ... We don't see any specific reason now that leads us
to believe we'll need a test," Mr. Brooks said. "On the other hand,"
he said, "we don't know everything about the future."
According to Raymond Yowell, Chief of the Western Shoshone National
Council, "We're opposed to any further military testing on Shoshone
lands. This is a direct violation of the CERD finding and an affront
to our religious belief - Mother Earth is sacred and should not be
harmed. All people who are opposed to these actions by the U.S.
should step forward and make their opposition known."
Carrie Dann, Western Shoshone grandmother and Executive Director of
the Western Shoshone Defense Project, "The U.S. has named this 700
ton explosive 'Divine Strake'. It's a mystery why they use
'devine.' Isn't 'devine' used for your deity, God, Your
sacredness? Why don't they call it 'Hell Strake?' I believe when
you are working testing weaponry of destruction of life, you should
not associate it with 'devine.' We want this insanity to stop no
more bombs and no more testing."
Eileen McCabe-Olsen, Associate Director of Shundahai Network noted,
"This test, besides being an egregious violation of Western Shoshone
sovereignty, is an escalation that should outrage anyone concerned
with peace, justice and care of our environment."
Pete Litster, Executive Director of Shundahai Network said "Ongoing
weapons tests at the Nevada Test Site violate international
law. They violate the standing treaty between the U.S. Government
and the Western Shoshone people. They also violate the spirit of
non-proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. The Test Site is
located on Western Shoshone territory, and must not continue to be
misused in bold violation of standing agreements between the U.S.
government and the Western Shoshone nation."
Although approval for the test was sought and obtained from the state
of Nevada in January 2006, the test detonation can be cancelled. The
Western Shoshone National Council, the Western Shoshone Defense
Project, and Shundahai Network call for the United States Government
to do so immediately. Concerned citizens can call or write to express
their opinions:
President George W. Bush comments@whitehouse.gov 202-456-1111
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20500
Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld http://www.dod.gov/faq/comment.html
Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld
Secretary of Defense
1000 Defense Pentagon
Washington, DC 20301-1000
James Tegnelia dtra.publicaffairs@dtra.mil (800) 701-5096
Defense Threat Reduction Aagency
Attn: James Tegnelia
8725 John J Kingman RD Stop 6201
Fort Belvoir, VA 22060-6201
CONTACTS:
Julie Fishel, Western Shoshone Defense Project 775-468-0230 wsdp@igc.org
Pete Litster, Shundahai Network 801-637-1500 pete@shundahai.org
The Western Shoshone Defense Project's (www.wsdp.org) mission is to
affirm Newe (Western Shoshone) jurisdiction over Newe Sogobia
(Western Shoshone homelands) by protecting, preserving, and restoring
Newe rights and lands for present and future generations based on
cultural and spiritual traditions. The W.S.D.P. was established in
1991 by the Western Shoshone National Council to provide support to
Mary and Carrie Dann, Western Shoshone grandmothers who were facing
the confiscation of the livestock that they graze on Western Shoshone lands.
Shundahai Network (www.shundahai.org) is dedicated to breaking the
nuclear chain by building alliances with indigenous communities and
environmental, peace and human rights movements. We seek to abolish
all nuclear weapons and an end to nuclear testing. We advocate
phasing out nuclear energy and ending the transportation and dumping
of nuclear waste. We promote the principles of Environmental Justice
and strive to insure that indigenous voices are heard in the movement
to influence U.S. nuclear and environmental policies. All of our
campaigns and events incorporate the values of community building,
education, spiritual ceremonies and nonviolent direct action.
Shundahai Network
www.shundahai.org
P.O. Box 1115
Salt Lake City, UT 84110
Phone- 801.533.0128
Fax- 801.533.0129
shundahai@shundahai.org
Online Fundraising Store- www.cafepress.com/shundahainet
If you are a Myspace user, you can now add us! www.Myspace.com/shundahai
Shundahai is a Newe (Western Shoshone) word meaning "Peace and
Harmony with all Creation"
_______________________________________________________________________
Subscribe/Unsubscribe Here: http://www.energyjustice.net/nukenet/
Change your settings or access the archives at:
http://energyjustice.net/mailman/listinfo/nukenet_energyjustice.net
*****************************************************************
24 Salt Lake Tribune: American policy seeds a new arms race
The nuclear club
Opinion
Article Last Updated: 04/08/2006 12:42 PM MDT
Tribune Editorial
The Bush administration is out to make nuclear weapons
respectable. That is a monumentally bad idea.
One of the few public officials who seems to see that is
Utah's Rep. Jim Matheson. He objects to the planned detonation
this summer of a 700-ton chemical bomb in the Nevada Test and
Training Range as a step toward renewed nuclear testing.
Despite the adminstration's disclaimers, it makes no sense to
view it as anything else. And it chillingly coincides with the
administration's desire to modernize the nation's nuclear
arsenal.
That's not a deterrent. That's a dare.
Matheson remains a tireless voice for Utah's downwinders, the
thousands whose lives were touched, if not prematurely ended, by
the radioactive debris from previous generations of nuclear
tests. Matheson's father, the late Gov. Scott Matheson, is among
those who died of cancer that he and his loved ones believed was
a result of those tests.
But the whole world should be concerned by the fact that the
warm guns that will bring happiness to the Pentagon only make it
frighteningly more likely that such force will actually be used.
The nuclear balance of the Cold War kept the unthinkable from
happening because the leaders of the United States and the
Soviet Union actually stopped to think. Nuclear weapons, no
matter how many each nation had or how many more each nation
wanted, were horribly clumsy things, the use of which would
destroy both their target and their author.
Under that shadow, the superpowers fought many a horrific
proxy war, but never came to thermonuclear blows. Under that
weight, the Soviet empire eventually succumbed and the United
States was left unchallenged.
For a while.
Then, all too quickly, came terrorism and weapons of mass
destruction, real or imagined, in the hands of small-state or
non-state madmen. Adding easier-to-use nukes to the mix is
irrational.
In promoting a class of smaller nuclear warheads, supposedly
targeted at the command centers or weapons caches of the next
generation of Saddams, the administration is actually launching
a new nuclear arms race. It is a race that will be pursued, not
by a single rival, but by dictatorships and democracies alike in
the belief that only membership in the club of nuclear nations
will provide them the prestige, and the safety, they crave.
This is something the American people, whose victory in the
Cold War earned them better, should not allow.
© Copyright 2006, The Salt Lake Tribune.
*****************************************************************
25 Salt Lake Tribune: Time to find out how the war was sold
Behind the curtain
Opinion
Article Last Updated: 04/08/2006 12:08 AM MDT
Tribune Editorial
This is the question: What did the president want us to know,
when did he want us to know it and what, if any, resemblance did
it bear to the truth as he knew it?
The American people deserve an answer to that question. And
they should not have to wait for the publication of Donald
Rumsfeld's regretful memoirs to get it.
Since before the invasion of Iraq, there has been widespread
suspicion that the arguments used by the Bush administration to
win the support of Congress, the United Nations and the American
people for the war were, at best, mistaken, at worst, falsified
or, at least, filtered to justify a preconceived plan to
dethrone Saddam.
Wednesday, in court papers filed in the case of ex-White
House official Lewis Libby, there was more to suggest that the
White House was improperly, if not illegally, leaking facts and
theories justifying the war while continuing to sit on key data
that might undermine the administration's position.
Libby is charged with lying to a grand jury investigating the
outing of a former CIA operative, Valerie Plame, allegedly in
revenge for the public assertion by her husband, former
Ambassador Joseph Wilson, that the president's claim that Iraq
had sought a supply of African uranium was false. Part of Libby's
defense is that information supporting the uranium claim,
information he secretly fed to an insufficiently skeptical New
York Times reporter, was not illegally leaked but had been
selectively declassified by the president himself.
This puts Libby, former chief of staff to Vice President Dick
Cheney, on the record as claiming that both the president and
vice president were part of a campaign to leak classified
information so selectively and so far in the background that
they could manufacture consent for their invasion plans from a
world kept in the half-light.
If it is legal for a president to treat classified
information in such a politically motivated manner, an idea that
even made Libby uncomfortable, it shouldn't be. Friday's White
House protestations that such selective leaks can be in the
public interest are feeble at best, and make previous statements
about how the president deplores leaks of national security
information ring disgustingly hollow.
Congress needs to come out of hiding and get to the bottom of
these questions.
© Copyright 2006, The Salt Lake Tribune.
*****************************************************************
26 SMT: Ronald Reagan Missile Defense at Vandenberg Monday-Nancy Reagan Dedicates
Santa Maria Times
Date: Sat, 8 Apr 2006 06:57:14 -0700 (PDT)
www.santamariatimes.com/articles/2006/04/08/news/local/news04.txt
Vandenberg to name facilities for Reagan
By Janene Scully/Associate Editor
The Pentagon will formally dedicate missile defense facilities at
Vandenberg Air Force Base as the “Ronald W. Reagan Missile
Defense Site” during a ceremony Monday.
Former First Lady Nancy Reagan will unveil a bust and plaque in
honor of the late president at a site overlooking the missile
defense complex on North Base.
Also expected to attend are Deputy Secretary of Defense Gordon
England, former California governor and U.S. senator Pete Wilson,
and Senator Ted Stevens, R-Alaska.
Air Force Lt. General Henry “Trey” Obering, Missile Defense
Agency director, announced the plan to hon or the 40th presid ent
“for his commitment to advance the development of missile defense
technologies to protect and defend the United States, its
deployed forces and our allies and friends from ballistic missile
attack,” the military said in a statement.
During his term as president, Reagan noted the lack of a system
to protect the United States and implored scientists and
engineers to devise a method to intercept and destroy ballistic
missiles before they could hit American targets.
“I know this is a formidable, technical task - yet, current
technology has attained a level of sophistication where it's
reasonable for us to begin this effort. It will take years,
probably decades of efforts on many fronts. There will be
failures and setbacks, just as there will be successes and
breakthroughs,” Reagan said March 23, 1983.
The plaque to be unveiled at the dedication ceremony contains an
excerpt from that speech.
Vandenberg is home to four silos for the missile defense system,
two of which house interceptor missiles. The first interceptor
was installed at Vandenberg in December 2004.
The other two silos will be used for tests, but operational
interceptors could be installed there, if needed.
Long-range interceptors are also installed at Fort Greely,
Alaska, which has nine missiles in place with plans to install
more interceptors over the next three years.
Formerly known as the Ground-based Midcourse Defense System, it
has taken a different form since Reagan first advocated what
became popularly known as the “Star Wars” missile defense system,
but it is still intended to use American missiles to shoot down
enemy missiles bef ore they can strike the United States.
Janene Scully can be reached at 739-2214 or
janscully@santamariatimes.com
*****************************************************************
27 UN Official Calls For Breaking Logjam On Nuclear Disarmament Front
Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2006 17:00:19 -0400
UN OFFICIAL CALLS FOR BREAKING LOGJAM ON NUCLEAR DISARMAMENT FRONT
New York, Apr 10 2006 5:00PM
With virtual stagnation on the disarmament front despite heightened
global concern over the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction
(WMDs) and the risk of them falling into terrorist hands,
a senior United Nations official today called for urgent new momentum,
especially with regard to nuclear arms.
“Recent developments have further tested the effectiveness of multilateral
disarmament machinery,” Under-Secretary-General for Disarmament
Affairs Nobuaki Tanaka told the UN Disarmament Commission
as it opened its annual session in New York.
“The Commission’s recent record has itself been far from satisfactory.
In 2003 the session concluded without reaching consensus on
concrete proposals to advance nuclear disarmament or confidence-building
measures in the field of conventional arms. No consensus
was achieved on agenda items for its 2004 and 2005 sessions and
no substantive meetings were held in 2005,” he said.
“In 2006 I believe that we have to do better. It falls in large measure
to this session of the Commission to provide fresh momentum.
One should not lose such an opportunity. It is imperative that
we draw lessons from the setbacks that we witnessed last year,”
he added, stressing that the lack of consensus on disarmament and
non-proliferation at the 2005 UN Summit showed how much work remains
to be done.
The Commission, a subsidiary body of the General Assembly established
in 1952, generally considers two items each year, including
one nuclear-related topic.
Mr. Tanaka said that Secretary-General Kofi Annan had encapsulated
the nature of the difficulties and set them in their wider context
when he told the Summit that Members States gad inexcusably let
posturing thwart results at both at that meeting and at the failed
review conference on the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).
“It is our responsibility, more than ever, to use this opportunity
to strengthen the disarmament machinery to effectively deal with
new emerging threats and challenges,” Mr. Tanaka declared. “It
is to be hoped therefore that over the next three weeks you will
be able to provide guidance on the fundamental question of complete
nuclear disarmament.”
But he also warned that he preponderant focus on the WMD threat should
not lessen the attention given to the regulation and reduction
of conventional arms and armed forces.
“Despite the fact that much progress has been made by the international
community in certain areas, such as for instance in addressing
the problem of illicit Small Arms and Light Weapons, their
proliferation continues to pose a serious threat to peace and security
in too many regions of the world,” he warned.
2006-04-10 00:00:00.000
________________
For more details go to UN News Centre at http://www.un.org/news
To change your profile or unsubscribe go to:
http://www.un.org/apps/news/email/
*****************************************************************
28 Exhibition At UN Headquarters Highlights Kazakhstan Nuke Tests, Economy
Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2006 19:00:26 -0400
EXHIBITION AT UN HEADQUARTERS HIGHLIGHTS KAZAKHSTAN NUKE TESTS, ECONOMY
New York, Apr 10 2006 7:00PM
With 1.3 million people in the Semipalatinsk region of Kazakhstan
still suffering from the effects of almost 40 years of nuclear tests
and the local economy still reeling from the collapse of the
Soviet Union, an exhibition has opened at United Nations headquarters
to highlight the area’s plight.
Following a call from the General Assembly for Secretary-General
Kofi Annan to continue his efforts to increase world public awareness
of the problems of the region, Kazakhstan, along with Struan
Stevenson, Member of the European Parliament, opened the photo exhibit
in the main lobby in New York on Friday.
The General Assembly, in its resolution, maintains that the recent
economic prosperity experienced by Kazakhstan as a whole is insufficient
to resolve the deeply rooted and highly technical problems
of radioactive contamination in the Semipalatinsk region.
It adds that new Government programmes, if combined with international
partnership assistance, could produce better results than those
that have been achieved thus far.
2006-04-10 00:00:00.000
________________
For more details go to UN News Centre at http://www.un.org/news
To change your profile or unsubscribe go to:
http://www.un.org/apps/news/email/
*****************************************************************
29 Xinhua: UN official calls for new momentum in nuclear disarmament
www.xinhuanet.com
www.chinaview.cn 2006-04-11 06:53:33
UNITED NATIONS, April 10 (Xinhua) -- The United Nations new
disarmament chief Monday called for urgent action to break the
virtual stagnation on the disarmament front despite heightened
global concern over the proliferation of weapons of mass
destruction (WMDs) and the risk of them falling into terrorist
hands.
"Recent developments have further tested the effectiveness
of multilateral disarmament machinery," Under-Secretary-General
for Disarmament Affairs Nobuaki Tanaka told the UN Disarmament
Commission as it opened its annual session in New York.
"The commission's recent record has itself been far from
satisfactory. In 2003 the session concluded without reaching
consensus on concrete proposals to advance nuclear disarmament
or confidence-building measures in the field of conventional
arms. No consensus was achieved on agenda items for its 2004 and
2005 sessions and no substantive meetings were held in 2005," he
said.
"In 2006 I believe that we have to do better. It falls in
large measure to this session of the commission to provide fresh
momentum. One should not lose such an opportunity. It is
imperative that we draw lessons from the setbacks that we
witnessed last year," he added.
He stressed that the lack of consensus on disarmament and
non-proliferation at the 2005 UN summit showed how much work
remains to be done. Enditem
Editor: Luan Shanglin
Copyright ©2003 Xinhua News Agency. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
30 UPI: Saudi Arabia may join nuclear club
United Press International - NewsTrack -
4/9/2006 7:54:00 PM -0400
DOHA, Qatar, April 9 (UPI) -- Kuwaiti researcher Abdullah
al-Nufaisi told a seminar in Doha, Qatar, that Saudi Arabia is
preparing a nuclear program, the Middle East Newsline reported.
He said Saudi scientists were urging the government to launch a
nuclear project, but had not yet received approval from the
ruling family.
Riyadh denies any intention to establish a nuclear energy
program, but Gulf sources told the Middle East Newsline Saudi
officials have been discussing a nuclear research and
development program -- and that the program would be aided by
Pakistan and other Riyadh allies.
"Saudi Arabia will not watch as its neighbors develop nuclear
weapons," a Gulf source said. "It's a matter of time until a
Saudi nuclear program begins."
© Copyright 2006 United Press
International, Inc. All Rights Reserved
*****************************************************************
31 [NukeNet] Chernobyl Film- What Villages Look Like
Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2006 15:13:38 -0700
NukeNet Anti-Nuclear Network (nukenet@energyjustice.net)
----- Original Message -----
From: Frieda Berryhill
To: Undisclosed-Recipient:;
Sent: Sunday, April 09, 2006 10:41 PM
Subject: I thought you would like to know
It is 20 years this month since Chernobyl's nuclear accident.
I will therefore (just for this month )send more e mails concerning this
accident and it's ramifications
The city of Pripyat and more then a 1,000 villages had to be permanently
evacuated. The effects are still felt all over Europe.
Watch this film in silent prayer and marvel at this technological hubris.
If you have a literary bend it has to remind you of Dr.Faustus Bargain with
the devil
F
Click
here to download 64 MB mpeg file, music of "Dead Can Dance" This video
gives pretty clear idea of how Chernobyl villages look like
If you like to be removed from my list let me know
_______________________________________________________________________
Subscribe/Unsubscribe Here: http://www.energyjustice.net/nukenet/
Change your settings or access the archives at:
http://energyjustice.net/mailman/listinfo/nukenet_energyjustice.net
*****************************************************************
32 Scotland: The Resurrection : Chernobyl 20 years on
Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2006 15:13:25 -0700
NukeNet Anti-Nuclear Network (nukenet@energyjustice.net)
http://www.sundayherald.com/55003
Sunday Herald - 09 April 2006
The Resurrection
Chernobyl 20 years on
By Andrew Osborn
----------
ARMED guards, a round metal danger sign, and a disturbing radiation map
mark the entrance to Chernobyl’s eerie dead zone, site of the world’s worst
nuclear accident. For the first-time visitor, the map is a powerful
reminder that this remains a dangerously polluted corner of Europe. It
shows how radioactive the area’s mushrooms are (extremely), how radioactive
meat from wild game and fish is (very) and how irradiated the zone’s rivers
are (dangerously). The message is clear: you can look but you can’t touch.
Two decades after Chernobyl’s reactor number four exploded on April 26,
1986, the dead zone, a piece of land in modern-day Ukraine with a radius of
around 18 miles, remains heavily irradiated and is regarded by widely as a
post-apocalyptic no man’s land. Beyond a red and white barrier, a straight
road flanked first by silver birch trees, and later by a thick pine forest,
stretches into the distance for as far as the eye can see. You could be
anywhere in the former Soviet Union, except that the road is utterly devoid
of traffic. There are no pedestrians.
Passing through the checkpoint is anti-climactic. A guard scrutinises our
passports (visitors need special permission from the Ukrainian government)
and nonchalantly waves us through. After a few minutes the forest ends,
giving way to abandoned villages, farmhouses, and wooden peasants’ cottages
on either side of the road; sometimes they are hard to make out because
they are entwined by dark trees which blend into the woodland behind.
Untouched for the past 20 years, the area resembles a war zone: windows are
smashed, roofs collapsed and there is not a human soul in sight. Patches of
snow melt slowly on the plains.
In the dead zone, visitors are never left to their own devices. Our guide,
a man called Sergey Franchuk, exudes cheerfulness and boasts that you need
to be as fit as a cosmonaut to work here. He has been associated with
Chernobyl since 1982 and lives in a small village with his family just
outside the zone, spending four days working here and three days resting at
home.
Franchuk explains that 337 people live permanently within this supposedly
uninhabitable region. Called “samosely”‚ they left the area immediately
after the accident, only to return within a few weeks or months. Most are
elderly: the youngest resettler is said to be 63; the oldest 93.
Apart from these apparently masochistic indiciduals, the zone hosts a
4000-strong army of temporary workers employed to repair the cracked
sarcophagus that covers the remains of reactor number four. Others work for
the local forestry company, the police force, the handful of hostels that
accommodate employees or, bizarrely, in the tourist industry.
Chernobyl, it seems, is a popular destination among a small band of
intrepid tourists. Most come in the summer, explains a smiling Franchuk,
who adds that the disaster zone is especially popular with Dutch, Japanese
and American tourists. “The first thing people think of when they think of
Ukraine is Chernobyl. It’s a curiosity thing. It has a special pull for
Japanese people because of Hiroshima.”
Slightly unnerved that Franchuk makes no mention of safety precautions, we
enter the zone. The landscape is bleakly beautiful. As we drive along empty
roads at breakneck speed (speed limits seem to have little value here), the
scenery is uniformly flat and forested. Wooden poles supporting power lines
have collapsed as if hit by a cyclone and there are frequent signs warning
of the risk of forest fires. “Fire is the forest’s most bitter enemy,”
reads one.
Fires, Franchuk explains, are particularly unwelcome since they send plumes
of radiation-soaked smoke high into the atmosphere and possibly out of the
zone. During the 1990s, the authorities imported wild Przewalski’s horses
to the region. By nibbling the grass, they help reduce the risk of fire.
Our first stop is the village of Illintsi and the home of Maria Shaparenko,
an 82-year-old peasant woman, who refuses to leave the area despite the
obvious danger to her health. “I was born here and I will die here, ” she
says as she ushers us into her small cottage. Outside in the yard, hens
scratch the earth and a cockerel crows, as a weak spring sun beats down.
The scene is deceptively normal.
“It [the Chernobyl disaster] happened on a Sunday,” says Shaparenko in a
matter-of-fact way. “But during the week that followed we didn’t know that
anything had happened. We were only told the following Saturday.” In fact,
the Soviet government waited almost three days – until the drifting
radioactive fallout triggered alarms in Sweden – before publicly
acknowledging that an accident had occurred. By the evening of April 27,
however, local people were being bused out of the area. Maria Shaparenko’s
small, lively eyes flash as she remembers being told that she would only
need to leave for three days. As a result, she took little luggage. “We
sensed that something had happened when we saw people who worked in the
local administration evacuate their families. They just took everything
they owned and left.”
In the event Shaparenko was only away for two weeks before she crept back
to her home, hiding from soldiers stationed along the way to prevent people
returning. “The soldiers kept saying, ‘Why do you want to go back? There’s
nothing there any more.’ But I told them my home is here, and so are my
apple and pear trees.”
Though she admits she has felt lonely since her husband died three years
ago, she does not feel sorry for herself and seems happy. “I have a lot of
relations [outside the zone] and they keep asking me why I live here by
myself. But I tell them I will be here until I die and that I don’t want to
bother anyone.”
Before the accident, the village was full of life; nostalgically, she
remembers Sunday lunches with relatives and friends. She seems to have no
real grasp of what radiation is. “It’s very nice here in summer, everything
blooms. In fact, nothing is wrong here, it’s just that people have been
scared off by the radiation.”
In a cottage a few doors away, the picture is starkly different. Katerina
Yushchenko, 74, and her husband Roman, 76, appear to be barely surviving.
Roman has cancer and his skin is drawn tightly across his bony face as he
lies inert on a corner bed built above a stove. He groans intermittently,
each time he tries to move. His face is wracked with pain; his eye sockets
are almost hollow.
“He’s turning black now,” whispers Katerina . “He’s going to die soon.”
Like many of the resettlers, she makes no link between the area’s high
radiation levels and health problems. “Oh, Roman had heart problems a long
time ago,” she says quickly. “I don’t think it’s connected.”
The tiny room is filled with the stench of decay and hopelessness. Asked
what kind of cancer Roman has, Katerina says something about his bladder.
To underline her point she produces a tin chamber pot full of his urine,
full to the brim. It is blood-red.
Katerina, too, has happy memories of how the village used to be but admits
the reality today is less appealing. “I don’t know what I am going to do.
In the summer the land needs to be worked [many settlers grow their own
vegetables]. If I’m really bored I do embroidery. Otherwise I just watch
the walls.”
A short drive takes us to the source of her troubles – Chernobyl’s hulking
and infamous nuclear power station. Planned as the largest such plant in
the world, Chernobyl’s fifth and sixth reactors were still being built when
the fourth reactor exploded during an ill-fated test, in the early hours of
the morning of April 26, 1986. A plume of radiation equivalent to 400
Hiroshimas was blasted into the atmosphere.
Some of the 176 staff on duty that night were killed instantly; others
would die later in hospital. In the immediate vicinity, dozens of fires
were ignited. The reactor core burned for 10 days, and the resultant
pollutants – including plutonium isotopes with a half-life of 24,360 years
– drifted around the world, raining toxicity as far as the lakes of Japan
and the glens of Scotland.
The clean-up operation brought its own casualties. Some 20 firefighters
died immediately, while hundreds more became seriously ill as a result of
exposure to radioactivity. The reactor-core itself was eventually sealed
off with a cement mixture, dropped from the air. There is no public record
of the radiation doses received by the hundreds of thousands of soldiers
and reservists charged with cleaning up the contaminated landscape of
Ukraine and neighbouring Belarus.
Today, cranes stand stock still around Chernobyl’s half-built fifth and
sixth nuclear reactors. Visitors, who are permitted to get surprisingly
close to the fated fourth reactor, peer silently at it through an
observation window, or from the nearby car park. Covered by a giant metal
and concrete sarcophagus designed to stop radiation leaking out, it is not
unlike an enormous bus station. The sarcophagus itself is riddled with
holes and the authorities admit that at least 100 square metres are open to
the elements; a new sarcophagus is planned in the next few years.
The Chernobyl visitors’ centre is tiny – though the zone is popular with a
trickle of “extreme tourists”, large tour parties clearly never come here.
Julia Marusich, a guide, is unexpectedly open , admitting that “hazardous
risks remain and there is still a lot of irradiated fuel inside the
reactor. Our information [on the situation] is not complete”.
Radiation levels within the reactor unit are still so high that only 25% of
the rooms are accessible and repair workers are allowed to operate inside
for just minutes at a time.
As Marusich talks, an electronic geiger counter flashes on the wall behind
her: it registers 1.25 micro roentgens per hour, a level that is apparently
perfectly safe in short bursts.
Nearby in the dead zone’s so-called Red Forest, a pine woodland that took
the brunt of the radioactive explosion, levels can be as high as one
roentgen, more than 50,000 times normal background levels.
Our final stop is Pripyat, an eerie husk of a town which remains frozen in
time: the hands of the municipal clock are fixed at six minutes to 12.
Built in 1970 to house the nuclear power plant’s workforce, the town’s
50,000-strong population was evacuated one grim afternoon in 1986. Long
afterwards, the streetlights continued to come on each night.
Located just two miles from the reactor, Pripyat is sealed by high fences
and watched over by armed guards at a checkpoint. Radiation levels here, in
the heart of the dead zone, are too high to support human habitation. Not
even stubborn settlers such as Maria Shaparenko have dared return.
For a long time, the furniture and possessions that had been left behind in
the apartments remained undisturbed. Then 10 years ago, says Franchuk, many
were mysteriously stolen and, presumably, sold outside the dead zone
despite the fact that they would have bristled with radioactivity. Nobody
knows who did it, though ironically, it is suspected that it was the
handful of armed guards left behind to keep out the curious and the looters.
Before the accident, Pripyat was a model Soviet town populated by power
station workers and the men and women who built Chernobyl. Back then, its
shiny concrete tower blocks represented the Soviet Union’s bright atomic
future.
Tower blocks were, and remain, crowned by giant steel Soviet emblems, and
the town’s facilities, its crèches, its shops, and its apartments, were
regarded as the best the USSR – and by definition, anywhere else – could
offer.
Two decades on, Pripyat’s central Lenin Square is a shadow of its former
self. Each year, trees encroach further into its space; the steps are
carpeted with moss; and tall yellow grass abounds. As the winter snow
melts, the paving stones become a shallow river bed carrying rivulets of
water into a drainage system that has long ceased to be serviced.
The square’s Palace of Culture, its hotel and what was once the town’s main
restaurant, are open to the elements and, as the concrete cracks, nature is
pushing in.
In one of the town’s children’s play areas the only sound is cheerful
birdsong. Strong branches have spread across what used to be an enclosure
for bumper cars, a giant ferris wheel stands idle, apparently never
inaugurated, and trees and weeds press in on every side.
For 20 years, the town of Pripyat has been slowly rotting. In a further two
decades, it may be hard to discern its central features as nature continues
to make inroads.
Less than a mile from the stricken fourth reactor, not far from Pripyat, we
come upon an extraordinary spectacle. In a copse of silver birches a pair
of wild elks graze quietly on irradiated grass.
In the background the brightly coloured metal cranes of Chernobyl crowd the
horizon and the power station’s red and white ventilation chimney juts
menacingly into the evening sky.
Franchuk believes that, in some inexplicable way, radiation has purified
the soil. “We think that the land has been cleansed,” he says. “Nature is
flourishing here, even more so than it was before the accident. When Viktor
Yushchenko [Ukraine’s president] came here last year he even suggested
turning the area into a nature reserve. ”
Like many locals‚ Franchuk believes that animals can sense whether the land
they inhabit is poisoned. He views their return to Chernobyl as evidence
that the ecosystem is recovering, a state of affairs he believes could see
people moving back to parts of the zone within 15 years. Others, perhaps
more realistically, think that it will be centuries.
Astonishingly, most of the animals, with the notable exception of the herds
of wild Przewalski’s horses, appear to have returned to the zone of their
own accord.
The last “animal census” carried out by the authorities showed that the
zone is home to 66 different species of mammals including 7000 wild boars,
some 600 wolves, 3000 deer, 1500 beavers, 1200 foxes, 15 lynx and several
thousand elk.
An ornithologists’ paradise, the area is reckoned to contain 280 species of
birds, many of them rare and endangered. Wild dogs are in evidence though
their numbers have dwindled as they are prime targets for wolves, a quirky
detail that prompted American thriller writer Martin Cruz Smith to call his
latest novel, which is partly set in the zone, Wolves Eat Dogs. Biologist
Mary Mycio, who is an American foreign correspondent in the area, was one
of the first people to begin cataloguing nature’s unlikely comeback in
Chernobyl. She has made 24 separate trips to the dead zone. “On the
surface,” she says, “radiation is very good for wildlife because it forces
people to leave the contaminated area which opens it up to wildlife. They
removed 135,000 people from an area twice the size of Luxembourg. The
people there now carry out very localised activities and in vast regions of
the zone there are no people.
“It is a radioactive wilderness and it is thriving.”
As for the effects on people, despite the passage of time, no consensus has
been reached on the scale of the human tragedy linked to the accident.
Estimates of fatalities, both direct and indirect, vary wildly, from 41 in
the immediate aftermath to 10s of thousands in the years that followed.
More broadly, it is estimated that five million people were exposed to
radiation in Ukraine, Belarus and Russia and that the radiation fallout
triggered an epidemic of thyroid cancer that has yet to abate.
Doctors claim convincingly that cancer rates are far higher than they were
before 1986 and that thousands of Ukrainians and people in neighbouring
Belarus (which was worse affected than Ukraine because of the wind
direction) may have died prematurely as a result.
As we prepare to leave, a man with a geiger counter takes radiation
readings from the tyres of our vehicle and we are forced to step through an
archaic-looking radiation detector that resembles a piece of airport
security machinery.
A light on the device turns green and I am declared “clean”. With some
relief we drive off into the evening, leaving the dead zone behind.
Deep in the forest, the elk and the wild boar roam free: unhindered, and
unobserved, by humankind.
----------
Copyright © 2006 smg sunday newspapers ltd. no.176088
*****************************************************************
33 [NukeNet] Scotland: Leading scientists attack Blair over
Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2006 15:15:15 -0700
NukeNet Anti-Nuclear Network (nukenet@energyjustice.net)
http://www.sundayherald.com/55029
Sunday Herald - 09 April 2006
Leading scientists attack Blair over nuclear power
40 experts urge change of focus to renewables
By Rob Edwards, Environment Editor
----------
TONY Blair’s plan to resurrect nuclear power is going to be dealt a
damaging blow by 40 of Britain’s leading energy and climate scientists, the
Sunday Herald can reveal.
Engineers, experts and academics from Glasgow, Edinburgh, London, Oxford
and Cambridge will forcibly tell the Prime Minister this week that building
more nuclear reactors is not the solution to global warming.
Nuclear power is “a limited, inflexible, expensive and potentially
dangerous energy source which creates unique problems”, they say.
Alternatives including greater energy efficiency and renewable sources are
more likely to deliver safe, secure and climate-friendly energy.
The UK government launched its heavily trailed review of energy policy in
January. It is widely expected to conclude that Britain needs to build a
new programme of nuclear power stations in order to help combat climate
change.
But tomorrow, Downing Street will be presented with a powerful
counter-argument from some of the country’s best energy brains. “Continued
use of nuclear power will increase the opportunities for the spread of
nuclear weapons,” they warn.
Nuclear waste will have to be isolated from the environment “for timescales
which dwarf that of human civilisation”, they point out. They added: “We
also believe that nuclear facilities pose a very serious risk due to the
possibility of terrorist attack.”
In a joint letter to Blair, they conclude: “We strongly urge the UK
government not to decide in favour of a new generation of nuclear power
stations, but rather to invest the resources and research effort into
alternatives.”
One of the scientists behind the move is Keith Barnham, a professor of
physics from Imperial College, London. “Nuclear new build will be too
little, too late, too expensive and too dangerous,” he told the Sunday Herald.
“Every man, woman and child in the UK is committed to paying over £30 per
head per year for over 30 years to clear up the waste from the existing
reactors. No industry with a record like that should be allowed a second
chance.”
Barnham pointed out that it will take at least 10 years to build a new
nuclear reactor. “We need to act now to stop global warming,” he said.
“Germany already has more wind power capacity than all the UK nuclear
reactors together, and in five years will have installed as much solar
electricity.”
Another signatory is Tim Jackson, a professor at the Centre for
Environmental Strategy at the University of Surrey. “This is completely the
wrong time for Tony Blair to be issuing party invitations to the nuclear
lobby,” he said.
“The industry has failed to make a coherent financial case, failed to come
up with a credible strategy for dealing with long-term radioactive waste,
and failed to allay public concerns over the security implications of the
nuclear fuel cycle.”
He added: “The Prime Minister should be strengthening his government’s
weak-willed commitment to energy efficiency, demand reduction and renewable
energy, not mortgaging the future for countless generations to the hazards
of nuclear power.”
The joint letter was co-ordinated by Scientists for Global Responsibility,
an independent, 850-strong group concerned about social justice and
environmental sustainability. It is anxious to dispel the notion that
scientists are all pro-nuclear.
Stuart Parkinson, the group’s executive director, said: “There’s a
perception that all scientists and engineers think new nuclear power is the
way to go to tackle climate change and improve energy security, but this is
not true.
“Many are sceptical of nuclear [energy] and believe that other measures
such as controlling energy demand, improving energy efficiency and
expanding renewable energy are superior options.”
Parkinson attacked the UK government’s record on energy efficiency and
renewables as “piecemeal and half-hearted”. He pointed out that the costs
of cleaning up the legacy of the past 60 years of nuclear power were
spiralling ever upwards, with some estimates now over £100 billion.
“We simply do not believe the government when it says that a new generation
of nuclear power stations can be built, operated and decommissioned without
significant sums of public money.”
Parkinson was also concerned about the global example being set by the UK.
“Our government seems keen to stick with both nuclear power and nuclear
weapons. So how are we to convince countries like Iran and North Korea that
they shouldn’t try and copy us?”
Another prominent signatory to the letter is Nottingham University
professor Mark Whitby, a former president of the Institution of Civil
Engineers. He criticised the construction industry for lobbying strongly
behind the scenes in favour of a new nuclear programme.
That industry’s claim that the lights would go out because nearly all of
Britain’s nuclear power stations would be closed by 2020 was
“sensationalist”, he said. Only a few small stations would be closed, and
there were plentiful supplies of gas from abroad.
Nuclear power would not be a low emitter of climate-wrecking carbon
pollution, either, Whitby argued, because of the high energy costs of
extracting low-grade uranium ores in the future.
“Nuclear power is very expensive compared to other technologies,” he said.
“It has gone bankrupt on a number of occasions. It is not cheap to build,
to run or to decommission.”
The letter was also signed by Dr Katherine Begg, an energy and climate
policy analyst from Edinburgh University. She said she was worried about
the implications for the spread of nuclear weapons, and the costs: “The
money spent so far on promoting and implementing alternatives is
increasing, but is a drop in the ocean compared to that required to build
new nuclear stations and support them.”
Other signatories include Dr Marion Hersh, a senior lecturer in electrical
engineering at Glasgow University; Roy Butterfield, emeritus professor of
civil engineering at Southampton University; Dr Sarah Darby, an
environmental scientist from Oxford University; Dr Tim Foxon, a climate
scientist from Cambridge University; and Dr Frank Barnaby, a nuclear
scientist from the Oxford Research Group.
The nuclear industry responded by arguing that nuclear power was necessary
to slow global warming. “Climate change is one of the greatest threats
facing us today and we need to use all the tools at our disposal to tackle
it,” said Simon James, the spokesman for the UK Nuclear Industry Association.
“While we’ve not seen this letter, we’re sure its authors would agree that
renewables or energy efficiency on their own can’t tackle the problem. We
should be using renewables, energy efficiency, nuclear and carbon
sequestration to really make a difference.”
The signatories
Dr Stuart Parkinson BEng PhD Executive Director, Scientists for Global
Responsibility
Dr Frank Barnaby MSc PhD DSc (Hon) Nuclear security scientist, Oxford
Research Group
Prof Keith Barnham BSc PhD Professor of physics, Imperial College, London
Dr Kathryn Bashford BSc PhD Climate impacts scientist (education sector)
Dr Katherine Begg BSc PhD MRSC Energy and climate policy analyst, Centre
for the Study of Environmental Change and Sustainability, University of
Edinburgh
Dr William Bordass MA PhD CompanionCIBSE HonFRIBA Energy and buildings
consultant, William Bordass Associates
Prof Roy Butterfield DSc DIC BSc MICE MIStructE Professor emeritus of civil
engineering, University of Southampton
Dr David Cromwell BSc PhD Climate physicist, University of Southampton
Fiona Cruchley MSc Climate policy analyst (public sector)
Dr Sarah Darby BSc DPhil Energy and environment scientist, Environmental
Change Institute, University of Oxford
Dr Stephen Dickinson BEng PhD MIEE CEng Lecturer in electrical engineering,
Lancaster University
Brian Edwards MCIBSE Chartered building services engineer (industry)
Dr Tim Foxon BSc PhD Climate technology and policy scientist, Cambridge
Centre for Climate Change Mitigation Research, University of Cambridge
Dr Marion Hersh MA MSc PhD MIEE CEng CMath Senior lecturer in electrical
engineering, Glasgow University
Dr Dan van der Horst PhD Lecturer in environmental management, University
of Birmingham
Dr Jane Hunt PhD Sociologist in science and technology, Centre for the
Study of Environmental Change, Lancaster University
Prof Tim Jackson MA PhD FRSA Professor of sustainable development, Centre
for Environmental Strategy, University of Surrey
Dr Christian Jardine MChem DPhil Renewable energy scientist, Environmental
Change Institute, University of Oxford
Genevieve Jones BSc Arch dip Arch Lecturer in sustainable design and
technology, Robert Gordon University, Aberdeen
Gavin Killip MSc Energy and environment scientist, Environmental Change
Institute, University of Oxford
Dr Martin Juckes MA PhD Atmospheric scientist (public research institution)
Dr Jonathan Köhler PhD MRINA Climate technology and policy scientist
Tyndall Centre and Cambridge Centre for Climate Change Mitigation Research,
University of Cambridge
Dr Jeremy Leggett DPhil Chief Executive Officer, Solar Century Ltd
Roger Levett BSc Energy and sustainable development consultant,
Levett-Therivel Sustainability Consultants
Dr Larch Maxey LLB MSc PhD Lecturer in geography, University of Wales, Swansea
Dr Jenny Nelson BA PhD Solar energy physicist, Imperial College, London
Dr Brian Orr BSc PhD Energy engineer (independent)
Prof Malcolm Povey BA PhD FInstP CPhys CEng Professor of food physics,
University of Leeds
Dr Jerome Ravetz PhD Philosopher in science, technology and policy, James
Martin Institute for Science and Civilization, University of Oxford
Dr Renata Romanowicz PhD DSc Environment and climate scientist, Lancaster
University
Dr Janet Rudge BA BArch MSc PhD Energy, environment and health scientist,
London Metropolitan University
Dr Adrian Smith Dip Lang BEng MSc DPhil Energy and technology policy
analyst, SPRU, University of Sussex
Dr Heidi Smith BSc MSc PhD Climate impacts scientist (public sector)
Dr Ian Taylor BA PhD Energy and transport consultant (consultancy)
Laura Thompson BSc Energy and environment consultant, Thames Valley Energy
Centre
Dr James B Thring BArch MCD PhD MRTPI Energy and environment consultant
(independent)
Tom Tibbits MSci ARCS Solar energy physicist, Imperial College, London
Dr Philip Webber BSc PhD DIC MIEMA Energy and sustainable development
analyst (public sector)
Prof Mark Whitby BSc FREng FICE Hon FRIBA Professor of sustainable
construction, Nottingham University, and former President of the
Institution of Civil Engineers
Prof John Whitelegg BA PhD LLB Professor of sustainable development,
Stockholm Environment Institute, University of York
NB Affiliations are given for information only. All signatories are signing
in a personal capacity.
----------
Copyright © 2006 smg sunday newspapers ltd. no.176088
Back to
previous page
_______________________________________________________________________
Subscribe/Unsubscribe Here: http://www.energyjustice.net/nukenet/
Change your settings or access the archives at:
http://energyjustice.net/mailman/listinfo/nukenet_energyjustice.net
*****************************************************************
34 Scotland: Information tsar slams Executive plans to charge for
Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2006 15:15:23 -0700
NukeNet Anti-Nuclear Network (nukenet@energyjustice.net)
http://www.sundayherald.com/55088
Sunday Herald - 09 April 2006
Information tsar slams Executive plans to charge for freedom of information
By Rob Edwards, Environment Editor
----------
PLANS by ministers to claw back Scotland’s far-reaching freedom of
information reforms have been rejected by the nation’s information tsar,
Kevin Dunion.
In a stinging response to the Scottish Executive’s review of freedom of
information legislation, the Scottish information commissioner has attacked
plans to introduce upfront fees. They could end up with people being
charged for wanting to know the opening times of libraries, he warned.
Dunion was also critical of the idea of lumping together requests from
MSPs, journalists and others in order to increase charges. Relaxing the
deadlines by which public authorities have to respond to requests for
information would be premature, he suggested.
The Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act, which came into force in January
2005, gives anyone the right to request information from public
authorities. It has resulted in a vast amount of previously secret
information become public – including, most famously, the taxi expenses of
the former Scottish Tory leader, David McLetchie.
Last December, after less than a year of the act in operation, minister for
parliamentary business Margaret Curran launched a review. She warned of
“misuse” by some businesses and journalists promoting self-interest and
gossip.
She suggested that the charging regime needed to be looked at, including
the possibility of upfront fees for requests under the act. She also talked
about aggregating different requests from individuals, which could have the
effect of pushing the costs of replying over £600, thereby enabling
authorities to charge.
But Dunion has strongly defended the existing regulations on charging,
which mean that in most cases information is provided free. The
introduction of new fees would undermine the real advances made towards
open government, he argued.
“The implementation of an upfront fee in Scotland would radically transform
the nature of the freedom of information regime in this country and would
be incompatible with the primary legislation,” he stated.
Such a fee would deter members of the public from exercising their right to
ask questions, Dunion maintained. And because every request for information
from public authorities is technically a request under the Freedom of
Information (Scotland) Act, some of the consequences could be bizarre.
“An upfront fee in such circumstances would mean that any request for
information, however commonplace or uncontroversial – for example, library
opening hours – would have to be accompanied by a fee,” Dunion said.
He warned that aggregating requests from individuals could have
“significant disadvantages” and “unintended consequences”. MSPs, charities
and journalists could face large fees if different requests to large
organisations like the Executive were lumped together.
The Executive’s review also asked whether the deadline of 20 working days
by which public authorities have to respond to information requests should
be relaxed. But according to Dunion, it was “too early to draw conclusions”
on the matter.
“I anticipate that any adjustments to current law and regulations would be
limited as we are barely one year into establishing the new culture of
openness,” he told the Sunday Herald.
The Executive said it had received more than 100 responses to its
consultation on the Freedom of Information legislation. Although the
consultation period ended on March 31, ministers were still happy to accept
responses.
“We will be considering all responses carefully to share and discuss at the
next meeting of the Scottish Freedom of Information Implementation Group in
May,” said an Executive spokeswoman.
“Decisions on the way forward on the various issues will be taken after that.”
The Executive is expected to publish a report on the consultation in June.
----------
Copyright © 2006 smg sunday newspapers ltd. no.176088
Back to
previous page
_______________________________________________________________________
Subscribe/Unsubscribe Here: http://www.energyjustice.net/nukenet/
Change your settings or access the archives at:
http://energyjustice.net/mailman/listinfo/nukenet_energyjustice.net
*****************************************************************
35 Scotland: Visions of Gamma Girl: Chernobyl: one woman's
Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2006 15:15:56 -0700
NukeNet Anti-Nuclear Network (nukenet@energyjustice.net)
http://www.sundayherald.com/55006
Sunday Herald - 09 April 2006
Visions of Gamma Girl
Chernobyl: one woman's journey into the dead zone
By Graeme Virtue
----------
THOUGH Chernobyl has entered our vocabulary as a byword for scientific
hubris and unnatural catastrophe, the place itself has become a mostly
forgotten corner of our shrinking planet, visited only by the most ghoulish
of tourists. The looming 20th anniversary of the nuclear meltdown that made
it infamous has seen the world’s media cautiously revisiting the dead zone,
but for the most part, we are happy to stay out of this cursed place. The
radiation that saturates the land is invisible, but Chernobyl itself
remains shrouded in rumour and hearsay.
Of all the stories to emerge in the aftermath of the accident – be they
whispers of government cover-ups or horrific mutants – Elena Filatova’s has
probably travelled both furthest and fastest, which seems appropriate as
this self-proclaimed “Gamma Girl” from Ukraine confesses to a love of
powerful motorcyles. “Good girls go to heaven,” she writes on her eponymous
website. “Bad ones go to hell. And girls on fast bikes go anywhere they want.”
For Filatova, this apparently meant two-wheeled trips into the heart of the
dead zone, 130km north of her hometown of Kiev, gunning her black Kawasaki
ZZR-1100 along the long-deserted roads there, weaving in and out of
derelict roadblocks and taking pictures of what she saw. Despite the
lingering radiation, Filatova believed that if she zoomed in to dangerous
areas, then zoomed out again within the supposedly safe timeframe, her
forward momentum would act as a kind of protection; she would be
firewalking through Chernobyl.
If that sounds crazy, like a childish dare to enter the local forbidden
woods, Filatova acknowledges it. “If I tell someone that I am heading to
Chernie,” she writes, “the best case response is, ‘Are you nuts?’” But if
the initial impulse was daredevil thrill-seeking, the end result was
surprisingly contemplative. Using dozens of photographs – of abandoned
buildings, of abandoned personal effects, of abandoned nature – Filatova
constructed Ghost Town, a travelogue that leads the viewer step-by-step on
a journey round the dead zone, from the abandoned town of Pripyat to within
the shadow of the power plant itself.
Combining her own contemporary pictures and short videos with older
photographs and archive footage, Filatova created a powerful, personal
story, annotated with comments in her own distinctive authorial voice, a
mix of unsentimental description, righteous indignation and unexpected
flashes of poetry.
Her Ghost Town commentary encompasses everything from a dry explanation of
how radiation is measured to apocalyptic quotes from the book of
Revelations. There are fleeting biographical nuggets; a schoolgirl when the
accident happened, she remembers being taken by train to her grandmother’s
house 800km away. She also mentions in passing that her father is a nuclear
physicist, which might partly explain her obsession. “He is much more
worried about the speed my bike travels than about the direction I point
it,” she notes.
But what draws someone to such a desolate, dangerous place: a place
Filatova dubs a “modern Pompeii” ?
“Each time I pass into the zone, I feel that I have entered an unreal
world,” she writes. “In the dead zone, the silence of the villages, roads
and woods seem to tell something … that attracts and repels me at the same
time. It is divinely eerie – like stepping into that Salvador Dali painting
with the dripping clocks.”
A leather-clad girl. A roaring motorcycle. Life-threatening radiation. It’s
an exciting combination. And when Filatova’s Chernobyl pictures were
mentioned on the popular American website Slashdot in 2004, it drove a
flood of new users toward her travelogue. But attracting more than 15
million visitors subjected Filatova’s home-made website to a whole new
level of scrutiny. People began tugging at the narrative threads of Ghost
Town, arguing that motorcycles were forbidden in the dead zone so her
stories of daring two-wheeled sorties must be an invention. Others have
suggested she only visited the dead zone as part of an organised trip.
For her part, Filatova has maintained her website, updating her Chernobyl
material every spring as the anniversary approaches, but deflecting media
attention and interview requests. She stands by her story, which – truth or
half-truth – has successfully introduced the stark legacy of Chernobyl to a
whole new generation and, in its afterword, also provides a comprehensive
record of the whole sorry saga, from the cause of the accident to the
Communist government’s irresponsible approach to cleaning it up.
She has created a permanent, pulsing reminder of the dangers inherent in
atomic power at a time when governments around the world are warming to the
idea of constructing new nuclear reactors.
This month, a book of Filatova’s dead zone photographs and accompanying
text is being published in Sweden, one of the countries worst affected by
the cloud of radiation that crept across Europe 20 years ago. All profits
are going to the Swedish Red Cross.
Whatever the basis of her account, it is compelling. And while few things
are likely to outlive the half-life of nuclear material, this tale just
might. The very best stories can, after all, survive for thousands of years.
The book Tjernobyl is published by Max Ström on April 16
www.elenafilatova.com
----------
Copyright © 2006 smg sunday newspapers ltd. no.176088
Back to
previous page
_______________________________________________________________________
Subscribe/Unsubscribe Here: http://www.energyjustice.net/nukenet/
Change your settings or access the archives at:
http://energyjustice.net/mailman/listinfo/nukenet_energyjustice.net
*****************************************************************
36 Ahead of Chernobyl's 20th Anniversary
+
News
Features
Front Page
News
Business
Opinion
Arts & Ideas
Nightlife
Travel Guide
Stock Market
Latest Wires
Forum
Services
Jobs & Careers
Real Estate
Classifieds
Conferences
Photobook
Tools
Archive Search
PDF Edition [Expand menu]
Full PDF Archive
My Account
Subscriptions [Expand menu]
Print Edition
Article Archive
PDF Edition
E-mail News
Advertising [Expand menu]
Media Kit [eng]
Media Kit [rus]
The Moscow Times [Expand menu]
Special Reports
Classifieds
Job Opportunities
Mini Guide
Online
G!O
Jobs &Careers
Real Estate Catalog
Real Estate Quarterly
Direct Mail
Reprints [Expand menu]
Information
Past Issues
Global Eye
FAQ
Request Form
Agreement
About
[ width=1 height=10]
Archive
January February March April May June July August September
October November December 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa Su
1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16
17 18 19 20 21 22 23
24 25 26 27 28 29 30
<< March
[ width=1 height=10]
Archive Search
Advanced search...
-->
[ border=]
Tuesday, April 11, 2006. Issue 3390. Page 12.
Aa Aa Aa
Ahead of Chernobyl's 20th Anniversary The Associated Press
[ border=0]
Efrem Lukatsky / AP
A Ukrainian emergency official playing the guitar during a
commemorative concert last week for the residents of the village
of Illintsi in the highly contaminated 30-kilometer zone around
Chernobyl.
KIEV -- Ukrainian Prime Minister Yuriy Yekhanurov has pledged 20
million hryvna ($4 million) to commemorate the 20th anniversary
of the deadly explosion at the Chernobyl nuclear power plant,
the world's worst-ever nuclear accident.
Click here to see photo essay
The money would be spent on awards for those involved in
combating the consequences of the explosion, buying 1,000 cars
for Chernobyl invalids, building two health centers and
increasing pensions for those who helped respond to the
disaster, government spokesman Valery Olefir said last week.
The money will also be used to fund requiems on the anniversary
of the explosion, print commemorative coins, publish books,
organize exhibitions and upgrade the Chernobyl museum in Kiev.
On April 26, Ukraine will commemorate 20 years since the deadly
explosion in Reactor No. 4, which released a radioactive cloud.
About 600,000 people were mobilized to fight the effects of the
explosion, and more than 116,000 evacuated from their homes.
Ukraine, Belarus and Russia are still coping with the aftermath
of the accident today, from skyrocketing rates of thyroid cancer
to a marked increase in health concerns among the 5 million
people whose land was dusted with radioactive particles.
Last Wednesday, Ukrainian artists performed a concert to honor
Chernobyl victims in the village of Illintsi in the so-called
exclusion zone, a highly contaminated area surrounding the
plant.
Pripyat, a town of 47,000 and home to workers at Chernobyl, was
evacuated three days after the explosion, and followed later by
dozens of villages.
Residents of some of the villages, like Illintsi, returned soon,
ignoring official warnings not to.
Chernobyl's last operating reactor was closed forever in 2000.
Previous article
Print this
E-mail this
Request reprint rights
Back to top
Next article
Also In This Issue
+ EU Bans Lukashenko and 30 Others (Ingrid Melander)
+ 3 Killed in Dagestani Gunbattle (The Associated Press)
+ White House Picketed Over Astrakhan Mosque (The
Associated Press)
+ News in Brief
+ EU Freezes Payments to Palestinians (Robert Wielaard)
+ Sunnis Shun Iraqi Prime Minister (The Associated Press)
+ Exit Polls Point to Prodi Victory (Frances D'Emilio)
+ NASA Overhauls Its Space Program (Mike Schneider)
+ Supreme Court Touts Automated Justice (Nabi Abdullaev)
+ French Therapist Held in Sex Case (Francesca Mereu)
+ Lavrov, U.S. Senators Meet on Iran, NGOs (Stephen
Boykewich)
+ Briton on UN Trip Ordered to Go Home (Oksana Yablokova)
+ Suspect Detained in African's Slaying (Carl Schreck)
+ Traffic Police Look for Dirt (Natasha Rotstein)
+ Court Lets NGO Stay Open (Combined Reports) [
width=1 height=10]
Latest Wires
+ Two militants killed, one wounded in North Caucasus operation
(RIAN)
+ Morning re-cap of main news, April 10 (RIAN)
+ Avalanche kills 1, buries several in northern Russia (RIAN)
+ Avalanche buries skiers in northern Russia (RIAN)
+ "Hooliganism" inquiry opened on mosque attack in central
Russia (RIAN) [ width=1 height=10]
[ width=1 height=10]
Columnists
Inside Russia
By Yulia Latynina
Between the Lines
By Alexei Pankin
Always a Dissident
By Boris Kagarlitsky
Disquiet in the Ranks
By Alexander Golts
From a Safe Distance
By Alexei Bayer
Rules of the Game
By Konstantin Sonin
Ways and Means
By Masha Gessen
Regional Perspectives
By Nikolai Petrov
Uncommon Sense
By Georgy Bovt
The Russian Front
By Richard Lourie
Central Asia Stories
By Ethan Wilensky-Lanford
The Word`s Worth
By Michele A. Berdy
Global Eye
By Chris Floyd [ width=1 height=10]
[ width=1 height=1 border=0]
© Copyright 2006 The Moscow Times. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
37 Guardian Unlimited: Nuclear Commission Chairman Plans to Leave
From the Associated Press
[UP]
Monday April 10, 2006 10:16 PM
WASHINGTON (AP) - Nils Diaz, chairman of the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, said Monday he will leave the agency at the end of
June when his five-year term expires.
Diaz, a nuclear engineer, has been on the commission for 10
years and was named its chairman three years ago by President
Bush.
``I plan to return to Florida after my second term expires on
June 30 and enjoy time with my family,'' Diaz said in a
statement.
Diaz has been head of the five-member commission during a time
when it has faced a wide range of challenges, from developing
new security requirements amid heightened concerns about
terrorism to preparing to license the first new nuclear power
plants since the 1970s.
The president can promote one of the four remaining NRC
commissioners to the chairmanship or nominate a new member as
chairman, requiring Senate confirmation.
Before coming to the NRC, Diaz was a professor of nuclear
engineering science at the University of Florida. He was also
director of the Innovative Nuclear Space Power Institute, a
consortium of industries, universities and national
laboratories.
The NRC regulates commercial nuclear power plants and nuclear
material.
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006
*****************************************************************
38 NRC: NRC Begins Special Inspection at Hatch Nuclear Plant to Review Shutdown
News Release - Region II - 2006-01
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
Office of Public Affairs, Region II
No. II-06-016 April 7, 2006
CONTACT: Ken Clark (404) 562-4416
Roger D. Hannah (404) 562-4417 E-mail: opa2@nrc.gov
will conduct a special inspection at the Hatch nuclear power
plant, operated by Southern Nuclear Operating Company near
Baxley, Ga., to assess the circumstances surrounding an
unplanned reactor shutdown at Hatch Unit 2 on April 5.
The April 5th shutdown was initiated by a maintenance error
during testing on the Unit 2 turbine generator. During that
shutdown, condenser vacuum significantly decreased in part due
to the operators having to manually control part of the
operation because some automatic equipment had not been repaired
after the last refueling outage.
The condenser in a nuclear power plant condenses and recovers
the steam that passes through the turbine. The steam turning the
turbine at a boiling-water reactor plant such as Hatch is heated
in the reactor itself and returned to the reactor once it is
condensed. All power plants, including coal-fired plants, that
use steam as the driving force for the turbine generator use a
condenser. During a nuclear plant shutdown, maintaining a vacuum
in the condenser allows plant operators to use additional
sources of water and heat removal. Any loss of that capability
may result in the necessity to use backup plant systems for
cooling.
The NRC inspectors will assess the sequence of events, the plant
staffs response, any corrective actions and any possible generic
safety implications.
The two inspectors involved in the special inspection are the
NRC Senior Resident Inspector at the Hatch plant and a Senior
Resident Inspector from another plant. The two inspectors are
expected to complete their on-site review the week of April 10th
and the results of the inspection will be issued within 45 days
of its completion.
Last revised Monday, April 10, 2006
*****************************************************************
39 New York Times: Town Sees Nuclear Plans as a Boon, Not a Threat -
Erik S. Lesser for The New York Times
An unfinished containment building from Duke Power's previous
plan to build a nuclear plant near Gaffney, S.C., 30 years ago.
By Published: April 10, 2006
GAFFNEY, S.C. — Bill Whelchel, working the main chair at
Elmore's Barber Shop on Limestone Street, paused the clippers
above his customer's half-sculptured crew cut to consider the
question of atomic energy. Skip to next paragraph
Multimedia
[Map: Nuclear Plant Proposal in South Carolina]
Map: Nuclear Plant Proposal in South Carolina
Enlarge This Image [ border=] Erik S. Lesser for The New York
Times
Bill Whelchel, a barber, supports current plans to build a
nuclear facility.
"I'm not worried at all about putting in a new nuclear power
plant," said Mr. Whelchel, 76. "We're used to nuclear power
around here. Plus, it'll create jobs, and one thing I've learned
is that working people are happy people."
More than a quarter century after the accident at Three Mile
Island and two decades after Chernobyl, America's utilities
stand at the early edge of what promises to be the first
large-scale wave of nuclear plant construction since the 1980's.
And the energy companies are finding — especially in the small,
struggling Southeastern towns like Gaffney where most of the
plants are planned — that memories of those tragedies have faded
and that local governments and residents, eager for jobs and tax
revenues to replace vanished industries, are embracing them with
enthusiasm.
Indeed, none of Mr. Whelchel's half-dozen customers said they
had any problem whatsoever with the idea of a nuclear facility
going up down the road.
"I can't remember hearing a single negative comment from any
local resident," Cody Sossamon, publisher of The Gaffney Ledger,
said as he sat in his office out near the highway.
Driven partly by federal Department of Energy projections that
demand for electrical power will increase 50 percent by 2025,
and by recent federal legislation offering a more streamlined
application process and financial incentives for new nuclear
facilities, many utilities are eager to get back into the atomic
business.
"We initially were looking at 14 communities in the Southeast,
and then we narrowed that down to four," said Henry B. Barron
Jr., chief nuclear officer for Duke Power, which announced last
month that it would apply to build its first new nuclear plant
in three decades just outside Gaffney. "I found no single
individual who had any concerns about the plant. The few who did
have concerns were worried about increased traffic on the roads
during construction."
In a March report, Fitch Ratings, a global financial research
company, said: "It is no longer a matter of debate whether there
will be new nuclear plants in the industry's future. Now, the
discussion has shifted to predictions of how many, where and
when."
How many remains to be seen. Nine utilities have said they will
apply to build as many as 19 new nuclear units, but that does
not mean all of them will be built.
As to where, the list includes every state south of Maryland
that touches either the Atlantic Ocean or the Gulf of Mexico,
except Texas, and one facility in central Illinois. And the
sites tend to be in rural counties whose hard-pressed small
towns — like Gaffney, population 13,000 — clutch at the chance
for new jobs and tax revenue.
"The timeline that Duke gave us was that the application
process would take three to five years," said James P. Inman,
executive director of the Cherokee County Development Board,
which led the local drive to attract the new plant. "Then they'd
build the first unit, and it would go online around 2015. At
least, that's the least optimistic projection. We think it could
happen as early as 2012."
Wanting the plant was a no-brainer for Gaffney, Mr. Inman said.
Some 1,500 new jobs are expected in the construction phase of
the $4 billion to $6 billion facility, and then running the
plant will take 1,000 employees. In addition, the plant is to
pay $8.5 million in annual taxes, to be split between the county
and the state.
"You add to that the new home construction and the new
businesses and it looks to be a really good things for this
community and this county," Mr. Sossamon said.
If residents of the communities do seem eager for the plants,
it is not entirely unanimous. The Blue Ridge Environmental
Defense League, based in North Carolina, said earlier this month
that it intended to oppose construction of the plant outside
Gaffney.
To attract Duke, county officials agreed to a package of
financial incentives, pretty much the same combination of tax
breaks offered by the other counties in North and that were
finalists for the plant. But Gaffney also promised to establish
new science, math and engineering courses in local schools to
make sure Duke finds people to hire if the plant opens.
*****************************************************************
40 MiamiHerald.com: Taking a fresh look at nuclear energy
| 04/10/2006 |
Mon, Apr. 10, 2006
OUR OPINION: MUCH HAS CHANGED, BUT SAFETY IS STILL A CONCERN
In the 34 years since Florida Power & Light Co. built its first
nuclear plant at Turkey Point, there has been growing acceptance
of nuclear power as a source of clean and comparatively
inexpensive energy. These are some of the reasons that underpin
FPL's recent decision to seek permission from the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission to build a new nuclear-power plant in
Florida.
New nuclear plant
The decision to go for more nuclear output may surprise some
people, especially critics. But the move is both practical and
necessary. It also is good business strategy. By diversifying
its energy sources, FPL can gird itself to cope better with
pressures from strong demand and the high cost of fossil fuels.
Still, FPL will have to answer legitimate concerns about the
safety and security of its nuclear operations, old and new.
A new nuclear plant would help FPL meet its share of Florida's
fast-growing demand for energy, driven by a never-ending influx
of people into a state where the population has doubled to more
than 16 million in the past 20 years. Considering today's
fast-rising price of oil, coal and natural gas -- the primary
energy sources for power plants -- increasing nuclear output
makes sense. FPL customers would be appreciative, too, because
cheaper nuclear energy could ease the pain of paying fuel
surcharges on the monthly electric bill.
Three Mile Island
Winning approval for a new nuclear plant, however, is no easy
task. No nuclear plant has been approved in the United States in
33 years. Blame for that goes, in part, to the industry's own
record of poor performance in the early years of nuclear power,
which has been infamously seared in the public consciousness by
the near-meltdown of a nuclear reactor at Pennsylvania's Three
Mile Island facility in 1979.
But much has changed since those early years. The NRC has
significantly improved its ability to supervise and regulate a
myriad of technical and arcane aspects of the nuclear plants.
And the industry itself, especially in the United States, has
learned from its early missteps, upgraded old technology and
honed the skills necessary to maintain safe and secure
facilities.
FPL and other operators, too, have developed a culture that
promotes learning and adopts the industry's best-practice
techniques. In 2002, the NRC approved extending Turkey Point's
operating license to 2033. This is proof of FPL's success in
upgrading technology originally designed for a 40-year life
span, says spokesperson Rachael Scott.
Storing metal rods
Still, the process for gaining permission to build a nuclear
plant is long and arduous, as it should be. FPL says it will
file its application for a new plant in 2009 and expects that
the regulatory-review process could take 12 years. That means a
new plant won't be operational until 2021, if the application is
approved.
With or without a new facility, FPL faces the challenge of
safely storing the metal rods that are the waste product of
energy production. The federal government planned to open a
permanent storage site for the material deep inside Yucca
Mountain in Nevada. But a long-running controversy about the
project has stalled the plan. Meanwhile, FPL is running out of
space in the deep-water pools where it has been storing the
material. When the pools are full, the rods, which are highly
radioactive and potentially dangerous, will be stored in dry
casks encased in thick concrete.
FPL says the casks are safe and secure even from the increased
threats in a post-9/11 world. Still, the threat of a safety or
security breach is real. As it pushes to deliver cleaner,
cheaper energy, FPL must be just as vigilant in safeguarding its
operations.
*****************************************************************
41 Bradenton Herald: Proposed law would make it easier to approve power plants
| 04/10/2006 |
RICH MCKAY The Orlando Sentinel
In response to rising electric bills, state lawmakers are
working on several proposed laws that would make it faster and
easier for power companies to build new electric plants in
Florida, including nuclear power plants.
The new laws would streamline the process to get approval for a
plant, reduce the number of public hearings and allow the state
to overrule any local ordinances or zoning rules that could slow
or halt the location of plants that use nuclear energy, coal or
gas.
The idea is to encourage more power plants that don't use
natural gas or oil, providing Florida with a more diverse range
of energy sources. With an average of 1,000 people a day moving
to the state, Florida is going to need as much as 40 percent
more electricity by 2014, according to the Florida Public
Service Commission.
At least six coal plants are in the works in the state. Progress
Energy has said that it plans to build a nuclear power plant in
Florida. Progress spokesman C.J. Drake said the determination of
a site is at least several months away.
The proposed bills are sponsored by state Rep. Adam Hasner,
R-Delray Beach, Rep. Frank Attkinson, R-Kissimmee, and Sen.
Carey Baker, R-Eustis. Although the bills are similar, they
still call for some changes, which will need to be worked out in
committees. But they are expected to easily win approval in the
House and Senate before the end of the session.
Although the bills have the backing of the governor's office and
the utilities, several activist groups are crying foul.
The chief complaint from groups including the Florida Public
Interest Research Group is that the proposed laws would reduce
public input. "Streamlining is code for keeping the public out
as much as possible," said Holly Binns, field coordinator for
Florida PIRG. "It means they're going to make it as hard as
possible for Joe Citizen to have a say in where these plants get
built."
Attkinson, whose bill focuses on nuclear plants, said the
changes are needed.
"There are still checks and balances," he said. "But right now,
locals can say yes or no on something of regional impact.
"We know some groups are having heartburn over this, but zoning
for a Motel 6 is something that just affects the locals. A
nuclear power plant affects the whole state."
The public would still have input with meetings by Florida's
Department of Environmental Protection as well as the state's
Public Service Commission, which oversees electric utilities.
Barry Moline, executive director of the Florida Municipal
Electric Association, is championing the proposed regulations.
"It gives the state PSC the final authority," he said. "Today,
any local government can make a lot of noise."
The changes also have the support of Mike Twomey, president and
founder of Florida Utility Watch, who is critical of the
industry at times. "For one, this promotes fuel diversity, which
will help consumers in their pocketbooks," he said. "I've been
yelling for years that there's not enough fuel diversity."
*****************************************************************
42 NRC: NRC to Discuss 2005 Performance Assessment for Pilgrim Nuclear Power Plant
News Release - Region I - 2006-02
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
Office of Public Affairs, Region I
No. I-06-020 April 10, 2006
CONTACT: Diane Screnci (610) 337-5330
Neil A. Sheehan (610) 337-5331 E-mail: opa1@nrc.gov
representatives of Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., on Tuesday,
April 18, to discuss the agencys annual assessment of safety
performance at the Pilgrim nuclear power plant. The period of
performance to be discussed is Jan. 1 to Dec. 31, 2005.
Entergy operates the plant, located in Plymouth, Mass.
The meeting, which will be open to the public for observation,
is scheduled to begin at 3 p.m. at the John Carver Inn, 25
Summer St. in Plymouth. (Directions are available on the inns
web site at: http://www.johncarverinn.com/directions.php[exit
icon] .) The NRC staff will present the results of the
assessment and be available to respond to questions or comments
from the public before the close of the session.
As we do every year, we have carefully reviewed the safety
performance of the Pilgrim nuclear power plant during the
previous calendar year, NRC Region I Administrator Samuel J.
Collins said. The meeting on April 18th will afford the public a
chance to learn more about the results of our assessment and to
pose any questions they might have regarding plant performance
or our oversight activities.
A letter sent from the NRC Region I Office to plant officials
addresses the performance of the plant during the period and
will serve as the basis for the meeting discussion. It is
available on the NRC web site at:
http://www.nrc.gov/NRR/OVERSIGHT/ASSESS/LETTERS/pilg_2005q4.pdf[P
DF Icon] . The meeting notice, with the meeting agenda attached,
is available in the NRCs Agencywide Documents Access and
Management System (ADAMS) under accession number ML060940370.
The NRC slides for the meeting are available in ADAMS under
accession number ML060940408. ADAMS is accessible via the
agencys web site at: http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html.
Help in using ADAMS is available by contacting the NRCs Public
Document Room at 1-800-397-4209 or 301-415-4737, or by e-mail at
PDR@NRC.GOV.
Overall, the Pilgrim plant operated safely during the period.
The NRC uses color-coded inspection findings and performance
indicators to assess nuclear power plant performance. The colors
start with green and then increase to white, yellow or red,
commensurate with the safety significance of the issues
involved. Because all of the inspection findings and performance
indicators for the plant during 2005 were determined to be
green, Pilgrim will receive a baseline (or routine) level of
inspections during the upcoming assessment period.
Routine inspections are performed by two NRC Resident Inspectors
assigned to the plant and by inspection specialists from the
Region I Office in King of Prussia, Pa. Among the areas of plant
operations to be inspected during the next year by NRC
specialists are radiological safety, fire protection and
emergency planning.
Current performance information for Pilgrim is available on the
NRC web site at:
http://www.nrc.gov/NRR/OVERSIGHT/ASSESS/PILG/pilg_chart.html.
Last revised Monday, April 10, 2006
*****************************************************************
43 Platts: Japan's Onagawa nuclear plant may restart No. 1 unit in July
Tokyo (Platts)--10Apr2006
Japanese utility firm Tohoku Electric may restart the 524 MW No.
1 unit at its Onagawa nuclear power plant in northeastern Japan
as early as July 2006, a company source said Monday.
"We hope to restart the No.1 unit as early as July as we
will likely be submitting our impact assessment report on the
automatic shutdown due to the August 16 earthquake to the
government in mid-May," the source said. "It took us about one
and a half months (from submission date) to restart the two other
units at the Onagawa plant," the source added.
Tohoku Electric is currently conducting a regular
maintenance its No. 1 unit (524 MW) at the Onagawa plant. The
maintenance would end as soon as the company gets approvals from
the Japanese government and local authorities to restart the
unit.
Tohoku Electric had experienced a complete power outage at
its Onagawa nuclear plant in northeastern Japan for nearly half
of the previous fiscal year after all the three units were
automatically shut following a powerful earthquake that rocked
northern and central Japan on August 16, 2005.
The utility company last month restarted the Onagawa plant's
825 MW third unit after receiving safety approvals from the
Japanese government and local authorities. The 825 MW No. 2 unit
was restarted in January.
The loss of nuclear production as well as a tightness in LNG
supplies have forced Tohoku Electric to boost generation using
coal and low sulfur fuel oil in the past few months, according to
power industry sources.
Between September 2005 and February, Tohoku Electric
consumed 970,253 mt of fuel oil, soaring 128.4% from the same
period a year earlier, according to the data compiled by the
Federation of Electric Power Companies. Its fuel oil procurement
for the period stood at 911,344mt, rocketing 136.7% from a year
earlier.
Tohoku Electric's crude consumption for the September 2005
to February period rose 41.3% to 290,214 mt, while the company's
crude procurement stood at 296,492 mt, up 65.6% from the same
period last year, according to the FEPC.
But Tohoku Electric's LNG procurement for the six-month
period fell 14.3% on the year to 1.53 million mt due to a supply
scarcity. The company's actual LNG consumption for the period
also fell 16.4% on the year to 1.43 million mt.
Meanwhile, Tohoku Electric would be increasing its
procurements of crude and fuel oil as well as LNG during the
current (April-March) fiscal year, senior company sources said
late last month.
The company plans to buy a total of 1.49 million mt of crude
and fuel oil in the current fiscal year which started this month,
rising by 9.7% from the planned 1.36 million mt in the previous
fiscal year. It intends to buy 2.80 million mt of LNG in the
current fiscal year, up 7.4% from the planned 2.61 million mt in
the previous fiscal year.
Tohoku Electric, based in northeastern Japan, has term
contracts totaling 2.77 million mt/year to purchase LNG from
Malaysia, Qatar, Indonesia, and Australia. It is also currently
in discussion with Indonesia about the possibility of contracting
two LNG cargoes a year from the BP-led Tangguh project due to
start production in end-2008, Platts reported last month.
-- Takeo Kumagai, takeo_kumagai@platts.com
For more news, request a free trial to Platts Power in Asia at
http://www.platts.com/Request%20More%20Information/
Copyright © 2006 - Platts, All Rights Reserved [The McGraw-Hill
Companies]
*****************************************************************
44 TCS Daily - Wasted Energy
[TCS Hosted by James K. Glassman]
Co-Authored by Jens F. Laurson
By George A. Pieler
10 Apr 2006
Entered with high hopes, Europe's recent economic summit -- which
focused on energy -- produced but a damp squib: agreement on
process to explore agreement on major issues, with no substantive
accord at all. Meanwhile Brussels asserts power over power for
power's sake, using competition policy to show it's "doing
something" about energy.
So much for the challenge articulated by the Financial Times --
"[protectionism] is most rampant in the energy sector, which is
in turn in greatest need of a new EU-wide policy to maximize
efficiency and to minimize import dependence and pollution."
Exactly -- energy policy is inseparable from economic policy, and
what Europe needs is more efficiency-enhancing economic openness
to the world.
But ideological barriers and resurgent nationalist sentiment
block Europe from boosting nuclear energy (France yes, Germany
no) and German intransigence blocks Angela Merkel from being an
effective energy mediator within Europe. Excessive regulatory
interference, meanwhile, hinders Europe from advancing in
technology and productivity as fast as it could.
On energy specifics, Europe's paper commitment to Kyoto
greenhouse gas limits pushes so-called renewables like wind,
solar, and bio-fuels. These are all unsuitable for large scale
energy production despite heavy subsidies, and even then rarely
economically viable. And since the construction of wind-power
generators consumes more energy than they produce over time, they
become tools of energy storage that leave a massive, disruptive
"footprint" on the landscape.
Nuclear energy, which Germany is phasing out, is a much more
viable candidate for diversifying the energy mix. Peter Huber and
Mark Mills, authors of the book "The Bottomless Well," show the
typical Chicagoan's energy use requires burning massive amounts
of coal but only a tiny deployment of uranium in a reactor. It's
more efficient with less impact on environment. Modern Western
reactors set new safety standards which can be shared with
countries using "last generation" systems. Efficient modern
reactors significantly reduce nuclear waste and may pose fewer
problems on balance than mining and burning coal.
But should Europe pick energy winners and losers based on current
data? Economic history shows that flexibility and ability to
innovate are the long-run determinants of success. For modern
governments that means energy diversification (where even less
viable renewables like wind can play); minimal interference with
market forces, including the kind of interference that stops
logical business combinations at the border; and low levels of
tax and regulation.
zLittle of that made Europe's summit agenda. Wearing her
sensibility cap, German Chancellor Angela Merkel argued, "We
don't need any new powers for Europe, but better coordination of
energy policy." Her foreign minister, Frank-Walter Steinmeier,
said, "In view of our great mutual dependency in the area of
energy, our chief goal must be the reciprocal opening of
markets." A good sentiment, but markets can be opened without
reciprocity -- the question is whether Europe can stop them from
being closed.
Broader economic reforms would trump mere agreement-to-not-agree
on energy strategy. A business and tax climate aimed at improved
productivity and efficiency allows less energy to drive each unit
of production. With a light hand from Brussels, EU members could
experiment along these lines rather than pursue a
lowest-common-denominator agreement.
Geopolitics can't be ignored. Russia as the G8 summit host is
criticized, given its brazen manipulation of natural gas flow to
Europe, Putin's increasingly authoritarian role in the state,
and his legal assault on private sector energy. Russia will play
the "China card" against Europe with its agreement to transport
gas from Siberia to China and exploration of a crude pipeline to
Daqing. While the West depends heavily on Russian energy, Russia
has the power to cause short-term harm. Still: Russia needs
revenue from its energy resources as much as its customers need
the energy.
That's the great thing about markets, they are inherently a
two-way street. Inexorably, global markets make us all
interdependent, and the more open they are, the less any one
player in the market can use market power as a political weapon.
Free movement of goods, services, capital and labor across
national boundaries truly is the best "energy security" strategy
Europe could devise.
George A. Pieler is a Senior Fellow with the Institute for Policy
Innovation. Jens F. Laurson is Editor-in-Chief of the
International Affairs Forum.
©2000-2006 TCS Daily
*****************************************************************
45 Brattleboro Reformer: Group may challenge VY's water permit
By DARRY MADDEN, Reformer Staff
Monday, April 10 BRATTLEBORO -- An environmental group may
challenge a state-issued permit that says how much and how often
Vermont Yankee can discharge water into the Connecticut River.
Entergy Nuclear, Vermont Yankee's owners, is trying to get the
state to allow an increase in discharge temperatures under
certain river conditions. Plant officials say the proposal would
save energy, because the plant's cooling towers would be used
less.
The Connecticut River Watershed Council has taken issue with
Entergy's request, claiming higher water temperatures could harm
the river's eco-system. The council is calling on the state to
set more stringent limits on Vermont Yankee's discharge permit.
Two years ago plant owners applied to renew the permit, but with
an amendment requesting more liberal regulations discharge use.
The Vermont Agency of Natural Resources has taken an unusual
amount of time considering Entergy's application. Agency
officials have waited so long to make a decision, that the
current permit expired on March 31 and the agency was forced to
simply extend its use.
According to David Deen, river steward for the Connecticut River
Watershed Council, it isn't clear when the agency will issue the
next five-year permit. And while the council feels that it
gained some ground in a few new terms in the extension, it has
other issues it would like to see addressed.
In its previous incarnation, the discharge permit did not
specify a limit on how hot the plant's thermal discharge could
make the river, even as Vermont Yankee was applying to amend the
permit to allow for a one degree increase in its discharge.
"In response to comments received during the public notice
period, an 85 (degree) Fahrenheit upper temperature limit at
downstream Station 3 during the period of June 16 through
October 14 has been included," wrote the Agency of Natural
Resources in its letter to Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee on
March 30. The condition requires that the hourly temperature not
exceed 85 degrees as measured by the sensor just below the
Vernon Dam.
"The watershed council has been working on this, and we have
gotten some protections for the river," said Deen. "But our
bigger concern is that there is no defined length of the 'mixing
zone.'"
Deen said that without a length put on the so-called "mixing
zone," discharge from the plant could "heat the water all the
way down to Turners Falls., Mass."
The watershed council also maintains that, in filing a request
to increase the temperature, Vermont Yankee did not sufficiently
evaluate what the effect would be on the river and for how long.
"We're going to keep hammering away," said Deen.
Entergy Spokesman Rob Williams said that the company's request
was to increase discharge temperatures only applied to certain
river conditions, and did not apply to when upstream
temperatures were already above 78 degrees Fahrenheit.
According to Williams, the objective of Entergy's request was to
improve plant efficiency and reduce the use of the electrically
run cooling towers.
He said that the plant had received permission to amend their
thermal discharge permit on two other occasions; once in 1970
and a second time in 1990.
Such requests, he said, were fine so long as it could be
demonstrated that it did not adversely effect the river
environment.
New England Newspapers, Inc.
*****************************************************************
46 NRC: Statement of NRC Chairman Nils J. Diaz
News Release - 2006-04
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
Office of Public Affairs Telephone: 301/415-8200
Washington, DC 20555-0001 E-mail: opa@nrc.gov
No. 06-049 April 10, 2006
Commission and, for the past three years, as Chairman of this
important body.
In that time, the Commission and the dedicated men and women of
the NRC have been instrumental in significantly raising the
level of safety and security in the industry we are charged with
regulating.
Together, we have prepared the NRC for the coming submission of
a significant number of requests for new nuclear power plants.
We reacted swiftly after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11,
2001. We have substantially improved the oversight of existing
nuclear plants and all other significant aspects of ensuring
safety in the civilian uses of nuclear materials. And we have
broadened the level of international cooperation on nuclear
issues. It is a record of protecting the American people of
which we can all be proud.
It is with deep appreciation for the work of the talented
individuals of the NRC that I announce that I am not seeking a
third term on the Commission. I plan to return to Florida after
my second term expires on June 30, and enjoy time with my
family.
Last revised Monday, April 10, 2006
*****************************************************************
47 Boston Globe: Environmental group may challenge VY discharge permit -
Boston.com
Associated Press]
April 10, 2006
BRATTLEBORO, Vt. --Worried that higher water temperatures may
hurt the Connecticut River's ecology, an environmental group
says it might challenge a state permit allowing the Vermont
Yankee nuclear plant to discharge warmer water.
Plant owner Entergy Nuclear wants to be able to discharge warmer
water under certain river conditions so it can use its cooling
towers less and save electricity, said Vermont Yankee spokesman
Robert Williams.
But David Deen, river steward with the Connecticut River
Watershed Council, said the group does not believe Vermont
Yankee provided enough analysis on what effect the change might
have on fish and other aquatic life.
Deen said the group was pleased that the state had said the
nuclear plant can't raise the river water's temperature above 85
degrees. But he said it was bothered that it set no limit on the
"mixing zone" -- the length of river affected by the higher
temperatures.
The result could be that the plant might "heat the water all the
way down to Turners Falls., Mass," he said.
The plant's new permit limits the time of year discharge
temperatures can be increased from June 16 to October 15, rather
than a start date of May 15 as Vermont Yankee had requested.
Dean said that change, along with the 85 degree temperature
limit, were positive developments. But he said other aspects of
the permit bother his group.
"When you also consider that this permit places no limits on the
length of the discharge mixing zone, meaning the river could
potentially be impacted by elevated temperatures far from the
discharge site, the fact that we just don't have a good sense of
how this temperature increase will impact our natural
communities becomes all the more serious," he said.
Williams said the plant currently is allowed to raise the river
temperature 2 degrees if the upstream temperature is above 78
degrees; he said that limit would not change.
At lower background river temperatures, the plant would be
allowed to warm the water more. If the upstream temperature was
between 55 and 59 degrees, for example, the old permit allowed
the plant to warm the water 4 degrees; the new permit allows it
to do so by 5 degrees.
Information from: Brattleboro Reformer[ /] © Copyright 2006
*****************************************************************
48 Hawaii Reporter: Chernobyl, 20 Years Later
By Michael R. Fox Ph.D., 4/10/2006 3:41:32 AM
April 28, 2006, marks the 20 anniversary of the famous
Chernobyl accident in Ukraine.
The reactor was one of a special design by the Soviet Union
which made the reactor capable of performing dual purposes.
The purposes were the production of plutonium for the Soviet
nuclear weapons programs and for the production of electricity
needed regionally.
Thus, the terms used were the ‘weapons "mode and the "power"
mode. Each use required differing types of operation quite.
On this morning 20 years ago, the reactor was in the "power"
mode, which was determined from analysis of air samples taken
over Poland, Finland, and Sweden hours after the accident.
By nuclear reactor standards used around the world, the Soviet
RBMK-1000 reactor is extremely primitive and poorly designed.
Worse, the operational procedures essential for the safe
operation of the reactors had been ignored and suspended that
morning so that an elaborate safety test could be performed.
No where in the world would this design have been acceptable,
let alone used. In fact the Soviets knew of the flaws in the
design yet chose to operate these reactors anyway.
Both the design flaws and the failure sequence analyses of the
reactor have been studied in detail. Some of the design flaws
included:
+ A positive void coefficient -- nuclear engineers around the
world have recognized this problem and designed reactor fuels to
prevent it. All other power reactor designs recognize that if a
void occurs in the cooling water channel (such as a steam
bubble), the power level can increase. If the power increase is
permitted to continue, more energy is released and more steam
(and voids) formed. More voids, more energy, more voids, more
energy…This is very analogous to the sound feedback in an
auditorium, but involved huge amounts of increasing energy.
This is the feedback sequence which occurred at Chernobyl when
the levels of energy went quickly to tens of times the maximum
design limits in a matter of 7 seconds.
The reactor roared out of control, a steam explosion occurred
and destroyed the reactor. That the Soviets knew of the design
flaws and that Westerners had quietly pointed them out decades
ago, reflects the general scorn of the Soviets leaders toward
public safety in general.
It is now pertinent to point out the history of Ukraine as
documented by Robert Conquest in his book, The Harvest of
Sorrow. There the Soviet-ponsored famine in Ukraine in the early
1930s starved, deported, or killed an estimated 6-8 million
Ukrainians. Ukrainian health and safety have never been a high
Soviet priority.
+ Poorly design control rods -- control rods are designed to
control the energy releases within the reactor core. Yet the
tips of the Chernobyl reactor control rods contained graphite
which actually increased the number of slow neutrons. (and
resulting in more energy release).
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_accident#Causes)
+ Slow insertion rates of the control rods -- If the reactor
can explode in 7 seconds, little safety is provided if it takes
20 seconds to insert the control rods.
+ Violation of control rod procedures—of the 211 control
rods for this reactor design, 204 of them had been withdrawn
during the safety test. This is far below the minimum of 30
being required to remain inserted at all times. This is akin to
driving a huge truck after disabling the brakes.
+ Violation of many other safety procedures -- These included
violation of many written safety procedures, poor communications
with the operators and management, reactor management had little
nuclear reactor experience, operators switched off several
safety features, in violation of their own procedures…
+ There was no containment building. In sharp contrast to
reactor designs around the world which require containment
buildings, there was no containment around this reactor design.
Once the reactor was breeched its contents spewed directly into
the air instead of a containment building.
Social and political impacts of Chernobyl have been a
significant part of the Chernobyl legacy as well. The estimation
of the health impacts has been politicized and exaggerated
enormously. We must recognize that by Western standards that for
decades the people of Ukraine as in other Soviet Republics lived
under near-Third World conditions.
Chief among these was the rudimentary health care systems.
Included among these was the extremely poor data base of the
general health of the Ukrainians, poor epidemiology data,
overall poor records keeping (such data bases cost money to
collect, maintain, and update, which in this world at the
survival level of needs, was a luxury).
The study of the health effects from the Chernobyl accident
thus are hopelessly weakened without a high quality data base of
the prior health records of the Ukrainians.
These conclusions have been further weakened by the hodge-podge
of social and political influences which went into establishing
radiation concentration limits.
The rationale behind many of these limits was not scientific at
all, but instead reflected the emotional state of the decision
makers, public fear, politics, and commercial factors.
See
http://www.world-nuclear.org/opinion/jaworowski_on_chernobyl.pdf
The psychological factors were enormous having more to do with
the well nourished public fear of all things nuclear.
See http://www.world-nuclear.org/opinion/jaworowski.htm
In fact the internationally recognized radiation expert Zbigniew
Jawoworski points out that the Chernobyl was the greatest
psychological catastrophe in history, fully aided by the
full-throated media, environmental groups, and international
authorities.
Exaggerations of number of deaths, of radiation doses, adverse
health effects, impacts on wildlife have become de rigeur in
Chernobyl media coverage and discussions and have crippled
rational debate of this huge energy option.
As we have seen, technologies have advance tremendously in the
past 20 years, including air travel, computers, communications,
televisions, automobiles, health care, and food production. So
too have we seen the advances in the newer, simpler, less
costly, and much safer reactor designs.
The Chernobyl reactor RBMK-1000 was an engineering disaster
waiting to happen, and it predictably did. The Soviets knew
this, they ignored it, and Ukrainians paid the price. The nation
which designed these reactors had a long history of callousness
and brutality for the health and safety of its own citizens and
actively killed millions. Given this history of inhumanity we
shouldn’t be surprised that the advanced safety features of a
nuclear reactor took a back seat in their construction and
deployment.
An extraordinary Chernobyl article by Dominic Lawson appeared in
the Independent of the United Kingdom April 7, 2006.
See
http://comment.independent.co.uk/columnists_a_l/dominic_lawson/ar
ticle356233.ece
Lawson describes the abundance of flora and fauna of all types
now flourishing in the Chernobyl area. Boars, elk, hundreds of
bird species are there a number of them rare and endangered.
Even the cooling ponds of the reactors are teeming with thriving
fish life. The media rarely provide such perspectives, more
often exaggerating the situation. Even the once reputable
National Geographic has fallen into this type of coverage (see
April 6, 2006 edition of National Geographic for example).
In the 1930s the US media in the person of Walter Duranty,
Pulitzer Prize winner of the New York Times stationed in Moscow,
failed to report of the Ukrainian famine and the deaths of
millions.
See
http://www.nationalreview.com/script/printpage.p?ref=/stuttaford/
stuttaford050703.asp
His picture we are told still hangs without disgrace, in the
halls of the NYT. So too 75 years later the US media continues
to fail in properly covering another Ukrainian tragedy, the
Chernobyl accident. To quote George Will on a related issue,
"Americans have acquired their anxiety from journalism
calculated to produce it" (Washington Post April 6, 2006).
As we enter a future of potential energy shortage, and an age
of ever-increasing use of electrical energy, we should not
forfeit the extraordinary amounts of energy from the nuclear
option. Just as we should never adopt Soviet style social
programs, neither should we be concerned by their failings in
reactor design and operations.
A number of nations not so captive of their own fears are now
building nuclear plants and will be expanding their nuclear
options in the future. We should do the same.
Michael R. Fox, Ph.D., is the energy and science writer for
Hawaii Reporter. He has nearly 40 years experience in the energy
field. He has also taught chemistry and energy at the University
level. His interest in the communications of science has led to
several communications awards, hundreds of speeches, and many
appearances on television and talk shows. He can be reached via
email at: mailto:foxm011@hawaii.rr.com
HawaiiReporter.com reports the real news, and prints all
editorials submitted, even if they do not represent the
viewpoint of the editors, as long as they are written clearly.
Send editorials to: mailto:Malia@HawaiiReporter.com
Hawaii Reporter 1314 S. King St., Suite 1163 Honolulu, Hawaii
96814
Information and Subscription Phone: 808-524-4500 Fax:
808-524-4594 Subscribe@HawaiiReporter.com
www.HawaiiReporter.com
© 2006 Hawaii Reporter, Inc.
*****************************************************************
49 [DU List] WMD - Why locals say FU to DU - 'agent Orange of
Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2006 15:15:33 -0700
Weapon of Mass Destruction
Why locals say FU to DU —the ‘Agent Orange of this
War’
By Anthony Pignataro, April 8, 2006 Maui Times
http://www.mauitime.com/PrintVersion.aspx?story_id=46
For the generals who run the Pentagon, depleted
uranium is a true
weapon of mass destruction. Not because it’s a
nuclear, biological or
chemical warhead demanding international treaties, but
because it kills enemy
soldiers and tanks better than anything the world has
ever seen.
For that reason, U.S. armed forces of every branch put
depleted uranium
(DU) into their ordinance. U.S. Army and Marine Corps
battle tanks fire
DU rounds. The U.S. Air Force’s A-10 attack aircraft
fires DU bullets.
The U.S. Navy uses DU rounds in its Phalanx guns.
Stronger than steel and more lethal than tungsten,
which has a tendency
to shatter on impact, DU bullets and rounds actually
sharpen as they
penetrate tank armor. Depleted uranium also ignites at
340 degrees
Fahrenheit, and will incinerate whatever it
penetrates.
DU rounds travel farther and hit harder—much harder
than anything else
in the world’s arsenals. Throughout Iraq and the
Balkans, U.S. tanks
and aircraft firing DU rounds over the last 15 years
have destroyed
thousands of enemy tanks with virtually no
corresponding losses.
“What we want to be able to do is strike the target
from farther away
than we can be hit back, and we want the target to be
destroyed when we
shoot at it,” U.S. Army Colonel James Naughton told
reporters during a
March 14, 2003 briefing on DU. “[I]n World War II we
faced a problem of
not having the overreach we have today. We don’t ever
want to go back
to that. And we don’t want to fight even. Nobody goes
into a war and
wants to be even with the enemy. We want to be ahead,
and DU gives us that
advantage. We can hit, and they can’t hit us.”
Yes, depleted uranium is a true wonder weapon. It
would be the perfect
weapon, in fact, if it weren’t for the growing concern
that it’s
killing our own soldiers. No one really knows for
sure, and there are stacks
of medical studies that seem to confirm and deny any
DU-related
dangers, but it’s a fact that more and more
researchers are saying depleted
uranium exposure may cause a host of kidney ailments
and cancers.
The federal government may not be doing anything to
address DU
concerns, but in Hawai’i, things are different. In the
state Legislature,
there’s an effort to get DU exposure testing to all
returning vets. And no
less a health authority than Dr. Lorrin Pang, Maui
District Health
Officer for the State of Hawai’i’s Department of
Health has offered his
personal view that DU poses a very real threat to
today’s troops.
“DU is the Agent Orange of this war,” said Bill
Stroud, president of
Vietnam Veterans of Maui, referring to the notorious
herbicide used by
the U.S. Government during the Vietnam War on huge
tracts of jungle that
was later shown to cause cancer in soldiers exposed to
the sprayings.
“It’s a negligently criminal act by our government. We
either get some
action or we sentence our guys to a slow and painful
death.”
Depleted uranium—DU, for short—is about 40 percent
less radioactive
than naturally occurring uranium, but that doesn’t
mean it’s safe. It
emits alpha particles of radiation—they can’t get past
walls, clothes or
even skin—but if you eat or inhale DU, you’re in
trouble.
You get DU when you make fuel rods for nuclear
reactors. According to
DU researcher Karen Chun, the U.S. Government has
about a million tons
of the junk just lying around. So much, in fact, that
they literally
give it away to munitions makers, who prize it for its
exceptional
hardness. “They even considered using it for paving
material,” Chun told a few
dozen people at a Feb. 24 discussion on DU at Maui
Community College
sponsored by Maui Peace Action.
There’s also increasing evidence that DU may explain a
shocking bit of
math dating back to the first Gulf War. In 1991, the
U.S. sent 696,778
soldiers, sailors and airmen to the Persian Gulf to
fight in Operation
Desert Storm, which lasted barely a month. Of those,
148 were killed in
action, 467 were wounded and another 145 died in
accidents. That’s 760
total casualties.
But since then, the Veterans Administration has
reported that more than
183,000 of those who served have filed service-related
disability
claims for a variety of debilitating and potentially
deadly ailments that
have come to be known as Gulf War Syndrome. That’s 26
percent of the
entire force that deployed. To illustrate how immense
that number is, just
nine percent of returning World War II vets, five
percent of Korea vets
and another nine percent of Vietnam vets ever filed
for medical
disability.
Fifteen years after the conclusion of Gulf War I, and
no military or
medical official can yet say why there are so many
medical problems with
Desert Storm vets. Theories include exposure to
chemical and nerve
agents released accidentally during clean-up
detonations after the war,
weird chemical poisoning caused by the massive oil
well fires ignited by
retreating Iraqi forces and experimental anti-nerve
vaccines or
ultra-powerful bug sprays given to troops just before
the war.
For the Pentagon, the first two theories are
especially popular—notably
because they carry no liability for the federal
government. War is
dirty, and modern war brings with exposure to new and
deadly toxics
hitherto unseen in war. But one theory that isn’t at
all popular in the E-Ring
or anywhere else in the chain of command is depleted
uranium.
U.S. military officials have spent years denying that
DU is dangerous
to people who come in contact with it. They say
research into uranium
miners shows no long-term health effects. They even
produced their own
2004 study—called “Capstone”—that seems to show that
even soldiers
carrying DU shrapnel in their bodies show no ill
effects.
And they might be correct. The problem is, there are
still many noted
civilian scientists who say there are too many gaps
and limitations in
current DU research to say anything certain.
“We have no idea,” Carolyn Fulco, an Institute of
Medicine DU
researcher told the Daily Press of Hampton Roads,
Virginia, which published an
exhaustive investigation into DU on Dec. 12, 2004.
Another DU
researcher, Beate Ritz of the University of
California, Los Angeles, told the
paper: “Our human research, as valuable as it is, has
a lot of severe
limitations.”
Lorrin Pang, the District Health Office for Maui
County, says his
personal view is that DU poses a health threat. He’s
also a retired member
of the U.S. Army Medical Corps.
During a Feb. 24, 2006 panel discussion on DU at Maui
Community
College, Pang referred to a National Academy of
Sciences study on uranium
miners that showed that while the junk didn’t seem to
cause lung cancer or
kidney disease, there was some indication that DU
could cause a whole
host of other cancers, including bone cancer and
lymphatic cancer.
Indeed, even the Pentagon, which chose the name
“Capstone” for its DU
study as a way to subtly hint that there was no need
to say anything
else on the matter, says it’s still doing research.
But that research
doesn’t extend to getting returning Iraq and
Afghanistan vets tested for DU
contamination.
For local anti-DU activists, House Bill 2741 offered
some hope in this
area. “The purpose of this Act is to safeguard the
health of Hawai’i’s
national guard veterans,” the bill language stated.
Sponsored by seven
Democrats—including Mele Carroll (D, 13th District)
from Maui—and
introduced in late January of this year, the bill
sought to help veterans
get federal health screenings for DU exposure and
establish a task force
to “study the health effects on these veterans of
exposures to
hazardous materials, including depleted uranium,
during their service.”
The bill almost immediately stalled in the House
Public Safety and
Military Affairs Committee. According to a legislative
aide familiar with
the bill, HB 2741 has been modified into a
“resolution”—a toothless
statement that lacks any force of law and merely
advocates that returning
vets should get DU-exposure testing. The change came
about, the aide
said, after committee members consulted with the state
Adjutant General’s
office. The aide said that according to the Adjutant
General—Major
General Robert G. F. Lee, the overall commander of all
state Guard
forces—such testing “wasn’t necessary.”
A spokesman for the Adjutant General’s office
confirmed that.
“We feel as though it’s not necessary,” said Major
Charles Anthony.
“All returning soldiers, airmen, marines and sailors
coming back from
combat zones are given medical screenings. Everyone
from the Army Guard
coming back from Iraq or Kuwait is given extensive
health screenings.
What’s proposed is somewhat redundant.”
In fact, the Adjutant General’s office may be
right—but not necessarily
for the reason Major Anthony gave. Screening returning
vets from Iraq
and Afghanistan using the current testing regimen may
tell us nothing
about their possible exposure to DU.
At the February DU forum at MCC, Lorrin Pang said that
his reading of
the available DU literature shows that it may be next
to impossible to
find out how DU is actually poisoning the human body.
That’s because it
isn’t actually the uranium that’s causing problems,
but rather oxides
and other chemical compounds that are created when DU
rounds strike the
ground, armor, etc.
It’s these compounds—and not simply the depleted
uranium—that may be
causing serious health problems when inhaled. But
finding these compounds
could be all but impossible.
“I’m not sure science has a test to find byproducts of
DU,” Pang told
the MCC crowd. “The urine test for uranium is easy,
but you have to have
a piece of shrapnel in you… It’s not just DU—it’s DU
after an
explosion. It’s very easy for the military to say DU
is gone. Of course it’s
gone—it’s converted to another chemical.”
Pang said DU impact strikes could create four to five
different oxides.
He added that these “may be chemically very different
from DU” and very
“hard to detect.”
At this point during the MCC panel discussion, Bill
Stroud of the Maui
Vietnam Vets group asked what was the point of testing
returning
soldiers if the tests probably weren’t going to show
anything.
“There are two ways to monitor,” Pang said. “Check now
[and] check in a
few years. It’s never too late to test. You can always
monitor for
symptoms… A cautious person will say, ‘I will watch
these soldiers.’ When
you don’t know, you monitor and you watch.”
What’s really scary is that Hawai’i National Guardsmen
and U.S. forces
stationed in the islands don’t have to go to Iraq to
get DU exposure.
Early this year the anti-war group DMZ Hawaii/Aloha
‘Aina obtained
through the Freedom of Information Act a Sept. 19,
2005 email from a
military official outlining a survey of the Schofield
Barracks.
“We have found much that we did not expect, including
recent find of
depleted uranium,” Samuel P. McManus of the U.S. Army
Engineering and
Support Center in Alabama told U.S. Army official
Ronald Borne. “We are
pulling tons of frag and scrap out of the craters in
the western area to
the point where it has basically turned into a manual
sifting
operation. Had this not been a CWM [Chemical Warfare
Materiel] site, we would
have moved mechanical sifters in about 5 weeks ago but
the danger is just
too high.”
In a Jan. 6, 2006 Honolulu Advertiser story on the
memo, U.S. Army
officials confirmed that clean-up contractors at
Schofield Barracks had
located 15 tail assemblies from D-38 uranium alloy
rounds that dated to
the 1960’s. The army officials said the rounds posed
no danger.
Yeah, no danger, except to Pentagon public relations.
Much the way the
military officials spent years vigorously denying that
Agent Orange
caused the cancers that were killing Vietnam vets,
they denied that U.S.
forces ever used DU rounds during training exercises
at Schofield or any
other base in Hawai’i.
It’s possible military officials are correct in their
assertion that
depleted uranium doesn’t cause Gulf War Syndrome or
any other medical
problems. But given their track record, they can
hardly blame people for
not trusting them. MTW
===========================***NOTICE: In accordance
with Title 17
U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed
without profit to those who
have expressed a prior interest in receiving the
included information
for research and educational purposes.***
===========================
___________________________________________________________
To help you stay safe and secure online, we've developed the all new Yahoo!
Security Centre. http://uk.security.yahoo.com
*****************************************************************
50 Philadelphia Inquirer: Editorial | Put public safety first
| 04/10/2006 |
NRC and Nuclear Plant Security
Nuclear power plants must be able to repel a small group of
terrorists, possibly working with an insider, but security rules
don't require them to be ready for a rocket-propelled grenade or
a large truck bomb.
If attacked by air or a large force, they'll call in government
backup, but they don't prepare through drills.
Will more Americans have to die before that changes?
The nuclear industry claims it has made great strides in security
since 9/11, but a House hearing and audit last week found
otherwise.
The Government Accountability Office concluded that the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission had identified the right threats to plants
but had scaled back security requirements "based on what industry
considered reasonable and feasible."
The report makes you wonder who the NRC works for - the public or
the nuclear plant owners? But this is about much more than that.
It's about what the GAO politely calls "an attack that could
cause a release of radioactive material and endanger public
health and safety through exposure to an elevated level of
radiation."
Flash back to Three Mile Island, only this time the public's
worst nightmare comes true.
The nuclear industry and government shouldn't be trying to pass
off responsibility over plant security; they should be devising
the best way to safeguard Americans - inside and outside the
reactor fence.
Nuclear plants have invested more than $1 billion in security
since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, including barriers and
detection equipment, protective strategies, and security guards.
In some cases, sites went beyond what the NRC required.
The GAO concluded, though, that it was premature to deem all
sites safe, because the NRC had inspected only 27, or less than
half, of the 65 sites hosting the nation's 103 commercial
reactors. While most sites passed both baseline inspections and
simulated attacks, the NRC found malfunctioning alarms and other
breaches, such as failure to search personnel.
The real debate is whether the NRC's standards are adequate to
begin with.
Industry reportedly complained about the cost and practicality
of securing plants against certain threats, such as .50-caliber
sniper rifles and rocket-propelled grenades, so the NRC dropped
the requirement. The NRC also reduced the size of vehicle bombs
that the plants would have to guard against.
"The Nuclear Regulatory Commission seems unable to fortify
itself against the dangers of an overly cozy relationship with
the industry," said Rep. Christopher Shays (R., Conn.), who
conducted a hearing on nuclear plant security last week.
Last April, the National Academies of Science disagreed with the
NRC on how to reduce another vulnerability: onsite storage of
spent fuel.
At a time when more nuclear power seems inevitable to diversify
the nation's fuel supply, the NRC cannot be lax in ensuring
plant security.
*****************************************************************
51 Deseret News: Planned Nevada test blast worries watchdog groups
[deseretnews.com]
Monday, April 10, 2006
Planned Nevada test blast worries watchdog groups Detonation
could lead to nuclear tests, some fear
By Joe Bauman
Deseret Morning News
Military watchdog groups are worried about plans to detonate a
gigantic conventional explosion at the Nevada Test Site on June
2, calling it a possible prelude to resumption of nuclear tests.
['Image'] U. S. Defense Threat Reducation AgencyThe Nevada Test
Site, where the "Divine Strake" test will take place June 2.
Explosive material — ammonium nitrate and fuel oil — will be
detonated.
The experiment is called "Divine Strake," in which 700 tons of
ammonium nitrate and fuel oil will be blown up. (A strake is a
line of metal plating along a ship's hull.)
The explosive material, similar to that used by domestic
terrorists to destroy the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma
City in 1995, will explode with a force equivalent to 593 tons of
TNT. It is expected to raise a mushroom cloud of dust, but
officials say it won't be visible off the test site.
"There is no danger to the population of Las Vegas and the
surrounding communities," says an agency release. "The test does
not use a nuclear device, and it does not test a weapon."
An environmental assessment dated November 2005 is on file
with the state of Nevada's clearing house. It says besides the
explosives, two tracer compounds would be used: Glo Germ Powder
and Fluorescein USP.
Glo Germ Powder would be placed on tarps surrounding the
charge hole in order to see how material disperses during the
test, says the statement. Glo Germ Powder is "considered to be
hazardous if it is burned, and toxic gases can be formed," the
environmental statement says.
"The powder would not be mixed in the . . . blasting agent
so it would not be subjected to the oxidizing effects of the
detonation."
The environmental assessment also says Dugway Proving
Ground in western Utah was considered as a possible site for the
blast. It and other alternative sites "were eliminated because of
the need to conduct the detonation in a limestone bed with
specific geological properties," says the statement.
The experiment is to assess the capability of computer
modeling to predict ground shocks and the response of a tunnel to
the blast. The tunnel involved has no radiation and has not been
used in nuclear testing, according to the agency.
"Better predictive tools will reduce the uncertainties
involved with defeating very hard targets, and therefore reduce
the need for higher yield weapons to overcome those
uncertainties," adds the release.
All indications are that this is part of the Robust
nuclear Earth Penetrator program, nicknamed the "bunker buster"
program, said Steve Erickson, director of the Salt Lake City
military watchdog group Citizens Education Project.
"We expected there'll be one further test" later, he
added.
The purpose of the test is to "determine what it would
take for a small penetrating nuclear warhead to collapse a
hardened bunker," Erickson said.
J Truman, a Malad, Idaho, man who grew up in southern Utah
and is the director of the fallout victim advocacy group
Downwinders, said the experiment shows the bunker buster nuclear
bomb idea isn't dead.
"Simulating a nuclear bunker buster and testing one are
not that far removed from each other," Truman said in an e-mail.
The test indicates the Pentagon is determined to move
forward with new nuclear weapons development, Erickson said.
"Down the road, if we develop new weapons, we more than
likely will test then. We have never fielded, put into the
arsenal, a new nuclear weapon that wasn't first actually tested."
While some weapons were modified with being tested, he
said, "a brand-new warhead would more than likely be subjected to
actual test explosion."
That implies the Nevada Test Site would host a real
nuclear test again someday, Erickson said. It would be "the death
knell for the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty" under which nuclear
testing was stopped.
Truman said Americans seem to forget that the late
President John F. Kennedy spoke out against nuclear testing at
the time of the test ban treaty, warning that it could lead to
actual use of nuclear weapons.
E-mail: bau@desnews.com
© 2006 Deseret News Publishing Company
*****************************************************************
52 USATODAY.com: Nuclear compensation program questioned
Posted 4/9/2006 11:29 PM
WASHINGTON (AP) — For years, radiation experts at the nation's
nuclear weapons sites failed to adequately protect workers from
on-the-job hazards. Now, some of those experts are helping run a
compensation program for the workers.
The situation has attracted the attention of Congress, with one
lawmaker pressing for an investigation into whether the workers
are being treated fairly.
Rep. John Hostettler recently wrote to the investigative arm of
Congress to ask whether the contractor running the compensation
program has policies that are "sufficient to ensure that
conflicts or biases do not taint the credibility and quality of
the science produced to date."
Hostettler, R-Ind., is chairman of a House subcommittee that
deals with people bringing claims against the government.
Critics contend that the contractor, Oak Ridge Associated
Universities, has put into key jobs people who have managed
radiation monitoring programs at the weapons sites. In some
cases, those people were witnesses for the government when it
fought compensation claims.
Jim Melius, who is on a presidential advisory board that
oversees the program, said, "It's so critical for this program
to be credible and for the claimants to have an understanding
and confidence that the people who were monitoring them and
maybe in some cases failing to monitor them properly will not
be the people passing judgment on their exposures and on their
compensation."
Nearly 73,000 workers or their survivors have filed claims under
the program, according to the Labor Department.
Government officials say they are preparing a policy that will
spell out how the contractor should handle conflicts of
interest.
"It's a very difficult, complex dilemma that we face," said
Larry Elliott, who heads the office of compensation in the
National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. The
agency oversees the contract.
Elliott said the guidelines would try to balance the need to
rely on the radiation experts at the nuclear facilities for
their knowledge of the sites with concerns about potential
biases.
He said it was difficult to find experts on the effects of
radiation who were not tied to the government's nuclear weapons
program.
"There is a limited pool of experts here," he said.
Kate Kimpan, who directs the contractor's program, said her
group will adhere to the guidelines and "ensure that our
conclusions are beyond refute."
Five years ago, Congress decided to compensate the Cold War-era
workers tens of thousands of whom worked at sites nationwide
after the government admitted putting them at risk of cancer
caused by radiation exposure. Sick workers get $150,000 plus
medical benefits.
The Oak Ridge, Tenn.-based contractor is writing reports that
detail hazards at weapons facilities. The reports are blueprints
the contractor is using to estimate how much radiation workers
were exposed to.
Critics say some of the authors appear biased.
Kelly Schmidt, a worker and union leader at the Hanford site in
Washington state, has complained that authors of the Hanford
report managed important aspects of the radiation program there.
Schmidt noted that a version of the report stated it was
unlikely workers received large intakes of radiation that went
unnoticed because there was "rigorous workplace monitoring" at
Hanford.
"It gives the impression that they're saying, 'Gosh, we did a
great job,'" Schmidt said.
An auditor working for the advisory board raised concerns, too,
saying the Hanford report relied too heavily on the ability of
shields placed around nuclear reactors to protect workers from
radiation.
The auditor also found that the Hanford report did not account
for all the possible radiation that workers who handled recycled
uranium might have been exposed to.
An audit of Oak Ridge Associated Universities' report describing
the Y-12 weapons plant in Tennessee found that exposure to
radiation from thorium and plutonium was not adequately
accounted for.
An audit of the report the contractor did involving the Rocky
Flats facility in Colorado found that the authors did not cast a
critical enough eye on "possible data integrity issues." That is
a reference, in part, to documents indicating workers had no
radiation exposure when evidence would suggest otherwise.
Some workers there are upset that a manager of the radiation
monitoring program, Roger Falk, was an author.
"By admitting that he didn't keep accurate records, he would be
admitting that he didn't do a good job," said Tony DeMaiori, the
former president of the local chapter of the United Steelworkers
Union. "He is not objective."
The contractor declined to make Falk available to The Associated
Press.
Kimpan, the program manager, said that under the new guidelines,
site reports would include more details regarding who
contributed to them and how.
She also said there would be more oversight and more rigorous
editing of the reports, though she reiterated that the experts
who ran the monitoring programs would still be relied on.
One instance where there is some agreement of a problem involves
the report for the Paducah uranium plant in Kentucky.
Carol Berger wrote the report for the compensation contractor
and previously wrote an analysis assessing radiation exposure at
Paducah for an Energy Department contractor. Berger copied parts
of her old report into the new one, even though her earlier work
had been challenged for underestimating radiation hazards in a
subsequent Energy Department study.
"Do I think a conflict of interest occurred at Paducah? Yes, I
do," said Elliott, of NIOSH.
The report is being revised. Copyright 2006 The Associated
Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published,
broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
4/9/2006 11:29 PM E-mail | Save | Print |
[Workers at the Hanford Nuclear Reservation near Richland,
Wash., measure for radiation and toxic vapor.]
USA TODAY, a division of Gannett Co. Inc.
*****************************************************************
53 AmericanHeritage.com: Disaster in the Deep
Posted Monday April 10, 2006 07:00 AM EDT
(Naval Historical Center)
Experiencing minor difficulty. It was 9:13 on the morning of
April 10, 196343 years ago todaywhen Captain John W. Harvey
relayed this message from his submarine, the USS Thresher.
Harvey had steered out beyond the undersea cliff that marks the
edge of the continental shelf, 220 miles east of Cape Cod. He
was spiraling down to a test depth of some 1,000 feet. If
anything went wrong that far down, the Thresher would be beyond
help.
The ocean floor was now more than 8,000 feet below the boat. And
things were going very wrong. The Thresher, which had been
described by one admiral as the most advanced operational
attack submarine in the world, had lost power. Unable to
maneuver, its ballast tanks full of sea water to assist diving,
the vessel was beginning to sink. The sea was exerting
tremendous, groaning pressure on its hull. It would very soon
reach a point where its steel skin would rip open. Harvey had to
do something quick.
Have positive up-angle. Attempting to blow . . . was the rest
of the message picked up by the escort vessel that floated
almost a quarter mile overhead. Harvey had angled the subs fins
to bring its nose toward the surface and was trying to empty the
ballast tanks. His life and the lives of 128 other men depended
on the success of the maneuver.
The Thresher represented the cutting edge of Americas military
might. When Rear Admiral Hyman G. Rickover had proposed a
nuclear-powered submarine immediately following World War II,
skeptics had scoffed. The standard atomic reactor of the day
occupied two city blocks. That it could be miniaturized to fit
into a 32-foot-wide boat seemed preposterous.
But Rickover persisted; he proved the concept with the launch of
the USS Nautilus in 1954. The Cold War value of the submarine,
whether in its traditional attack role or as a platform for
firing nuclear missiles, spurred an intensive development
effort. The Thresher was a big step forward. Its teardrop-shaped
hull and powerful nuclear turbine allowed speeds up to 40 knots
underwater. Advanced quieting technologies let it run in virtual
silence. It could detect and destroy hostile submarines from
unprecedented depths.
Launched in 1960, the boat represented the first of a new class
of subs. After testing the vessel at sea, the Navy ordered it to
drydock in 1962 for an extensive overhaul. Assigned a new
skipper, the submarine was on April 10 conducting its first
trials following those repairs.
The most dangerous condition that exists in the Thresher, said
its first captain, Rear Admiral Dean Axene, is the danger of
salt water flooding while at or near test depth. The remark
highlighted a crucial issue. The pipes that brought seawater
into the ship for cooling had to withstand tremendous pressure
when the vessel submerged. The joints in this system had passed
tests that subjected them to even greater pressure. But a new
testing method, using ultrasound, had found flaws in the
workmanship of 14 percent of a sample of them. These
controversial results did not prompt further repairs. Navy
analysts later speculated that one of those joints gave way in
the Threshers engine room. Spray probably shorted out
electric-power components, automatically shutting the reactor.
With full power, Harvey could have muscled the boat to the
surface even with its ballast tanks full. But once the reactor
scrammed, it would take him at least seven minutes to restore
power. During that time, the boat would continue to sink,
quickly reaching a crush depth where its hull couldnt
withstand the pressure.
A roaring hiss of compressed air resonated through the sub as
Harvey tried to force water out of the ballast tanks. The
process was too slow. Tests later showed that it was impeded by
ill-planned screening that caused ice to accumulate on a valve.
The Thresher, powerless and unable to blow ballast, began to
accelerate toward the bottom. At 9:17, listeners on the escort
vessel heard a garbled message that might have been Exceeding
test depth . . . Almost immediately, they picked up what was
described as a thud or the sound of a compartment collapsing.
The Threshers hull gave way. Inrushing seawater spiked air
pressure, quickly killing the crew. The pressure also ignited
the subs diesel fuel, causing an explosion that tore the
high-tech vessel to pieces.
Four months later, the bathyscaphe Trieste descended into the
black depths and found an area of debris like a large
automobile junkyard. Operators recovered a twisted piece of
pipe marked with the Threshers name, ending the search for the
ill-fated vessel. The loss of the Thresher, coming only months
after the Cuban missile crisis, dealt a serious blow to U.S.
power and prestige. The accident threw years of technical
planning into question. Morale in the submarine service
plummeted.
Governmental inquiries parceled the blame widely. In effect the
sub program had leapt into a new technological realm without
establishing adequate quality control. As an institution, the
Navy had echoed the sentiments of former Thresher crewman Keith
Johnson. We felt invincible, he said. We never thought we
were going to die.
The Navy brass learned from its costly mistake. Rickover ordered
a redesign of the reactor system to allow for a faster recovery
from a shutdown. A new, more adequate system for blowing ballast
was installed in submarines. More important, the government
introduced a system, the SubSafe Program, that tightened
specifications and quality assurance dramatically. Begun a few
months after the Threshers demise, the program has yielded an
exemplary safety record ever since. Sixteen American subs had
sunk for non-combat reasons up to the time of the Thresher; only
one has been lost sincethe USS Scorpion, which sank in 1968 and
had not been certified by the program.
We sometimes forget that the Cold War had costs that are both
painful and difficult to reckon. The human toll of the Thresher
accident was grievous. Even today, the Threshers nuclear
reactor, with its complement of radioactive isotopes, remains at
the bottom of the ocean, along with those of other sunken Soviet
and American subs. With no effort currently envisioned to clean
up this deadly detritus, the final bill is almost certain to be
left to generations yet unborn.
Jack Kelly writes often for American Heritage magazine and is
the author of Gunpowder: Alchemy, Bombards, and
Pyrotechnics—A History of the Explosive That Changed the
World(Basic Books).
American Historyfrom AmericanHeritage.com. Copyright 2006
American Heritage Inc. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
54 reviewjournal.com: Fallon cancer lawsuit rejected
Apr. 10, 2006
THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
FALLON -- A federal appeals court has dismissed a Fallon mother's
lawsuit stemming from a childhood leukemia cluster in the town,
60 miles east of Reno.
In her District Court complaint filed in 2003, Frankie Sue Galaz
alleged her then 2-year-old son Eugenio was exposed to jet fuel
from a leak in a pipeline that runs beneath the city to the
Fallon Naval Air Station.
Named as defendants were the city of Fallon, the federal
government, Exxon Mobil Corp. and Kinder-Morgan Energy Partners.
A three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals
rejected her argument that the child had an increased risk of
developing a disease and suffered from a fear of cancer as a
result. The judges found that the child did not suffer from any
documented physical injury or illness.
Since 1997, 17 children with ties to Fallon have been diagnosed
with childhood acute lymphocytic leukemia, and three of those
children have died.
Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal, 1997 - 2006
Stephens Media GroupPrivacy Statement
*****************************************************************
55 ALERT: Comments Needed on DHS Radiation Exposure proposal
Comments Needed - Committeetobridgethegap.org
Committee to Bridge the Gap
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY (DHS) GUIDANCE TO
ALLOW PUBLIC EXPOSURE TO MASSIVE RADIATION DOSES FROM
DIRTY BOMBS
+ SIGN ON TO GROUP LETTER BY APRIL 12
+ SEND IN INDIVIDUAL COMMENTS BY APRIL 14 Â
The Department of Homeland Security has issued new guidance that
would allow the government to do no cleanup of radioactive
contamination after detonation of a radiological weapon (a
so-called “dirty bombâ€) and instead let people move back in
and be exposed to doses as high as the equivalent of 50,000 chest
X-rays. By the radiation risk estimates of the National Academy
of Sciences, a third of the people so exposed would get cancer
from the radiation. This is grossly unacceptable.
PLEASE:
(1) Sign on to the group letter opposing the dirty bomb guidance
by emailing cindyf@nirs.org by close of business April 12.
Indicate your name, organization (if applicable), city and
state. The letter and attachments can be viewed/downloaded at
by clicking here.
(2) In addition, if you can, please also send in individual
comments to DHS by April 14. Suggested points to make,
background information, and instructions on how to send in the
comments by email, fax or internet can be found below.
for more information, contact Dan Hirsch of the Committee to
Bridge the Gap at or (831) 336-8003.
Thanks!
ALERT-- Comment Period Extended: due April 14, 2006
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY PROPOSES
ALLOWING PUBLIC EXPOSURE TO MASSIVE RADIATION DOSES FROM
“DIRTY BOMBSâ€.
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has issued guidance
for responding to a terrorist detonation of a radiological
weapon, a so-called “dirty bomb.â€
DHS Preparedness directorate: Protective Action Guide for
Radiological Dispersal Devise (RDD) and Improvised Nuclear
Device (IND) Incidents;
Notice of draft guidance for interim use and request for
comment.
71 FR 174-196, January 3, 2006
In the guidance, DHS proposes
à allowing the public to be exposed to unacceptably high
amounts of radioactive contamination after the cleanup is
complete, or not cleaning up at all despite huge radiation doses
à setting a dangerous precedent for weakening existing cleanup
standards
à setting a dangerous precedent for legalizing release of
radioactive materials and wastes into commerce, the marketplace,
our homes and communities, as has been repeatedly rejected by
the American public
à allowing use of radioactively contaminated water and food
unnecessarily
COMMENT by APRIL 14th, 2006
It is necessary to identify your comments with
Docket Number DHS-2004-0029 and Z-RIN 1660-ZA02.
Email: FEMA-RULES@dhs.gov;
Mail: Rules Docket Clerk, Office of General Counsel, Federal
Emergency Management Agency, Room 840, 500 C Street, SW.,
Washington, DC 20472; Fax: 202-646-4536; or Comment via
http://www.regulations.gov.
Write DHS to
à oppose long-term(late phase) cleanup guidance for dirty bombs
with radiation levels higher than what the US Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) permits for the most contaminated
Superfund sites in the country. ie: oppose weakening existing
cleanup standards.
à support strengthening existing cleanup, emergency preparation
and transportation regulations,
à support isolation, not release, of contaminated materials
à support strict protections against use of radioactive food
and water.
Background:
The DHS guidance identifies 3 phases in the response to
Radiological Dispersal Devices (RDDs)which spread radioactivity
via a conventional explosives and Improvised Nuclear Devices
(INDs)–home made nuclear bombs. The guidance addresses
planning for Immediate, Intermediate and Late Phases of response
and recovery. We focus mainly on Late Phase as there is time to
fully cleanup and assess before exposing the population in that
phase.
à DHS Federal Emergency Management Agency (and its successor)
would permit the public to move back into a contaminated area
even if radiation doses would cause cancer in 1/4 to 1/3 of the
people exposed according to the government’s own official risk
estimates. The guidance references recommendations as high as
10,000 millirem per year in supposedly cleaned areas. Over 30
years of exposure, that is the equivalent of 50,000 chest
X-rays.
Dozens of organizations and individuals brought this major
concern with the late phase guidance to DHS’ and EPA’s
attention well before publication of this guidance, but we have
been completely ignored by DHS for all practical purposes.
Department of Homeland Security recommends reliance on documents
that support levels up to 10,000 millirems per year for final
cleanup. (p. 183)
à Even the lower levels discussed explicitly in the guidance, 2
rems per year and 500 millirems per year (and the lowest
considered figure of 100 millirem/yr) are too high for permanent
unrestricted public exposures. The recommendations should be
strong now for a better chance of protective cleanup if the
unthinkable happens. The risks are too high.
à The guidance legitimizes dangerously high contamination levels
that could be used as a precedent to weaken existing nuclear and
hazardous cleanup and contamination standards (despite DHS
claiming this is not their intent). (endnote 1)
à The guidance sets a dangerous precedent for legalizing release
of radioactive materials and wastes into commerce, the
marketplace, our homes and communities. It legitimizes and sets
clearance levels for radioactive waste and materials to be
released into commerce, the marketplace, our homes and
communities—as has been repeatedly rejected by the American
public. (Appendix 4 f, p.193)
à The Guidance inaccurately characterizes existing potential
dangers from nuclear power and fuel chain facilities and
transportation, downplaying them.
The guidance makes numerous indefensible claims about the
emergency preparedness at nuclear reactors, other “fixedâ€
nuclear facilities and about the level of preparedness that
exists along nuclear transport routes. These highly overstated
claims give false assurance and should be challenged.
The Guidance sets up suggested task forces and committees to
make the decisions on the final cleanup encouraging affected
stakeholders to be included. But the key affected stakeholders
(the public and public interest groups) were not included in
development of the guidance and in fact those that commented
early on were ignored.
If a dirty bomb were ever detonated, there will inevitably be
enormous economic and social pressure to ignore invisible but
real radiation dangers. The advance guidance should set the
stage for comprehensive cleanups at least as stringent as
existing Superfund levels and stricter. Those risks, in the
range of 1 in a million to 1 in 10,000 exposed people getting
cancer are bad enough and understated considering likely
synergism with other chemicals. Compared to the DHS guidance
that would allow up to 1 in 3 to get cancer, DHS has a long way
to go to protecting the public.
Endnote 1 For some rough perspective, Environmental Protection
Agency permissible water contamination levels are limited in the
range of 4 millrems per year; the Nuclear Regulatory Commission
permits only restricted release of property that gives doses of
500 millirems a year. Operating nuclear reactors, waste dumps
and other fuel chain facilities are limited to 25 millirems per
year. This guidance could allow regular neighborhoods to expose
people to hundreds of times the amount from operating nuclear
facilities. The risks are in the range of 1 in 3 or 4 exposed
for 30 years getting cancer from the contamination. EPA’s
Superfund risk range is more protective, striving to limit the
cancer incidence to 1 in a million or 1 in 10,000 exposed.
People around Superfund sites would like even greater
protection, yet FEMA and DHS are moving drastically in the other
direction of causing enormous amounts of cancer in the
populations so exposed. Call on DHS to reject weaker
protections.
For more information, see Bridge the Gap/Nuclear Information &
Resource Service news release [.pdf format]
DHS Federal Register notice [.pdf format]
and December 2004 Group letter to DHS and EPA [.pdf format]
In addition to sending in an individual comment by April 14,
remember to email cindyf@nirs.org by April 12 to sign on to the
group letter.
*****************************************************************
56 UPI: New research on uranium's effect on DNA
United Press International - Security &Terrorism -
4/10/2006 2:41:00 PM -0400
FLAGSTAFF, Ariz., April 10 (UPI) -- A Northern Arizona
University biochemist and her students report that uranium can
damage DNA as a heavy metal independent of its radioactive
properties.
Their research has enormous implications for the study of
depleted uranium as a component in military munitions.
Phys.org news agency reported on April 7 that Stearns and her
students are the first researchers to discover that when cells
are exposed to uranium, the uranium binds to DNA and the cells
can mutate, the uranium altering the cell's DNA code. The end
result can be that the affected DNA can produce a different
protein or wrong amounts of protein, affecting cell growth, some
of which can metastasize into cancer cells.
While scientists have long known that uranium can damage DNA as
a radioactive metal, Stearns and her collaborators discovered
that uranium could also damage DNA as a heavy metal, independent
of its radioactive properties.
Sterns said, "Essentially, if you get a heavy metal stuck on
DNA, you can get a mutation."
While scientists have discovered that other heavy metals are
known to bind to DNA, Stearns and her collaborators are the
first to link this trait to uranium.
The results of the team's research were published recently in
Mutagenesis and Molecular Carcinogenesis journals.
© Copyright 2006 United Press
International, Inc. All Rights Reserved
*****************************************************************
57 Deseret News: Nuclear fight isn't over; Cannon's fight has just
begun
[deseretnews.com]
Sunday, April 9, 2006
By Frank Pignanelli &LaVarr Webb
Webb: There's a bit of a lull in the 2006 election year, so
instead of joining Frank in campaign political analysis (see
below) I'm going to address what I think is the most burning
issue of the moment, one that I hope citizens and leaders will
immediately engage in — the fight to keep high-level nuclear
waste out of Utah.
I'm afraid too many people think this fight has been won.
It hasn't. Private Fuel Storage has a permit to pour a concrete
slab on the Goshute Reservation to store 4,000 casks containing
spent fuel rods from eastern nuclear plants. PFS is out
marketing the site to eastern utilities: "THIS IS THE PLACE to
dump your nasty waste."
All PFS needs is a permit from the Bureau of Land
Management to build a transfer station adjacent to I-80 to
offload gigantic casks from train cars to huge trucks. But
here's our opportunity: The BLM wants to know what we think —
what citizens, political leaders, business organizations,
unions, environmental groups and church groups think.
Sen. Orrin Hatch and other leaders are convinced that if
enough Utahns express opposition to the transfer station and to
the PFS operation, then an excellent chance exists the BLM will
reject the permit application. If we are complacent, however,
and the BLM does not receive an outpouring of thousands of
letters and e-mail messages, then we may have the dubious honor
of housing the world's most dangerous waste, the stuff no other
state wants — 4,000 giant casks, plopped on a concrete slab 45
miles upwind of the Wasatch Front; adjacent to the heavily
traveled I-80 freeway; next to an Air Force bombing range that
is crucial to the nation's defense and to Utah's economy (and
bombs do go astray and fighter jets do crash).
This, literally, may be our last and only chance to keep
this stuff out of Utah. No doubt, the common perception is that
writing a letter on a public policy issue won't make a
difference. Trust me (better yet, trust Gov. Jon Huntsman Jr.,
Hatch and other leaders), this time it will. It really will.
Take a minute and shoot off an e-mail. We need 10,000
Utahns, better yet, 20,000, to comment. We haven't defeated
nuclear waste. Not by a long shot. We need employers to
encourage employees to send a message. We need unions,
environmental groups, business associations and churches to
engage their members.
Comments must be sent before May 8 to: Pam Schuller,
Bureau of Land Management, Salt Lake Field Office, 2370 S. 2300
West, Salt Lake City, UT 84119. Fax 801-977-4397; e-mail
pam_schuller@blm.gov. Let's flood the BLM with messages! For
more info: www.deq.utah.gov/Issues/no_high_level_waste/index.htm.
Pignanelli: In the words of Yogi Berra, "This is like
deja vu all over again." Last Sunday, the Deseret Morning News
released the poll showing Congressman Chris Cannon enjoyed only
36 percent support among his 3rd Congressional District voters.
Politicos are commenting that Cannon is vulnerable once again in
his re-election bid. Two years ago, with no money but lots of
support from anti-immigration activists, former legislator Matt
Throckmorton shoved Cannon into a primary and received 40
percent of the vote. In 2002, Cannon began his campaign with
only 25 percent support among registered voters.
The race in the 3rd District very much mirrors the past
with some new dynamics. Unlike Cannon's prior GOP opponents,
John Jacob is well-financed and Merrill Cook is well-known. The
struggle between Cannon and Cook has a historical component.
During their service together in Congress, Cannon and Cook
bashed heads on various issues, including immigration and free
trade. When Cook was seeking re-election to the 2nd
Congressional District in 2000, Cannon endorsed Derek Smith
(Smith won the primary but lost to Jim Matheson in the general
election). The intensity of the emotions behind the
anti-immigration activists, who are indicating support of Cook,
will add a flammable ingredient to an already heated contest.
Some campaign observers believe that Cook may not be able to
win, but his convention attacks on Cannon could soften the
incumbent enough for Jacob to capture the nomination in the
primary. (Cannon will benefit from the last week's progress on
immigration legislation.)
The question remains, why does Cannon endure this problem
every two years? Cannon's unflappable willingness to promote
President Bush's immigration legislation makes him a lightning
rod for extremist organizations opposed to amnesty or work
programs that benefit undocumented workers. These well-funded
groups (i.e. Team America, Project USA) have dedicated entire
Web sites and media campaigns toward the destruction of Cannon's
political career. Last year, Cannon's Colorado congressional
colleague, the always bizarre Tom Tancredo, visited Utah County
on a speaking tour to instill opposition against Cannon and
others who support the Bush legislation. Well-liked in Congress,
his friends admit Cannon is a mediocre campaigner. Cannon also
suffers from a mind that works much faster than his mouth (most
politicians are burdened with the opposite condition), so he
sometimes is perceived as inarticulate.
Cannon may be able to prove — again — that history, and
not early polls, is the best indicator of success in the 3rd
District.
Republican LaVarr Webb was policy deputy to Gov. Mike Leavitt
and Deseret News managing editor. He now is a political
consultant and lobbyist. E-mail: lwebb@exoro.com. Democrat Frank
Pignanelli is Salt Lake attorney, lobbyist and political
adviser. A former candidate for Salt Lake mayor, he served 10
years in the Utah House of Representatives, six years as House
minority leader. Pignanelli's spouse, D'Arcy Dixon Pignanelli,
is executive director of the state Department of Administrative
Services in the Gov. Jon Huntsman Jr. administration. E-mail:
frankp@xmission.com.
© 2006 Deseret News Publishing Company
*****************************************************************
58 StarTribune.com: Nuclear waste storage is unsolved question
The difficult part is not the technical problems, but getting
people to accept a location, engineer says.
Lisa Zagaroli, Star Tribune
Last update: April 08, 2006 10:25 PM
WASHINGTON - Engineers from around the world come to Malcolm Gray
for lessons about how to dispose of their nuclear waste.
He acknowledges that there are technical matters that aren't
resolved. No country has actually started burying its waste yet,
after all. But the science isn't really going to be the hard
part, he tells the engineers.
"To get the social acceptance is the difficult and tricky thing,"
said Gray, an engineer based in Vienna who manages the
International Atomic Energy Agency's training and development
program for radioactive waste disposal.
Although 33 countries have spent nuclear fuel from electricity
production, only the United States, with Yucca Mountain, and
Finland have singled out sites for its burial.
The question of what to do with the world's nuclear waste is a
growing concern as more countries look to nuclear power to solve
their energy needs.
The Energy Department last week announced legislation it hopes
will accelerate progress on the stalled Yucca Mountain project
and plans to submit a new timetable this week for when the
government will begin accepting waste for burial.
Though it is years behind schedule, the United States is unique
in that it even tries to maintain deadlines, said Charles
Fairhurst, a professor emeritus who headed the Civil Engineering
Department at the University of Minnesota.
"A lot of countries don't give timetables, so the issue doesn't
become quite as focused," Fairhurst said.
At the end of 2005 there were about 284,000 metric tons of spent
fuel in storage worldwide, with about 54,000 tons of it in the
United States, said Steven Kraft, senior director of used-fuel
management at the Nuclear Energy Institute, a policy organization
for the commercial nuclear industry.
Burial is the preferred option
There's one conclusion that all the countries that have a plan
can agree on. Waste that could be radioactive for tens of
thousands of years should be buried.
A number of nations considered a range of options that included
shooting the waste into the sun, embedding it under polar ice
sheets and burying it below the ocean floor.
But burying it in dry, stable ground is considered the safest
option for transporting it and disposing of it by every country
that has made any decisions.
"Of the 33 nations that currently have inventories of used fuel,
23 have specific plans to develop a geological depository," Kraft
said.
What nations are grappling with is site selection. The scientific
question centers on whether they should go with clay, salt,
granite or some other formation that will keep the radioactive
waste safe from seepage, penetration and disruption as it takes
centuries to cool.
Many countries are so small they don't have as many choices as
the United States had before settling on Yucca Mountain, which is
made up of layers of volcanic rock in rural Nevada. It was picked
over sites across the country that included salt domes and
granite mines.
In one of the nation's least populated areas, Yucca still has
vexed many critics because they contend that it was chosen for
political reasons more than its geologic suitability.
Italians were outraged
Though Yucca is mired in lawsuits and doubt, the objections have
been rather tame compared with what protesters in some countries
have pulled off.
One of the more dramatic examples of how the public can quash a
site came a couple of years ago in Italy. Italians had decided
years earlier to stop using nuclear energy because of the
Chernobyl disaster, which occurred 20 years ago this month. But
the Italians still needed a place to store the waste they'd
created at four reactors.
When the government announced it had picked a site on Italy's
southern tip, 100,000 people took to the streets within days to
protest. Within two weeks, the whole idea was killed.
German protests have become notorious over the last decade. with
antinuclear demonstrators strapping themselves to train tracks
when waste is being transported between a reprocessing center in
France to a centralized storage spot in Germany.
There is no international body whose job is to make sure that
there's a long-term plan for nuclear waste, which, with a few
exceptions of centralized storage spots, is simply being stored
at all of the sites where it was generated.
Lisa Zagaroli is a member of the Star Tribune's Washington
Bureau.
Copyright 2006Star Tribune. All rights reserved. Feedback|Terms
425 Portland Av. S., Minneapolis, MN 55488 (612) 673-4000 [''
*****************************************************************
59 newsobserver.com: Bury it here?
April 10, 2006
Raleigh · Durham · Cary · Chapel Hill
Most of us would agree with your March 30 editorial sympathetic
to new nuclear plant construction. We North Carolinians need to
consider, however, that we could be the site of not only new
plant construction but also nuclear waste burial.
On March 15, a report to Congress said burial sites on the list
of second geologic nuclear-waste repositories would have to be
activated as early as next year. North Carolina has two sites on
that list: northern Wake County and northeastern Buncombe
County. Not only that, but Virginia has a site near South
Boston, only 60 miles north of Raleigh. The Virginia site is in
proximity to the Kerr Reservoir, whose water feeds directly to
Roanoke Rapids.
The need for a second national nuclear repository assumes that
Yucca Mountain in Nevada, the first repository, will be built,
which, at this time appears doubtful amid allegations that
water-leakage studies were falsified. That could mean that not
one but two nuclear dump sites will have to be selected by
Congress, which increases the probability that a North Carolina
or Virginia site will be chosen.
Your editorial looked at just one side of the nuclear equation,
but North Carolinians need to look at both sides.
Ron Bourgoin
© Copyright 2006, The News & Observer Publishing Company
*****************************************************************
60 RIA Novosti: Russia mulls uranium production abroad - official
10/ 04/ 2006
MOSCOW, April 10 (RIA Novosti) - Russia is planning to produce
uranium abroad while actively prospecting new deposits at home,
a senior official at the country's nuclear-technology exporter
said Monday.
"We intend to produce uranium around the world," said Vladimir
Smirnov, general director of Techsnabexport, the
state-controlled uranium supplier and provider of uranium
enrichment services. "We are interested in reviving uranium
markets in Africa and other countries."
South Africa, Namibia and Niger rank among the world's top 10
uranium producers.
Smirnov also said that shortly before the collapse of the Soviet
Union production of uranium had been concentrated in Kyrgyzstan,
Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan, while only one deposit was explored
in Russia.
He said Russia should also expand uranium prospecting on its own
territory to avoid a future nuclear fuel deficit as demand from
its nuclear power industry grows.
Smirnov's deputy, Vladimir Servetnik, said in February that
demand for uranium in Russia could grow from 8,300 tons in 2006
to 18,000 tons in 2020, and the country could face a shortage of
uranium after 2035 if prospecting did not increase sharply in
the near future.
Vladimir Bavlov, deputy head of the Federal Agency for the
Management of Mineral Resources, earlier said that Russia's
current uranium reserves stood at 830,000 tons, but that they
would be depleted by 2015 if the country did not invest at least
$10 billion in prospecting and increased uranium production to
consumption levels by that time.
© 2005 RIA Novosti
*****************************************************************
61 reviewjournal.com: Propagandists (Yucca)
Opinion - LETTERS:
Apr. 08, 2006
To the editor:
After reading the March 29 letter from Paul M. Golan, acting
director of the Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management,
it is obvious that the Review-Journal is seen as a threat to the
U.S. Department of Energy.
Mr. Golan wrote, "Your paper owes an apology to the people of
this (Yucca Mountain) project for the allegation, the insult,
and the incredibly poor judgment" for publishing a cartoon
critical of the department's "Youth Zone" Web site.
In my opinion, the Department of Energy is guilty of at least
incredibly poor judgment for directing full-blown government
propaganda at our children. Yucca Mountain is, to say the least,
a complicated project with enormous potential hazards to those
living in Southern Nevada.
The debate on this project is characterized by massively funded
agendas of both the Department of Energy (our government) and
those fighting its creation.
Children should not be put in the position of judging the
validity of either side of this debate, and I am insulted that
an agency of our government would stoop to this level in
promoting its position. The responsibility of helping children
understand this debate belongs to parents, not to propagandists
of the state.
So, Mr. Golan, I am asking for your apology to our children and
their parents for publishing your propaganda toward those least
capable of judging its validity.
Jim Brown
NORTH LAS VEGAS
Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal, 1997 - 2006
Stephens Media GroupPrivacy Statement
*****************************************************************
62 reviewjournal.com: An energy precipice (Yucca)
Opinion - LETTERS:
Apr. 10, 2006
Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal
To the editor:
Review-Journal cartoonist Jim Day has become quite prolific in
his pummeling of the many scientists and engineers working on
the Yucca Mountain Project. With just a few strokes of his
stylus, Mr. Day reduces some of the best engineers and
scientists from our national laboratories to an illiterate,
two-headed mutant (Thursday cartoon).
The United States is headed toward an energy precipice. We won't
drill for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge because of
misinformation distributed by those who oppose the idea, despite
the fact that oil production at Prudhoe Bay was an economic and
environmental success. We won't build many more coal-fired power
plants because of a real concern for global warming. Solar- and
wind-generated power can make marginal contributions in some
areas, but cannot address current energy needs in most areas of
the country. This leaves us at the mercy of oil-producing
nations, some of whom dislike us and may use our oil payments to
kill even more of us.
An alternative to the current deteriorating energy situation
would be to build more nuclear power plants, but this would make
a repository even more important. In light of the current energy
situation, perhaps Mr. Day's cartoons are neither as funny nor
as harmless as they first appear.
Mr. Day is just one more misinformation meister who has helped
move us to the precarious position we find ourselves in today.
Dan Kane
LAS VEGAS
Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal, 1997 - 2006
Stephens Media GroupPrivacy Statement
*****************************************************************
63 Platts: BNG plans to return Thorp reprocessing plant to UK's NII
London (Platts)--10Apr2006
BNG has submitted its plan to return Thorp reprocessing plant
operation to UK regulator Nuclear Installations Inspectorate, or
NII, British Nuclear Group told Platts today.
Thorp has been closed since April 2005 following discovery that
83 cubic meters (83,000 liters) of highly radioactive liquid had
spilled from primary into secondary containment.
The spilled liquid was cleaned out by June 2005 but BNG, which
manages Thorp on behalf of owner Nuclear Decommissioning
Authority, has been looking for a way to bypass the fractured
pipework that caused the spill and restart the facility.
The NDA said March 30 it wanted to see Thorp restarted by
mid-2006 so long as NII approved such a restart and NII's
improvement recommendations were met.
For more news, request a free trial to Platts NuclearFuel at
http://www.platts.com/Request%20More%20Information/
Copyright © 2006 - Platts, All Rights Reserved
[The McGraw-Hill Companies]
*****************************************************************
64 Deseret News: Fight nuclear waste, Utahns urged
[deseretnews.com]
Saturday, April 8, 2006
How to comment on high-level nuclear waste transportation
S.L. Chamber and others want PFS project halted
By Lisa Riley Roche
Deseret Morning News
Standing near the downtown railroad tracks that would carry
high-level nuclear waste to a proposed disposal site about 50
miles away, local business and political leaders Friday urged
Utahns to tell the federal government to stop the project.
"It is just simply not tolerable," Lane Beattie,
president of the Salt Lake Chamber of Commerce, said of the plan
by Private Fuel Storage to dump some 44,000 tons of spent
nuclear fuel rods on land owned by the Skull Valley Band of the
Goshute Indians in Tooele County.
Beattie said allowing the high-level waste to be
transported through "the crossroads of the state's
transportation system" would hurt Utah's economic development,
especially the effort to maintain Hill Air Force Base and other
military installations.
He also raised questions about the safety of permitting
the materials to be transported through one of the most urban
areas of the country, including the possibility the shipments
could be targets for terrorists.
Other speakers at a press conference called outside Salt
Lake City's new intermodal transportation center near the Rio
Grande depot cited concerns about the impact the storage site
would have on tourism.
None of the concerns discussed Friday were new. The
business community, along with many political leaders, including
Gov. Jon Huntsman Jr., have long opposed the project. Now,
though, the federal government wants to hear what Utahns think.
The Bureau of Land Management is accepting comments
through May 8 about an application from PFS for a right-of-way
permit on public land that would be necessary to bring the
nuclear waste onto the reservation site.
Participants at the press conference said Utahns need to
join them in contacting the federal government if they oppose
allowing rail lines or roads on public lands to be used to
transport the waste.
"This is an essential effort," said Diane Nielson,
executive director of the state Department of Environmental
Quality. "Every person who cares about the future of Utah must
step forward and say, 'No.'"
Sue Martin, a public affairs consultant for PFS, said the
issues raised Friday have already been considered by the nuclear
Regulatory Commission and the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board,
which ultimately granted PFS a license.
"It puzzles me how our legislators and these business
people think they know better," Martin said, labeling the press
conference "a politically motivated, knee-jerk reaction — and it
is based on fear."
She said PFS has belonged to the Salt Lake Chamber for a
number of years and that it was "totally inappropriate for them
to take this political stand against one of their own members,"
particularly since PFS has never been asked to present its
position to the organization.
Martin said PFS has "not mounted any big campaign" to get
Utahns who support the project to contact the BLM. "We certainly
believe very strongly that citizens have a right to express
their opinion about PFS to the BLM," she said.
E-mail: lisa@desnews.com
© 2006 Deseret News Publishing Company
*****************************************************************
65 News & Star: Lethal nuclear beam inquiry is launched
Published on 10/04/2006
David Moore: This must never happen again’ said the head of the inquiry
By Andrea Thompson
INDEPENDENT Sellafield watchdog, the West Cumbria Sites
Stakeholder Group, is to carry out an inquiry into nuclear waste
transport after a lorry drove through Cumbria emitting a
potentially lethal radioactive beam.
Thousands of people were put at risk when the deadly cargo –
which was up to 1,000 times above danger level – was driven to
Windscale back in 2002.
The incident was highlighted when the firm responsible for
transporting the leaking decommissioned cancer treatment was
fined £250,000 in February.
Stakeholder group chairman David Moore, Copeland’s Tory
leader, called for an inquiry at the time. Now his group has
been charged with running it and a special committee is being
set up to look at the transportation of nuclear waste.
He told the News & Star that the group wants to assure the
public that it can never happen again.
It was only by “pure good fortune†that nobody was exposed
to the toxic beam which was emitted because a safety cap was
left off the cargo as it was driven 130 miles from Leeds.
The narrowly focused beam was pointing downwards – but had
anyone been standing within a yard of it and directly in its
path, they would have been dead within two hours.
Mr Moore said: “What we will be looking at is what happened
back in 2002, what lessons have been learnt from that and what
actions can be put in place to ensure that something like this
will never happen again.
“That package was from Leeds but whatever is packaged up
anywhere in the country is ultimately coming to Sellafield.
“We want to try and reassure people that it can never happen
again.â€
He said the new group will be looking at the transportation of
radioactive material from hospitals, universities and research
facilities, and not the large flasks transported to and from
Sellafield by rail.
The group, which he will lead, will be made up of experts,
councillors, representatives from the DTI, the fire service and
the police.
An investigation is currently under way after a Sellafield train
was derailed at Barrow docks last week.
The incident involved a locomotive and a rail wagon which was
partially derailed but was not carrying any radioactive
material.
It happened during a test run to prepare for the return of
high-level nuclear waste from Sellafield to its overseas
customers.
*****************************************************************
66 News & Star: Sellafield starts pond clean-up
Published on 10/04/2006
DECOMMISSIONING of Sellafield’s first fuel storage pond has
taken a major step forward with the removal of four skips from
the pond originally used for the Windscale reactor.
The pond dates back to 1948 and the complex clean up work is
being carried out by British Nuclear group’s Legacy Ponds
organisation.
The empty radioactive skips were the first to be removed from
the pond in six years. A further 180 have to be removed.
The Windscale reactor was the scene of what was then the
world’s biggest nuclear accident in 1957 when the pile one
chimney caught fire, releasing radioactivity into the air.
Confectioners Rowntree disposed of 90 tonnes of chocolate over
fears they were contaminated.
The Legacy Ponds clean-up organisation is now busy preparing to
de-sludge the pond, which will include the installation of a
local effluent treatment plant, to treat waste which is
eventually discharged out into the sea.
*****************************************************************
67 Salt Lake Tribune: Anti-nuke Goshutes lose round in court
Article Last Updated: 04/08/2006 2:38 AM MDT
Appeal planned: The judge sides with the government and tribal
officials, saying it isn't yet time to challenge approval for the
temporary repository
By Judy Fahys The Salt Lake Tribune
A federal judge has nixed the latest effort by nuclear waste
opponents in the Skull Valley Goshutes Band, the tiny Tooele
Indian tribe whose leaders have agreed to host temporary parking
for used nuclear reactor waste.
But the dissidents say they will appeal in hopes of getting
help with alleged corruption in the current tribal leadership.
“We're just going to have to keep going until some court
hears, until we can get right of this corruption,” said Margene
Bullcreek, one of the dissident Skull Valley Goshutes behind the
most recent case.
In a March 29 ruling, U.S. District Judge Dale Kimball sided
with the attorneys for the U.S. Interior Department and the U.S.
Bureau of Indian Affairs, two federal agencies that have refused
to get involved in the Goshutes leadership disputes over the
past five years.
The judge said that not only is it too soon for the
dissidents to challenge the Indian agency's preliminary approval
of the nuclear-site lease, but they have no legal standing to
dispute the lease and the BIA's day-to-day working relationship
with the current leadership team, Chairman Leon Bear and Vice
Chair Lori Skiby.
Bear and the U.S. Justice Department, which argued the case
for the BIA and Interior Department, did not respond to
telephone calls seeking comment.
In 1997, Goshute leaders agreed to build an interim storage
site for high-level nuclear waste just across the highway from
the small tribal village where about two dozen members live.
Bear and Skiby's critics say they have - against tribal law -
mishandled tribal finances, played favorites to their supporters
with government entitlement programs and have refused to hold a
legitimate election for nearly five years.
The federal government, fearful of traipsing on the tribe's
sovereignty, has resisted the dissidents' efforts to rally some
official help through state and federal courts and federal
agencies, including the BIA, the Interior Department and the
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
The Utah state government, which opposes the waste site, has
helped finance Bullcreek's case, but some of the work is being
done pro bono, according to attorney Paul Echohawk.
“If members of the Skull Valley Band cannot find redress in
the federal court, they are left without a place to address
tribal government corruption and the inappropriate government
approval of the [waste-site] lease,” he said.
fahys@sltrib.com
© Copyright 2006, The Salt Lake Tribune.
*****************************************************************
68 Salt Lake Tribune: Utah firm showing interest in nuke-waste
recycling plant
Article Last Updated: 04/08/2006 8:27 AM MDT
EnergySolutions: It is among 40 companies nationwide that might
build the pilot plant for the DOE
By Robert Gehrke The Salt Lake Tribune
WASHINGTON - EnergySolutions, of Salt Lake City, is among
nearly 40 companies that have expressed interest to the Energy
Department in operating a pilot plant to recycle nuclear waste,
but insists it will not build its site in Utah.
"I can promise you, categorically, it's not anywhere in
Utah," said Tim Barney, vice president of governmental relations
at the company, formerly Envirocare.
Barney would not disclose where EnergySolutions would locate
its potential site.
Last month, the Energy Department asked communities and
companies to speak up quickly if they were interested in
participating in the DOE project aimed at finding ways to reuse
spent nuclear fuel.
President Bush's Global Nuclear Energy Partnership envisions
developing technologies that can separate the dangerous waste
elements from used nuclear reactor fuel. That would enable the
fuel to be re-used and minimize the amount that would have to be
buried in a permanent repository planned for Yucca Mountain,
Nev. It could postpone indefinitely the need for a second
repository when Yucca is full.
Duratek Inc., which is in the process of being acquired by
EnergySolutions, also expressed interest in the project,
according to a list of companies released Friday by the Energy
Department. Calls to the company seeking additional information
were not immediately returned Friday evening.
Congress has allocated $20 million this year to evaluate
possible sites. The Energy Department expects to begin accepting
formal proposals by the spring and begin site evaluation studies
in the summer.
The department released 36 names in all, including
individuals, counties and corporations. Others, like
EnergySolutions', were withheld at the companies' request.
Those expressing interest included firms with major,
established nuclear operations, such as AREVA Enterprises Inc.,
CH2M Hill, and General Electric Co., as well as Washington
Savannah River Co., which operates the Energy Department's
Savannah River facility in South Carolina.
In addition, Lea County, N.M.; Benton County, Wash., and
Coffey County, Kan., are interested in the project.
Harry Teague, County commission chairman in Lea County, said
his county was working in cooperation with neighboring Eddy
County, hoping it could bring jobs to both counties.
"We think [the president's initiative], when it materializes
will mean jobs and will take both communities and their
infrastructures. That's the reason for setting the partnership,"
Teague said. "Our anticipation is to furnish a site. DOE will
furnish the science and select the private company (to run it)."
The United States abandoned reprocessing during the Carter
administration. Great Britain, France, Russia and Japan have
continued to pursue reprocessing programs.
Existing technologies are much more expensive than mining new
uranium and the leftover products pose a risk that they could be
used in nuclear weapons. Part of the initiative will seek to try
to address the proliferation risk.
"The successful demonstration of . . . recycling technologies
will enable the U.S. and our international partners to
substantially change the way that spent nuclear fuel is managed,
assuring a safe, long-term, and environmentally clean energy
supply for the U.S. and the world while greatly reducing
proliferation concerns," Deputy Energy Secretary Clay Sell said
in announcing the first step in the initiative last month.
"Seeking the best ideas from the public and private sectors on
where to build the demonstration facilities is a key step
forward."
© Copyright 2006, The Salt Lake Tribune.
*****************************************************************
69 Knox News: $500,000 - Who gets it, how should it be spent?
City of Oak Ridge and preservationists debate use of the funds
By BOB FOWLER, fowlerb@knews.com
April 10, 2006
OAK RIDGE - In this year's mammoth federal budget, it's less than
a blip on the radar screen.
But $500,000 set aside for a former uranium enrichment site has
touched off a behind-the-scenes debate over who gets the money
and how to spend it.
The funds are contained as an earmark to the Department of
Energy's Environmental Management Program.
Although designated for Oak Ridge, it's in DOE's budget for the
Hanford Nuclear Site in Richland, Wash.
The money is to be used for "preservation of ETTP,'' the document
states. East Tennessee Technology Park is the new name for a
mothballed uranium enrichment complex that longtime Oak Ridge
residents still call the K-25 site.
Oak Ridge City Manager James R. O'Connor said the money could be
used by the city. He said it could fund the next phase of a
heritage tourism study of local Department of Energy sites,
including K-25, and place K-25 artifacts at the American Museum
of Science and Energy in downtown Oak Ridge.
Preservationists disagree. Instead, they argue, the money should
be used to help preserve as a possible heritage tourism site a
small part of the milelong K-25 building.
"It does say ETTP. It doesn't say the city of Oak Ridge,'' Cindy
Kelly said of the federal funding guidelines. Kelly is president
of the Atomic Heritage Foundation in Washington, D.C.
That national nonprofit group said the K-25 building is one of
eight structures in the nation that should be preserved as
signature facilities of the Manhattan Project to build the first
atomic bomb.
"From a national perspective, the K-25 site is clearly one of the
most significant and at-risk properties,'' Kelly said. "It'll be
a loss to the United States if that property is demolished.''
The milelong building is being emptied out, and plans are to raze
its two long legs and keep the 135,000-square-foot base, or North
Tower, of the structure.
The Department of Energy has agreed to put a new roof on the
North Tower and retain it - at least for now.
DOE this November is expected to provide an updated cost study of
the feasibility of keeping the North Tower intact and converting
it into a tourist site.
"It would be helpful to have an update on where we are in the
process,'' Oak Ridge city spokeswoman Amy Fitzgerald said.
"We need to figure out the best way to interpret and commemorate
the K-25 facility.''
The Oak Ridge DOE office, meanwhile, is trying to determine its
role in how the $500,000 should be spent.
"There is very little for us to go on,'' DOE spokesman John C.
Shewairy said. "We are coordinating with DOE headquarters to gain
a full understanding of the issue and the expectations of the Oak
Ridge office regarding the disbursement of the funds.''
Bob Fowler, News Sentinel Anderson County editor, may be reached
at 865-481-3625.
Copyright Permissions] Copyright 2006, Knoxville News Sentinel
*****************************************************************
70 KnoxNews: Price of K-770 nuclear cleanup grows
Unexpected items found among radioactive scrap require special
processing
By FRANK MUNGER, munger@knews.com
April 10, 2006
OAK RIDGE - Cleaning up a nuclear junkyard is proving to be even
more difficult - and expensive - than thought.
Workers already have removed about 30,000 tons of radioactive
junk and debris, requiring nearly 3,000 truck shipments to a
nuclear landfill.
But some surprising items, including hundreds of old cylinders
possibly filled with compressed gas or uranium hexafluoride, were
found amid the mountains of radioactive scrap metal, and that is
requiring extra time and attention.
"Most of these cylinders were discovered at the bottom of the
huge scrap piles, without any records to indicate their presence
there," said Dennis Hill of Bechtel Jacobs Co., the U.S.
Department of Energy's Oak Ridge cleanup manager. "This scrap
yard was operational starting in the '50s, before accurate
disposal records were maintained."
The cylinders will be segregated from the rest of the junk and
"will require special processing to evacuate any contents before
disposal," Hill said.
The cleanup project of the K-770 scrap yard, a couple of miles
west of the former K-25 uranium-enrichment plant, was supposed to
be finished a couple of months ago. The completion date is now
sometime near the year's end.
Washington Safety Management Solutions is performing the work
under a subcontract to Bechtel Jacobs.
About 9,000 tons of contaminated soil has been added to the
workload, bringing the total volume of stuff to be removed at
about 55,500 tons.
The estimated cost of the project has grown from $11.6 million to
about $16.9 million. Work began in May 2004, and about $9.8
million has been spent so far.
Hill said more work could be required after the old scrap piles
have been removed and workers can survey the ground for possible
contamination that leached from the radioactive scrap over the
years.
The cleanup project was also slowed by some funding
uncertainties. According to Hill, however, the money issues have
been resolved - at least for now - and work is progressing at the
site.
Most of the junk at the outdoor storage yard came from K-25
during renovation projects at the nuclear facilities or equipment
that became surplus during the decades of operations.
The stuff ranges from old cars to file cabinets to tons of rusty
motor windings.
Washington Safety Management Solutions is transporting the
contaminated materials to a DOE landfill several miles away on
Bear Creek Road.
The landfill, which receives waste from numerous cleanup
operations in Oak Ridge, is lined to keep pollutants isolated
from the environment. DOE has set up a fund to pay for monitoring
activities for many years after the landfill is capped and
closed.
Senior writer Frank Munger may be reached at 865-342-6329.
Copyright 2006, Knoxville News Sentinel Co.
*****************************************************************
71 Knox News: Venture fund announces new partner
Kline to help manage investments for Innovation Valley Partners
By LARISA BRASS, brass@knews.com
April 10, 2006
CORRECTION
This headline and story have been modified to clarify the
relationship between the fund, DOE and Battelle.
Innovation Valley Partners, a local venture fund set up to invest
early stage technology companies with a focus on technology
coming out of Department of Energy labs across the country,
recently announced a new general partner, Glenn Kline.
Kline, 42, will be in Knoxville, moving to the area from the
Research Triangle in North Carolina, where he was co-founder and
managing partner at Academy Funds. There, he worked on technology
commercialization with the state's research institutions.
Innovation Valley Partners was launched last year to co-invest
with Battelle Ventures, a fund managed out of New Jersey that
invests in technologies being commercialized through federal
laboratories managed by Battelle Memorial Institute, including
Oak Ridge National Laboratory.
The $35 million fund's investors include Pilot Corp. founder Jim
Haslam and Clayton Homes founder Jim Clayton. The fund has seven
investments in tandem with Battelle Ventures.
Kline's role, he said, will be to work with Oak Ridge National
Laboratory and the University of Tennessee - which co-manages
ORNL with Battelle - to find technology for investment as well
as to help nurture local companies the funds have invested in.
He said he would also use his contacts to attract interest from
venture firms in the Southeast and West Coast.
"Glenn's background and experience were the perfect fit for this
position," said Battelle Ventures General Partner Jim Millar in
a release. Millar led the recruitment effort to fill the
position. "He has extensive experience managing venture funds
and taking technologies out of the lab, developing commercial
products and growing early-stage businesses."
Kline said he came to the position because he enjoys working
with early-stage companies, he sees potential for
commercialization of research at Oak Ridge National Laboratory
and UT, and he's impressed with Battelle Ventures team and
"track record."
Kline, who has already relocated his family from Chapel Hill,
N.C., said he's also attracted to the region's natural features.
"Knoxville is a phenomenal area," he said. "Chapel Hill is just
about an hour and a half from the beach. We've never gone to the
North Carolina beaches. We've been 20 times to the mountains."
Through his work with Academy Funds, Kline raised two funds
totaling more than $40 million and invested in about 30
high-tech startups. At one of those companies, Silicon
Semiconductor Corp., he also for the past seven years served as
president and CEO.
Kline's previous experience includes four years as senior
director in charge of mergers and acquisitions/strategic
planning and business development at Del Monte Fresh Produce in
Coral Gables, Fla., and, prior to that, he served as associate
and vice president of the Ventana Growth Funds, an international
venture capital firm based in Irvine, Calif.
Business writer Larisa Brass may be reached at 865-342-6318.
© 2006 - Knoxville News Sentinel
*****************************************************************
72 DOE: Pilot Plant (WIPP) continues to comply with the ``Environmental
FR Doc 06-3404
[Federal Register: April 10, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 68)] [Rules
and Regulations] [Page 18010-18021] From the Federal Register
Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr10ap06-11]
Standards for the Management and Disposal of Spent Nuclear Fuel,
High- Level and Transuranic (TRU) Radioactive Waste.'' EPA
initially certified that WIPP met applicable regulatory
requirements on May 18, 1998, and the first shipment of waste was
received at WIPP on March 26, 1999.
Today's action represents the first instance of EPA's periodic
evaluation of WIPP's continued compliance with the disposal
regulations and WIPP Compliance Criteria. The compliance criteria
implement and interpret the disposal regulations specifically for
WIPP. As directed by Congress in the WIPP Land Withdrawal Act
(LWA), this ``recertification'' will occur five years after the
WIPP's initial receipt of TRU waste (March 26, 1999), and every
five years thereafter until the end of the decommissioning phase.
For each recertification-- including the one being announced with
today's action--DOE must submit documentation of the site's
continuing compliance with the disposal regulations to EPA for
review. In accordance with the WIPP Compliance Criteria,
documentation of continued compliance was made available in EPA's
dockets, and the public was provided at least a 30-day period in
which to submit comments. In addition, all recertification
decisions must be announced in the Federal Register, as this
first recertification is today. According to the WIPP LWA,
Section 8(f), these periodic recertification determinations are
not subject to rulemaking or judicial review.
Today's action is not a reconsideration of the decision to open
WIPP. Rather, recertification is a process that evaluates changes
at WIPP to determine if the facility continues to meet all the
requirements of EPA's disposal regulations. The recertification
process ensures that WIPP's continued compliance is demonstrated
using the most accurate, up-to-date information available.
Today's recertification decision is based on a thorough review of
information submitted by DOE, independent technical analyses, and
public comments. The Agency has determined that DOE continues to
meet all applicable requirements of the WIPP Compliance Criteria,
and with this notice, recertifies the WIPP facility. This
recertification decision does not otherwise amend or affect EPA's
radioactive waste disposal regulations or the WIPP Compliance
Criteria.
DATES: The effective date for the recertification was March 29,
2006.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ray Lee or Sharon White,
Radiation Protection Division, Center for Federal Regulations,
Mail Code 6608J, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Pennsylvania Avenue, Washington, DC, 20460; telephone number:
202-343-9601; fax number: 202- 343-2305; e-mail address:
lee.raymond@epa.gov or white.sharon@epa.gov. Copies of the
Compliance Application Review Documents (CARDs) supporting
today's action and all other recertification-related
documentation can be found in the Agency's electronic docket
(Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2004-0025), hard-copy Air Docket
A-98-49, or on its WIPP Web site
(http://www.epa.gov/radiation/wipp).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Table of Contents I. General
Information II. What is WIPP? A. 1998 Certification Decision III.
With which regulations must WIPP comply? A. Radioactive Waste
Disposal Regulations & Compliance Criteria B. Compliance With
Other Environmental Laws and Regulations IV. What has EPA's role
been at WIPP since the 1998 Certification Decision? A. Continuing
Compliance B. Annual Change Reports C. Monitoring the Conditions
of Compliance D. Inspections and Technical Exchanges V. What is
EPA's Recertification Decision? A. What information did the
Agency examine to make its final decision? B. Content of the
Compliance Recertification Application (Sec. Sec. 194.14 and
194.15) C. Performance Assessment: Modeling and Containment
Requirements (Sec. Sec. 194.14, 194.15, 194.23, 194.31 through
194.34) D. General Requirements E. Assurance Requirements (Sec.
Sec. 194.41 through 194.46) F. Individual and Groundwater
Protection Requirements (Sec. Sec. 194.51 through 194.55) VI.
How has the public been involved in EPA's WIPP recertification
activities? A. Public Information B. Stakeholder Meetings C.
Public Comments on Recertification VII. Where can I get more
information about EPA's WIPP-related activities? A. Supporting
Documents for Recertification B. WIPP Web Site, Listserv,
Information Line, and Mailing List C. Dockets VIII. What happens
next for WIPP? What is EPA's role in future WIPP activities? I.
General Information A. How can I get copies of this document and
other related information? 1. Docket. EPA has established a
docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2004-0025;
FRL-8053-5. Publicly available docket materials are available
either electronically at http://www.regulations.gov or in hard
copy at
[[Page 18011]] the Air and Radiation Docket in the EPA Docket
Center, (EPA/DC) EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Ave.,
NW., Washington, DC. The EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is
open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday,
excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public
Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the
Air and Radiation Docket is (202) 566-1742. These documents are
also available for review in hard-copy form at the following
three EPA WIPP informational docket locations in New Mexico: in
Carlsbad at the Municipal Library, Hours: Monday-Thursday, 10
a.m.-9 p.m., Friday- Saturday, 10 a.m.-6 p.m., and Sunday, 1
p.m.-5 p.m., phone number: 505- 885-0731; in Albuquerque at the
Government Publications Department, Zimmerman Library, University
of New Mexico, Hours: vary by semester, phone number:
505-277-2003; and in Santa Fe at the New Mexico State Library,
Hours: Monday-Friday, 9 a.m.-5 p.m., phone number: 505-476- 9700.
As provided in EPA's regulations at 40 CFR part 2, and in
accordance with normal EPA docket procedures, if copies of any
docket materials are requested, a reasonable fee may be charged
for photocopying.
2. Electronic Access. You may access this Federal Register
document electronically through the EPA Internet under the
``Federal Register'' listings at http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/.
II. What Is WIPP? The Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) is a
disposal system for transuranic (TRU) radioactive waste.
Developed by the Department of Energy (DOE), WIPP is located near
Carlsbad in southeastern New Mexico. At WIPP, radioactive waste
is disposed of 2,150 feet underground in an ancient layer of salt
which will eventually ``creep'' and encapsulate the waste. WIPP
has a total capacity of 6.2 million cubic feet of waste.
Congress authorized the development and construction of WIPP in
1980 ``for the express purpose of providing a research and
development facility to demonstrate the safe disposal of
radioactive wastes resulting from the defense activities and
programs of the United States.'' \1\ The waste which may be
emplaced in the WIPP is limited to TRU radioactive waste
generated by defense activities associated with nuclear weapons;
no high-level waste or spent nuclear fuel from commercial power
plants may be disposed of at the WIPP. TRU waste is defined as
materials containing alpha-emitting radioisotopes, with half
lives greater than twenty years and atomic numbers above 92, in
concentrations greater than 100 nano-curies per gram of waste.\2\
-----------------------------------------------------------------
---------- \1\ Department of Energy National Security and
Military Applications of Nuclear Energy Authorization Act of
1980, Pub.
L. 96-164, section 213.
\2\ WIPP Land Withdrawal Act, Pub. L. 102-579, section 2(18), as
amended by the 1996 WIPP LWA Amendments, Pub. L. 104-201.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
---------- Most TRU waste proposed for disposal at the WIPP
consists of items that have become contaminated as a result of
activities associated with the production of nuclear weapons (or
with the clean-up of weapons production facilities), e.g., rags,
equipment, tools, protective gear, and organic or inorganic
sludges. Some TRU waste is mixed with hazardous chemicals. Some
of the waste proposed for disposal at the WIPP is currently
located at Federal facilities across the United States, including
locations in Idaho, New Mexico, Nevada, Ohio, South Carolina,
Tennessee, and Washington.
The WIPP LWA, passed initially by Congress in 1992 and amended in
1996, is the statute that provides EPA the authority to oversee
and regulate the WIPP. (Prior to the passage of the WIPP LWA in
1992, DOE was self-regulating with respect to WIPP; that is, DOE
was responsible for determining whether its own facility complied
with applicable regulations for radioactive waste disposal.) The
WIPP LWA delegated to EPA three main tasks, to be completed
sequentially, for reaching an initial compliance certification
decision. First, EPA was required to finalize general regulations
which apply to all sites--except Yucca Mountain--for the disposal
of highly radioactive waste.\3\ These disposal regulations,
located at Subparts B and C of 40 CFR Part 191, were published in
the Federal Register in 1985 and 1993.\4\
-----------------------------------------------------------------
---------- \3\ WIPP LWA, section 8(b).
\4\ 50 FR 38066-38089 (September 19, 1985) and 58 FR 66398-66416
(December 20, 1993).
-----------------------------------------------------------------
---------- Second, EPA was to develop criteria, by rulemaking, to
implement and interpret the general radioactive waste disposal
regulations specifically for the WIPP. In 1996, the Agency issued
the WIPP Compliance Criteria, which are found at 40 CFR Part
194.\5\
-----------------------------------------------------------------
---------- \5\ 61 FR 5224-5245 (February 9, 1996).
-----------------------------------------------------------------
---------- Third, EPA was to review the information submitted by
DOE and publish a certification decision.\6\ The Agency issued
its certification decision on May 18, 1998, as required by
Section 8 of the WIPP LWA (63 FR 27354-27406).
-----------------------------------------------------------------
---------- \6\ WIPP LWA, section 8(d).
-----------------------------------------------------------------
---------- A. 1998 Certification Decision The WIPP LWA, as
amended, required EPA to evaluate whether the WIPP site complied
with EPA's standards for the disposal of radioactive waste. On
May 18, 1998 (63 FR 27354-27406), EPA determined that the WIPP
met the standards for radioactive waste disposal. This decision
allowed the emplacement of radioactive waste in the WIPP to
begin, provided that all other applicable health and safety
standards, and other legal requirements, had been met. The first
shipment of TRU waste was received at WIPP on March 26, 1999.
Although EPA determined that DOE met all of the applicable
requirements of the WIPP Compliance Criteria in its original
certification decision (63 FR 27354-27406; May 18, 1998), EPA
also found that it was necessary for DOE to take additional steps
to ensure that the measures actually implemented at the WIPP (and
thus the circumstances expected to exist there) were consistent
with DOE's Compliance Certification Application (CCA) and with
the basis for EPA's compliance certification. To address these
situations, EPA amended the WIPP Compliance Criteria, 40 CFR Part
194, and appended four explicit conditions to its certification
of compliance for the WIPP.
Condition 1 of the certification applies to the panel closure
system, which is intended, over the long-term, to block brine
flow between waste panels in WIPP. In the CCA, DOE presented four
options for the design of the panel closure system, but did not
specify which one would be constructed at the WIPP facility. The
Agency based its certification decision on DOE's use of the most
robust design (referred to in the CCA as ``Option D''). The
Agency found the Option D design to be adequate, but also
determined that the use of a Salado mass concrete--using brine
rather than fresh water--would produce concrete seal
permeabilities in the repository more consistent with the values
used in DOE's performance assessment. Therefore, Condition 1 of
EPA's certification required DOE to implement the Option D panel
closure system at WIPP, with Salado mass concrete replacing fresh
water concrete.
Conditions 2 and 3 of the final certification decision apply to
activities conducted at waste generator sites that produce TRU
waste proposed for disposal at WIPP. The WIPP Compliance Criteria
(Sec. Sec. 194.22 and 194.24) require DOE to have, in place, a
system of controls to measure and track important waste
components, and to apply quality assurance (QA)
[[Page 18012]] programs to waste characterization activities. At
the time of EPA's proposed certification decision, the Los Alamos
National Laboratory (LANL) was the only site to demonstrate the
execution of the required QA programs and the implementation of
the required system of controls. Therefore, EPA's certification
constituted final approval under the WIPP LWA for DOE to ship
waste for disposal at the WIPP only from LANL, and only for
retrievably-stored (legacy) debris waste at LANL for which EPA
had inspected and approved the applicable system of controls.
Before other waste can be shipped for disposal at WIPP,
Conditions 2 and 3 state that EPA must separately approve the QA
programs for other generator sites (Condition 2) and the waste
characterization system of controls for other waste streams
(Condition 3). The approval process includes an opportunity for
public comment, and an inspection or audit of the waste generator
site by EPA. The Agency's approval of waste characterization
systems of controls and QA programs are conveyed by letter from
EPA to DOE. In response to public comments on these conditions,
the process for EPA approvals for waste generator site programs
were incorporated into the body of the WIPP Compliance Criteria,
in Sec. 194.8. EPA also recently made changes to the compliance
criteria in July 2004 (69 FR 42571-42583). The new provisions
provide equivalent or improved oversight and better
prioritization of technical issues in EPA inspections to evaluate
waste characterization activities at DOE WIPP waste generator
sites.
The new provisions also offer more direct public input into EPA's
decisions about what waste can be disposed of at WIPP. The Agency
continues to conduct independent inspections to evaluate a site's
waste characterization capabilities, consistent with Conditions 2
and 3.
Condition the certification applies to passive institutional
controls (PICs). The WIPP Compliance Criteria require DOE to use
both records and physical markers to warn future societies about
the location and contents of the disposal system, and thus to
deter inadvertent intrusion into the WIPP (Sec. 194.43). In the
CCA, DOE provided a design for a system of PICs, but stated that
many aspects of the design would not be finalized for many years
(even up to 100) after closure. The PICs actually constructed and
placed in the future must be consistent with the basis for EPA's
certification decision.
Therefore, Condition 4 of the certification requires DOE, prior
to the submission of the final recertification application, to
submit a revised schedule showing that markers and other measures
will be implemented as soon as possible after closure of the
WIPP. The Department also must provide additional documentation
showing that it is feasible to construct markers and place
records in archives as described in the CCA.
After WIPP's closure, DOE will not be precluded from implementing
additional PICs beyond those described in the application.
The complete record and basis for EPA's 1998 certification
decision can be found in Air Docket A-93-02 in each of the
dockets (in Washington, DC and the three locations in New Mexico)
listed in Section 1.A.1 of this document. III. With which
regulations must WIPP comply? A. Radioactive Waste Disposal
Regulations & Compliance Criteria WIPP must comply with EPA's
radioactive waste disposal regulations, located at Subparts B and
C of 40 CFR Part 191. These regulations limit the amount of
radioactive material which may escape from a disposal facility,
and protect individuals and ground water resources from dangerous
levels of radioactive contamination. In addition, the Compliance
Recertification Application (CRA) and other information submitted
by DOE must meet the requirements of the WIPP Compliance Criteria
at 40 CFR Part 194. The WIPP Compliance Criteria implement and
interpret the general disposal regulations specifically for WIPP,
and clarify the basis on which EPA's certification decision is
made.
B. Compliance With Other Environmental Laws and Regulations The
WIPP must also comply with a number of other environmental and
safety regulations in addition to EPA's disposal regulations--
including, for example, the Solid Waste Disposal Act and EPA's
environmental standards for the management and storage of
radioactive waste. Various regulatory agencies are responsible
for overseeing the enforcement of these Federal laws. For
example, enforcement of some parts of the hazardous waste
management regulations has been delegated to the State of New
Mexico. The State is authorized by EPA to carry out the State's
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) programs in lieu of
the equivalent Federal programs. New Mexico's Environment
Department reviews DOE's permit applications for treatment,
storage, and disposal facilities for hazardous waste, under
Subtitle C of RCRA. The State's authority for such actions as
issuing a hazardous waste operating permit for the WIPP is in no
way affected by EPA's recertification decision. It is the
responsibility of the Secretary of Energy to report the WIPP's
compliance with all applicable Federal laws pertaining to public
health and the environment to EPA and the state of New Mexico.\7\
Compliance with environmental or public health regulations other
than EPA's disposal regulations and WIPP Compliance Criteria is
not addressed by today's action.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
---------- \7\ WIPP LWA, sections 7(b)(3) and 9.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
---------- IV. What has EPA's role been at WIPP since the 1998
Certification Decision? A. Continuing Compliance Since EPA's 1998
certification decision, the Agency has been monitoring and
evaluating changes to the activities and conditions at WIPP. EPA
monitors and ensures continuing compliance with EPA regulations
through a variety of activities, including: Review and evaluation
of DOE's annual change reports, monitoring of the conditions of
compliance, site inspections and technical information exchanges.
At any time, DOE must report any planned or unplanned changes in
activities pertaining to the disposal system that differ
significantly from the most recent compliance application (Sec.
194.4(b)(3)). The Department must also report any releases of
radioactive material from the disposal system (Sec.
194.4(b)(3)(iii), (v)). Finally, EPA may request additional
information from DOE at any time (Sec. 194.4(b)(2)). This
information allows EPA to monitor the performance of the disposal
system and evaluate whether the certification must be modified,
suspended, or revoked to prevent or quickly reverse any potential
danger to public health and the environment.
B. Annual Change Reports Under Sec. 194.4(b) DOE was required to
submit a report of any changes to the conditions and activities
at WIPP within six months of the 1998 certification decision and
annually thereafter. DOE met this requirement by submitting the
first change report in November 1998 and annually thereafter.
Since 1998, DOE's annual change reports have reflected the
progress of quality assurance and waste characterization
inspections, minor changes to DOE documents, information on
monitoring activities, and any additional EPA approvals for
changes in
[[Page 18013]] activities and conditions. All correspondence and
approvals regarding the annual change reports can be found in
EPA's Air Docket A-98-49, Categories II-B2 and II-B3.
C. Monitoring the Conditions of Compliance As discussed
previously, Condition 1 of the WIPP certification requires DOE to
implement the Option D panel closure system at WIPP, with Salado
mass concrete used in place of fresh water concrete.
Since the 1998 certification decision, DOE has indicated that
they would like to change the design of the Option D panel
closure system selected by EPA (Air Docket A-98-49, Item
II-B3-19). At the same time, EPA chose to defer review of a new
panel closure design until after we issue the first
recertification decision (Air Docket A-98-49, Item II-B3-42).
In November 2002, DOE requested permission to install only the
explosion isolation portion of the Option D panel closure design
until EPA and NMED can render their respective final decisions on
DOE's request to approve a new design for the WIPP panel closure
system. In December 2002, EPA approved DOE's request to install
only the explosion wall and to extend the panel closure schedule
until a new design is approved (Air Docket A-98-49, Item
II-B3-44). As of March 2006, DOE has installed the isolation
explosion wall for Panels 1 and 2. EPA expects DOE to re-submit a
new panel closure design soon after this recertification
decision.
Since 1998, the Agency has conducted numerous audits and
inspections at waste generator sites in order to implement
Conditions 2 and 3 of the compliance certification. Notices
announcing EPA inspections or audits to evaluate implementation
of QA and waste characterization (WC) requirements at waste
generator facilities were published in the Federal Register and
also announced on EPA's WIPP Web site
(http://www.epa.gov/radiation/wipp) and WIPP e-mail listserv. The
public has had the opportunity to submit written comments on the
waste characterization and QA program plans submitted by DOE in
the past, and based on the newly-revised WIPP Compliance
Criteria, are now able to submit comments on EPA's proposed waste
characterization approvals (See 69 FR 42571-42583). As noted
above, EPA's decisions on whether to approve waste generator QA
program plans and waste characterization systems of controls--and
thus, to allow shipment of specific waste streams for disposal at
WIPP--are conveyed by a letter from EPA to DOE. The procedures
for EPA's approval are incorporated in the amended WIPP
Compliance Criteria in Sec. 194.8. Since 1998, EPA has audited
and approved the QA programs at Carlsbad Field Office (CBFO),
Washington TRU Solutions (WTS), Sandia National Laboratory (SNL),
and at 11 other DOE organizations.
Following the initial approval of a QA program, EPA conducts
follow-up audits to ensure continued compliance with EPA's QA
requirements. EPA's main focus for QA programs has been the
demonstration of operational independence, qualification, and
authority of the QA program at each location.
EPA has approved waste characterization (WC) activities at eight
waste generator sites since 1998, including Idaho National
Laboratory, Hanford, Rocky Flats Environmental Technology Site,
Savannah River Site, and the Nevada Test Site. EPA inspects waste
generator sites to ensure that waste is being characterized and
tracked according to EPA requirements. EPA's WC inspections focus
on the personnel, procedures and equipment involved in WC. A
record of EPA's WC and QA correspondences and approvals can be
found in Air Docket A-98-49, Categories II-A1 and II-A4.
EPA will evaluate DOE's compliance with Condition 4 of the
certification when DOE submits a revised schedule and additional
documentation regarding the implementation of PICs. This
documentation must be provided to EPA no later than the final
recertification application. Once received, the information will
be placed in EPA's public dockets, and the Agency will evaluate
the adequacy of the documentation. During the operational period
when waste is being emplaced in WIPP (and before the site has
been sealed and decommissioned), EPA will verify that specific
actions identified by DOE in the CCA, CRA, and supplementary
information (and in any additional documentation submitted in
accordance with Condition 4) are being taken to test and
implement passive institutional controls.
D. Inspections and Technical Exchanges The WIPP Compliance
Criteria provide EPA the authority to conduct inspections of
activities at the WIPP and at all off-site facilities which
provide information included in certification applications (Sec.
194.21). Since 1998, the Agency conducted periodic inspections to
verify the adequacy of information relevant to certification
applications. EPA has conducted annual inspections at the WIPP
site to review and ensure that the monitoring program meets the
requirements of Sec. 194.42. EPA has also inspected the
emplacement and tracking of waste in the repository. The Agency's
inspection reports can be found in Air Docket A-98-49, Categories
II-A1 and II-A4.
EPA and DOE held numerous technical exchanges since the 1998
certification decision. At these exchanges, EPA and DOE discussed
preparations for recertification, activity schedules, changes
that may be requested by DOE, and other technical issues. The
materials distributed at these meetings can be found in EPA Air
Docket A-98-49, Category II-B3.
V. What is EPA's Recertification Decision? EPA recertifies that
DOE's WIPP continues to comply with the requirements of Subparts
B and C of 40 CFR Part 191. The following information describes
EPA's determination of compliance with each of the WIPP
Compliance Criteria specified by 40 CFR Part 194.
A. What information did the Agency examine to make its final
decision? 40 CFR part 194 sets out those elements which the
Agency requires to be in any complete compliance application. In
general, compliance applications must include information
relevant to demonstrating compliance with each of the individual
sections of 40 CFR Part 194 to determine if the WIPP will comply
with the Agency's radioactive waste disposal regulations at 40
CFR Part 191, Subparts B and C. The Agency published the
``Compliance Application Guidance for the Waste Isolation Pilot
Plant: A Companion Guide to 40 CFR Part 194'' (CAG) which
provided detailed guidance on the submission of a complete
compliance application (EPA Pub. No. 402-R-95-014, Air Docket
A-93-02, Item II-B2- 29).\8\
-----------------------------------------------------------------
---------- \8\ Section 194.11 provides that EPA's certification
evaluation would not begin until EPA notified DOE of its receipt
of a ``complete'' compliance application. This ensures that the
full one- year period for EPA's review, as provided by the WIPP
LWA, shall be devoted to substantive, meaningful review of the
application (61 FR 5226).
-----------------------------------------------------------------
---------- To make its decision, EPA evaluated basic information
about the WIPP site and disposal system design, as well as
information which addressed all the provisions of the compliance
criteria. As required by Sec. 194.15(a), DOE's recertification
application updated the previous compliance application with
sufficient information for the Agency to determine whether or not
WIPP
[[Page 18014]] continues to be in compliance with the disposal
regulations.
The first step in recertification is termed the ``completeness
determination.'' ``Completeness'' is a key, administrative step
that EPA uses to determine that the CRA addresses all the
required regulatory elements and provides sufficient information
for EPA to conduct a full, technical review. Following receipt of
the CRA on March 26, 2004, EPA began to identify areas of the
application where additional information was needed. A May 24,
2004, Federal Register notice announced availability of the CRA
and opened the official public comment period on the CRA. Over
the course of the following 19 months, the Agency submitted six
official letters (May 20, 2004; July 12, 2004; September 2, 2004;
December 17, 2004; February 3, 2005; and March 4, 2005) to DOE
requesting additional information regarding the CRA. The
Department responded with a series of 11 letters (July 15, 2004;
August 16, 2004; September 7, 2004; September 29, 2004; October
20, 2004; November 1, 2004; December 17, 2004; January 19, 2005;
March 21, 2005; May 11, 2005; and September 20, 2005) submitting
all of the requested supplemental information to EPA. On
September 29, 2005, EPA announced that DOE's recertification
application was complete (70 FR 61107- 61111).
EPA also relied on materials prepared by the Agency or submitted
by DOE in response to EPA requests for specific additional
information necessary to address technical sufficiency concerns.
For example, EPA directed DOE to conduct a revised performance
assessment--referred to as the performance assessment baseline
calculation (PABC)--to address technical issues. All requests for
additional technical information and the DOE responses are
located in EPA's Air Docket A-98-49, Categories II-B2 and II-B3.
Though not an official rulemaking, the Agency also considered
public comments related to recertification, concerning both
completeness and technical issues.
In summary, EPA's recertification decision is based on the entire
record available to the Agency, which is located in EPA's Air
Docket A- 98-49 (FMDS Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2004-0025). The
record consists of the complete CRA, supplementary information
submitted by DOE in response to EPA requests for additional
information, technical reports generated by EPA, EPA audit and
inspection reports, and public comments submitted on EPA's
proposed recertification decision during the public comment
period. (Most of these documents can also be found on EPA's WIPP
Web site at http://www.epa.gov/radiation/wipp). EPA's technical
review evaluated compliance of the CRA with each section of the
WIPP Compliance Criteria. The Agency focused its review on areas
of change relative to the original certification decision as
identified by DOE, in order to ensure that the effects of the
changes have been addressed. As with its original certification
decision, EPA's evaluation of DOE's demonstration of continuing
compliance with the disposal regulations is based on the
principle of reasonable expectation. 40 CFR 191.13(b) states,
``proof of the future performance of a disposal system is not to
be had in the ordinary sense of the word in situations that deal
with much shorter time frames. Instead, what is required is a
reasonable expectation, on the basis of the record before the
implementing agency, that compliance with Sec. 191.13 (a) will
be achieved.'' As discussed in 40 CFR Part 191, and applied to
the 1998 certification decision, reasonable expectation is used
because of the long time period involved and the nature of the
events and processes at radioactive waste disposal facilities.
There are inevitable and substantial uncertainties in projecting
disposal system performance over long time periods. EPA applies
reasonable expectation to the evaluation of both quantitative
(i.e., performance assessment) and qualitative (i.e., assurance
requirements) aspects of any compliance application.
B. Content of the Compliance Recertification Application (Sec.
Sec. 194.14 and 194.15) According to Sec. 194.14, any compliance
application must include, at a minimum, basic information about
the WIPP site and disposal system design. This section focuses on
the geology, hydrology, hydrogeology, and geochemistry of the
WIPP disposal system. A compliance application must also include
information on WIPP materials of construction, standards applied
to design and construction, background radiation in air, soil,
and water, as well as past and current climatological and
meteorological conditions. Section 194.15 states that
recertification applications shall update this information to
provide sufficient information for EPA to determine whether or
not WIPP continues to be in compliance with the disposal
regulations.
In Chapter 1 of the CRA, DOE identified changes to the disposal
system since the 1998 certification decision. DOE correctly
reviewed changes that were approved by EPA between the 1998
certification decision and the submission of the CRA. Changes
included facility design changes such as the early closure of
Panel 1, moving the repository horizon up 2.4 meters to clay seam
G, and reducing the amount of magnesium oxide (MgO). EPA's
evaluation and approval of these changes can be obtained from Air
Docket A-98-49, Category II-B3.
The CRA also identified several changes to technical information
relevant to Sec. Sec. 194.14 and 194.15. The technical changes
initiated by DOE or directed by EPA include: increased drilling
rate, updated understanding of Culebra transmissivity and new
transmissivity field calculations, new monitoring data including
Culebra water levels, modified gas generation rate, updated
actinide solubility and actinide solubility uncertainty values,
and an increase in the uranium (+VI) solubility. Items related to
the waste inventory were also updated: inclusion of
supercompacted waste from Idaho National Laboratory (INL), new
estimate of radionuclides, and DOE's use of pipe overpacks and
ten- drum overpacks storage containers.
Although EPA considers these updates important to the current
understanding of the disposal system, EPA determined that the
changes, both individually and collectively, do not have a
significant impact on the performance of the disposal system.
EPA's Compliance Application Review Documents (CARDs) and
Technical Support Documents (TSDs) thoroughly document EPA's
review of the changes in DOE's compliance application. Today's
notice summarizes the most important of these changes.
Culebra Dolomite: The Culebra Dolomite is considered by DOE to be
the prime pathway for long-term radionuclide transport in ground
water. As part of the required monitoring program, DOE has
identified that the water levels in the Culebra have continued to
fluctuate and generally increase, for unknown reasons. DOE
hypothesizes that human influences, such as potash mining and
petroleum production, may be responsible. DOE concluded that
these human influences would be short-lived compared to the
10,000-year regulatory time period, and that effects on water
levels are captured in the current performance assessment (PA).
The CRA used water levels that were measured in 2000. These
showed a change in water levels across the site since the CCA.
The hydraulic gradient, or driving force across the site, is less
[[Page 18015]] for the CRA than the CCA, increasing estimated
radionuclide travel times.
DOE used the Culebra hydrologic data in combination with new
geologic information and new modeling software to develop
transmissivity fields for the PA modeling. The approach DOE used
was based on generally accepted approaches, which EPA considers
as adequate. The new CRA geologic information provides better
understanding of broad transmissivity changes than in the CCA,
but it still lacks prediction power for transmissivity at
specific points. EPA's review is discussed more thoroughly in the
Performance Assessment Baseline Calculation (PABC) Technical
Support Document (TSD) (Air Docket A-98-49, Item II-B1-16).
Chemistry changes: During the completeness review, EPA reviewed
PA issues related to chemistry and identified several areas where
DOE needed to further update or correct information. First, EPA
required DOE to change the solubility of uranium (+VI) to a fixed
value of 1x10-3 M based on experimental data that has become
available since the CCA. Second, EPA required DOE to update the
actinide solubility uncertainty range based on the fracture
matrix transport (FMT) database and currently available
experimental solubility data. Third, EPA required DOE to assume
that microbial degradation would occur in 100% of the vectors
because of new data on microbial survival in extreme
environments. Prior to the PABC, DOE requested to update the gas
generation rates used in PA calculations with results from the
gas generation experiments which indicated a two- stage rate that
was faster initially, but slower after several years. EPA agreed
to the change based on new experimental data, which is discussed
and documented in its TSDs (Air Docket A-98-49, Items II-B1-3 and
II-B1-16).
Inventory changes: DOE updated the CCA inventory with data calls
to the waste generator sites, in a process similar to the one
used for the CCA. The waste inventory numbers have changed since
the CCA because the waste generator sites have an improved
understanding of the waste that is in storage. As DOE
characterizes more waste, EPA expects the estimates to continue
to change. EPA reviewed the information in the inventory,
conducted several waste generator site visits, conducted
corroborating decay calculations and determined that DOE's
process is adequate. DOE's supplemental waste inventory
documentation provided this information (Air Docket A-98-49,
Category II-B2; see also CRA CARD 24).
In conclusion, EPA finds that DOE has adequately characterized
and assessed the site characteristics for the purposes of the PA
and has demonstrated continued compliance with Sec. Sec. 194.14
and 194.15. In addition to the technical changes identified by
DOE and EPA, the Agency received comments regarding the geology
surrounding the WIPP site. Some stakeholders commented that the
recertification application does not properly characterize the
shallow geology around WIPP.
The stakeholders believe that karst features are prevalent in the
vicinity of WIPP. Karst is a type of topography in which there
are numerous sinkholes and large voids, such as caves. Karst is
caused when soluble rock dissolves. Karst may form when rainwater
reacts with carbon dioxide from the air, forms carbonic acid, and
seeps through the soil into the subsurface rock. Soluble rock
includes limestone and evaporite rocks, such as halite (salt) and
gypsum. If substantial and abundant karst features were present
at WIPP, they could increase the speed at which releases of
radionuclides travel away from the repository through the
subsurface to the accessible environment.
In the 1998 certification decision, EPA reviewed existing
information to understand the issue of karst around the WIPP
site. As a result of that review, EPA concluded that, although it
is possible that dissolution has occurred in the vicinity of the
WIPP site sometime in the past (e.g., Nash Draw was formed
~500,000 years ago), dissolution is not an ongoing, pervasive
process at the WIPP site.
Therefore, karst feature development would not impact the
containment capabilities of the WIPP for at least the 10,000-year
regulatory period (Air Docket A- 93-02, Item III-B-2, CCA CARD
14).
Following the 1998 certification decision, several groups
challenged EPA's decision in the United States Court of Appeals
for the District of Columbia Circuit (No. 98-1322). One of the
issues in this lawsuit was EPA's conclusions regarding karst at
the WIPP site.
The petitioners argued that EPA denied and ignored evidence of
karst features at WIPP, and failed to address public comments
regarding karst. On June 28, 1999, the U.S. Court of Appeals
upheld all aspects of EPA's 1998 certification decision,
including EPA's conclusion that karst is not a feature that will
likely impact the containment capabilities of the WIPP.
In comments to EPA on the CRA, some stakeholders continue to
assert that the geologic characterization of the subsurface
surrounding the WIPP repository does not adequately identify the
presence of karst. As a result of these concerns, EPA agreed to
evaluate any new information on the potential of karst at WIPP
and the possible impacts of the long- term containment of waste
for WIPP recertification.
For recertification, EPA conducted a thorough review of the
geologic and hydrologic information related to karst. Most of the
information was reviewed prior to the 1998 certification
decision. In addition, DOE had collected and analyzed additional
data since the submission of the CCA. Certain stakeholders also
identified additional documentation (e.g., the ``Hill
report''--Air Docket A-98-49, Item II- B3-95) that they wanted
EPA to review and consider.
As part of this effort, EPA made a site visit to re-examine the
evidence of karst around the WIPP site. During the site visit,
EPA searched for karst indicators such as sinkholes, evidence of
large- scale water exchange underground, or springs in the
vicinity of WIPP. EPA found no evidence of these features at the
WIPP site.
EPA prepared a technical support document (TSD) that discusses
EPA's in-depth review of the karst issue for recertification (Air
Docket A-98-49, Item II-B1-15). Our review again concludes as
follows: The WIPP site does not exhibit evidence of karst; it is
highly unlikely that reactive water could reach and dissolve the
Rustler dolomites; and the hydrologic regime at WIPP is
adequately modeled without modeling karst features. EPA is
convinced that its 1998 conclusion is still valid after this CRA
review.
The Agency also requested that DOE/SNL conduct a separate
analysis of the potential for karst and address some general and
specific issues raised by stakeholders. The major issues reviewed
in the SNL report were: Insoluble residues, negative gravity
anomalies, specific well results, water in the exhaust shaft, and
recharge and discharge issues. DOE's report reaffirmed the
previous analysis demonstrating that pervasive karst processes
have been active outside the WIPP site but not directly at WIPP.
Additional information on this topic is also found in EPA's CRA
Compliance Application Review Document (CARD) 15. (CARDs contain
the detailed technical rationale for EPA's recertification
decision and are found in Air Docket A-98-49, Item V- B2-1).
[[Page 18016]] C. Performance Assessment: Modeling and
Containment Requirements (Sec. Sec. 194.14, 194.15, 194.23,
194.31 Through 194.34) The disposal regulations at 40 CFR Part
191 include requirements for containment of radionuclides. The
containment requirements at 40 CFR 191.13 specify that releases
of radionuclides to the accessible environment must be unlikely
to exceed specific limits for 10,000 years after disposal. At
WIPP, the specific release limits are based on the amount of
waste in the repository at the time of closure (Sec. 194.31).
Assessment of the likelihood that WIPP will meet these release
limits is conducted through the use of a process known as
performance assessment, or PA.
The WIPP PA process culminates in a series of computer
simulations that attempts to describe the physical attributes of
the disposal system (site characteristics, waste forms and
quantities, engineered features) in a manner that captures the
behaviors and interactions among its various components. The
computer simulations require the use of conceptual models that
represent physical attributes of the repository based on
features, events, and processes that may impact the disposal
system. The conceptual models are then expressed as mathematical
relationships, which are solved with iterative numerical models,
which are then translated into computer codes. (Sec. 194.23) The
results of the simulations are intended to show estimated
releases of radioactive materials from the disposal system to the
accessible environment over the 10,000-year regulatory time
frame.
The PA process must consider both natural and man-made processes
and events which have an effect on the disposal system (Sec.
Sec. 194.32 and 194.33). The PA must consider all reasonably
probable release mechanisms from the disposal system and must be
structured and conducted in a way that demonstrates an adequate
understanding of the physical conditions in the disposal system.
The PA must evaluate potential releases from both human-initiated
activities (e.g., via drilling intrusions) and natural processes
(e.g., dissolution) that may occur independently of human
activities. DOE must justify the omission of events and processes
that could occur but are not included in the final PA
calculations.
The results of the PA are used to demonstrate compliance with the
containment requirements in 40 CFR 191.13. The containment
requirements are expressed in terms of ``normalized releases.''
The results of the PA are assembled into complementary cumulative
distribution functions (CCDFs) which indicate the probability of
exceeding various levels of normalized releases. (Sec. 194.34)
To demonstrate continued compliance with the disposal
regulations, DOE submitted a new PA as part of the
recertification application. The new PA incorporated changes to a
few conceptual models and some parameter values. DOE made
modifications to the PA computer codes and parameter values after
the original CCA. EPA monitored and reviewed these changes, as
summarized below.
DOE modified four conceptual models after the original CCA:
Disposal System Geometry, Repository Fluid Flow, Disturbed Rock
Zone, and the Spallings conceptual model. The first three
conceptual models were changed to incorporate the EPA mandated
Option D panel closure system (CCA Condition 1). The new
Spallings conceptual model was developed to account for certain
deficiencies identified by the CCA peer review panel.
DOE updated its analysis of features, events and processes (FEPs)
that could impact WIPP. This update of FEPs did not result in any
changes to the scenarios used in the CRA PA. The CRA PA included
calculations of the same scenarios as the original CCA PA: (1)
The undisturbed scenario, where the repository is not impacted by
human activities, and three drilling scenarios, (2) the E1
Scenario, where one or more boreholes penetrate a Castile brine
reservoir and also intersect a repository waste panel, (3) the E2
Scenario, where one or more boreholes intersect a repository
waste panel but not the brine reservoir, and (4) the E1E2
Scenario, where there are multiple penetrations of waste panels
by boreholes of the E1 or E2 type, at many possible combinations
of intrusions times, locations, and E1 or E2 drilling events.
For the CRA PA, DOE changed, updated, or corrected several
parameter values that were used in the CCA PA (see CRA CARD 23
for details). Some of the changed parameters included: Waste
inventory estimates, chemistry related parameters, actinide
solubility values, disturbed rock zone values, retardation
coefficient values, and drilling rate.
During EPA's review of the CRA PA, both EPA and DOE independently
identified several technical changes and corrections that were
necessary. These changes included using more complete and
up-to-date waste inventory projections and correcting the
implementation of calculational requirements that ensure
appropriate statistical confidence in the PA results. In a March
2005 letter to DOE, EPA informed DOE that a new PA was required
to demonstrate continued compliance for recertification (Air
Docket A-98-49, Item II-B3-80). In the letter, EPA notified DOE
that the new PA must be comprised of three full replicates (i.e.,
300 iterations of the models) according to the requirements of
Sec. 194.34(f). EPA also provided direction for changes and
updates to other aspects of the PA, such as: Uranium (+VI)
solubility, solubility uncertainty ranges, actinide solubilities,
the probability of microbial degradation, revised gas generation
rates, modification of the methanogenesis assumption, inclusion
of waste packaging materials in the calculation of amounts
cellulosic, plastic, and rubber materials, and corrections to the
Culebra transmissivity fields.
In response to EPA's direction to conduct a new performance
assessment for recertification, DOE produced the Performance
Assessment Baseline Calculations (PABC). The Agency's review of
the PABC found that DOE made all the changes required by EPA, and
that the PABC demonstrates compliance with the containment
requirements specified in 40 CFR Part 191. Although the results
of the PABC indicate more potential releases from a human
intrusion event, the releases remain well within the limits
established by 40 CFR Part 191. EPA considers the PABC to be a
sufficiently conservative and current representation of the
knowledge of the WIPP and how it will interact with the
surrounding environment. EPA also finds that DOE is in continued
compliance with our 40 CFR 194.23 and 194.31 through 194.34
requirements. EPA found that DOE calculated the release limits
properly (Sec. 194.31), adequately defined the scope of the PA
(Sec. 194.32), included drilling scenarios as in the original CCA
(Sec. 194.33), and calculated and presented the results of the
CRA PA and PABC properly (Sec. 194.34). EPA analysis of
compliance with the performance assessment related requirements
of 40 CFR 194 may be found in its aforementioned TSD (Air Docket
A-98-49, Item II-B1-16).
Additional information on these issues can also be found in CRA
CARDs 23 and 31- 34.
EPA received public comments related to the CRA performance
assessment. Commenters questioned the appropriateness of the
drilling rate used in the PA, which is described below. They also
raised concerns about the accuracy of WIPP waste inventory
[[Page 18017]] parameters, which is discussed further in Section
VI.B.4 of this document.
Public comments expressed concern that the drilling rate was
underestimated in the CRA's performance assessment calculations
given the amount of drilling that is currently taking place
throughout the Delaware Basin. Commenters suggested that the
drilling rate be doubled to demonstrate compliance. Although EPA
determined that DOE appropriately calculated and implemented a
drilling rate of 52.2 boreholes/km2/year in compliance with Sec.
194.33(b) for recertification, EPA requested that DOE evaluate
the impacts of doubling the current drilling rate to respond to
public concerns.
DOE performed the calculations for this analysis by assuming the
drilling rate was increased to 105 boreholes per square kilometer
per year for 10,000 years. The results of computer modeling
showed that doubling the drilling rate would increase releases
from the repository. However, this increase was relatively small
and still well below EPA's regulatory release limits. (See CRA
CARD 23) DOE monitors natural resource related issues in the
Delaware Basin annually. Through this monitoring, DOE identified
that the drilling rate in the surrounding area increased from
46.8 to 52.2 boreholes per km2 per 10,000 years since the
original certification. EPA reviewed the documentation provided
by DOE and has conducted annual inspections of DOE's information
collection process and determined that DOE has done due diligence
in keeping abreast of all drilling information. DOE also
identified that the fluid injection rate per well is the same as
that used for the original CCA. EPA finds that DOE adequately
characterized drilling related issues.
D. General Requirements 1. Approval Process for Waste Shipment
From Waste Generator Sites for Disposal at WIPP (Sec. 194.8) EPA
codified the requirements of Sec. 194.8 at the time of the 1998
certification decision. Under these requirements, EPA evaluates
site specific waste characterization and QA plans to determine
that DOE can adequately characterize and track waste for disposal
at WIPP.
Since 1998, EPA has conducted numerous inspections and approvals
pursuant to Sec. 194.8. For more information on activities
related to Sec. 194.8, please refer to CRA CARD 8. 2.
Inspections (Sec. 194.21) Section 194.21 provides EPA with the
right to inspect all activities at WIPP and all activities
located off-site which provide information in any compliance
application. EPA did not exercise its authority under this
section prior to the 1998 certification decision.
Since 1998, EPA has inspected WIPP site activities, waste
generator sites, monitoring programs, and other activities. For
all inspections, DOE provided EPA with access to facilities and
records, and supported our inspection activities. Additional
information on EPA's 194.21 inspection activities can be found in
CRA CARD 21.
3. Quality Assurance (Sec. 194.22) Section 194.22 establishes QA
requirements for WIPP. QA is a process for enhancing the
reliability of technical data and analyses underlying compliance
applications. Section 194.22 requires DOE to demonstrate that a
Nuclear Quality Assurance (NQA) program has been established and
executed/implemented for items and activities that are important
to the long-term isolation of transuranic waste. In the CRA, DOE
extensively revised Chapter 5, Quality Assurance, to better match
the structure of the NQA standards and to update information
since the CCA.
EPA determined that the CRA provides adequate information to
demonstrate the establishment of each of the applicable elements
of the NQA standards. EPA also verified the continued proper
implementation of the NQA Program during its CRA review and
during previous audits conducted in accordance with Sec.
194.22(e). EPA's determination of compliance with Sec. 194.22
can be found in CRA CARD 22.
4. Waste Characterization (Sec. 194.24) Section 194.24, waste
characterization, generally requires DOE to identify, quantify,
and track the chemical, radiological and physical components of
the waste destined for disposal at WIPP. In order to compile the
waste inventory for recertification, DOE required data reporting
and collection from the waste generator sites. Based on the WIPP
LWA's timeline for recertification, DOE's cut-off date for
including waste in the WIPP recertification inventory was
September 30, 2002.
Descriptions of the chemical, radiological, and physical
components of the waste were thoroughly documented in the CRA and
supporting documents. This information was collected using
similar methods as during the 1998 certification decision. DOE
classified the wastes as emplaced, stored or projected
(to-be-generated). DOE used the data from the WIPP Waste
Information System (WWIS) to identify the characteristics of the
waste that has been emplaced at WIPP since 1999. DOE listed the
projected wastes in waste profile tables in the CRA (Appendix
DATA, Attachment F). The projected wastes were categorized
similarly to existing waste (e.g., heterogeneous debris, filter
material, soil).
Although DOE's recertification waste inventory was largely the
same as the inventory evaluated for the 1998 certification
decision, there were some changes. As of September 30, 2002, 7.7
x 103 m3 of contact-handled (CH) waste had been emplaced at WIPP.
This volume was used in the PABC. DOE estimated the combination
of emplaced, stored, and projected waste to be 145,000 m3 versus
the 112,000 m3 estimated for the CCA. Although EPA approved DOE's
general framework for the characterization of remote- handled
(RH) waste on March 26, 2004 (Air Docket A-98-49, Item II-B2-
21), RH has not yet been approved for disposal at WIPP. (The
current projected volume of remote-handled waste at WIPP is
greater than the 7,080 m3 in the consent agreement with the State
of New Mexico.) Despite the changes in the volume of CH and RH
waste, the total number of curies projected for a full repository
was reduced from 3.44 million curies in the CCA to 2.32 million
curies in the CRA. Some commenters noted that the recertification
waste inventory clearly contains amounts of CH and RH waste that
exceed the WIPP capacity. The Agency agrees that the inventory of
RH does exceed the capacity of WIPP as it did in the CCA
inventory; however, EPA does not consider this a problem in
demonstrating compliance with the disposal regulations. EPA
recognizes that the WIPP waste inventory is a dynamic projection
of the waste that may or may not be disposed of at WIPP. The
Agency's acceptance of a waste inventory is not an authorization
to dispose of a particular waste at WIPP. Before any waste is
disposed at WIPP, EPA seeks to ensure that the waste meets the
waste acceptance criteria for WIPP and that DOE can characterize
and track the waste. To demonstrate continuing compliance, the
performance assessment reflects a repository that meets the
capacity requirements for CH and RH wastes, as limited by the LWA
and the consent agreement with the State of New Mexico.
[[Page 18018]] During EPA's evaluation of the completeness of the
CRA, EPA identified updates and additional information needs for
the waste chemistry and waste inventory. For waste chemistry, EPA
evaluated issues such as: The modified gas generation rate,
actinide solubility and associated uncertainty values, and
uranium (+VI) solubility.
For more information on EPA's review of the waste chemistry,
please refer to CRA CARDs 15, 23 and 24 and applicable TSDs (Air
Docket A-98-49, Category II-B1).
As previously mentioned, EPA directed DOE to conduct a new
performance assessment for recertification in March 2005 (Air
Docket A- 98-49, Item II-B3-80)--the PABC. For the PABC, EPA
required DOE to update information on the waste inventory. In the
PABC, DOE modified the CRA inventory to correct errors identified
in the inventory, including modifying a CH waste stream from LANL
that had RH characteristics, and correcting the amounts of a
Hanford waste stream. DOE also included buried waste from INL.
EPA reviewed the CRA and supplemental information provided by DOE
to determine whether they provided a sufficiently complete
description of the chemical, radiological and physical
composition of the emplaced, stored and projected wastes proposed
for disposal in WIPP. The Agency also reviewed DOE's description
of the approximate quantities of waste components (for both
existing and projected wastes). EPA considered whether DOE's
waste descriptions were of sufficient detail to enable EPA to
conclude that DOE did not overlook any component that is present
in TRU waste and has significant potential to influence releases
of radionuclides.
The CRA did not identify any significant changes to DOE's waste
characterization program in terms of measurement techniques, or
quantification and tracking of waste components. Since the 1998
certification decision, EPA has conducted numerous inspections
and approvals of generator site waste characterization programs
to ensure compliance with Sec. Sec. 194.22, 194.24, and 194.8.
For a summary of EPA's waste characterization approvals, please
refer to CRA CARD 8.
Public comments identified some wastes in the WIPP
recertification inventory from the Hanford site in Washington
State as high-level waste (HLW) and spent nuclear fuel (SNF),
which are prohibited by the LWA from disposal at WIPP. The public
commented that these wastes are not transuranic and should not be
allowed in the WIPP waste inventory. According to public
comments, EPA should not recertify WIPP or should exclude these
wastes from the WIPP waste inventory. In a December 2005 letter
to DOE, EPA requested additional information from DOE on the
basis for considering these wastes as TRU waste instead of
high-level waste.
DOE provided additional information on the Hanford Tank wastes
that indicate that the Hanford Tank wastes will be treated and
will eventually be able to meet the WIPP waste acceptance
criteria (Air Docket A-98-49, Items II-B2-47 and II-B2-50). DOE
stated that the tank wastes that may eventually be disposed of at
WIPP are TRU waste or would be TRU waste. DOE also stated that
the tank wastes have not been designated as HLW but have been
managed as HLW, in accordance with their radioactive waste
management procedures. DOE has committed to removing these wastes
from the tanks and treating them, if needed, to meet the WIPP
waste acceptance criteria. DOE also stated that the HLW fission
products, precipitated salts and other solids will be removed, to
the extent practicable, from the Hanford K-basin sludges. DOE
stated that this waste would then be RH TRU waste and would meet
the WIPP waste acceptance criteria.
DOE has provided information stating that the waste in question
will be processed so that high-level waste will be removed, to
the extent practical, in its preparation to meet the WIPP waste
acceptance criteria. DOE may be able to show that this waste will
have a TRU designation in the future. Thus, EPA allowed these
wastes to be included in the performance assessment inventory for
recertification. By doing so, DOE is demonstrating that with or
without the Hanford Tank wastes, WIPP continues to comply with
EPA's disposal regulations. The Agency believes that this is a
conservative approach to the performance assessment of the WIPP
repository because a broad inventory of waste is being
considered. Inclusion in the performance assessment of the
facility does not imply or otherwise provide for EPA's approval
of such waste for disposal at WIPP.
EPA will not allow high-level waste or spent nuclear fuel to be
shipped to WIPP. All wastes must meet the WIPP waste acceptance
criteria and all requirements of EPA's waste characterization
program, and EPA must officially notify DOE before they are
allowed to ship waste to WIPP.
Public commenters stated that EPA must conduct a rulemaking
regarding how the Agency will make determinations about what
waste is high-level waste. EPA does not make waste
determinations. DOE is responsible for making waste
determinations, classifications, or reclassifications. In
recognition of the public's concern about the possible future
designation of the Hanford Tank wastes as TRU waste, DOE has
proposed a process for developing or changing determinations for
wastes such as the Hanford Tank wastes. In a February 2006 letter
to EPA, DOE proposed a process (Air Docket A-98-49, Item
II-B2-57) for the evaluation of tank waste that includes multiple
opportunities for public input prior to the request to EPA for
disposal at WIPP.
The Agency considers it appropriate for DOE to conduct a public
process that will determine the designation or classification of
waste prior to requesting EPA's approval for disposal at WIPP.
The Agency currently has a process in place to ensure that waste
disposed of at WIPP is TRU waste, as outlined in the requirements
listed at 40 CFR 194.8, 194.22, and 194.24. The first step in
this process is DOE's official request to dispose of TRU waste at
WIPP from one of the waste generator sites. Once EPA receives all
required information and documentation, the Agency then inspects
waste characterization activities at a waste generator site to
ensure that the site has the technical ability to adequately
characterize and track TRU waste. Confirmation of waste
designation is then completed through the waste characterization
process at the site. EPA believes that it currently has an
adequate process in place for evaluating any DOE requests for
approval of waste for disposal at WIPP. The Agency does not
believe that it is necessary to conduct a rulemaking for certain
waste streams.
Waste that is not designated as TRU waste will not be considered
for disposal at WIPP by EPA. The Agency agrees with commenters
that the LWA does not provide for waste determinations to be made
during recertification. Prior to disposal at WIPP, EPA will
ensure that all wastes meet the legal and technical requirements
for disposal.
It is important to remember that just because waste is included
in the WIPP waste inventory, it does not mean that DOE will
necessarily seek to ship it to WIPP or that EPA will approve it
for disposal at WIPP. Before any waste is approved to be shipped
or disposed of at WIPP, EPA ensures that the waste meets the
waste acceptance criteria for WIPP and that DOE can characterize
and track the
[[Page 18019]] waste. For more information on tank wastes and
EPA's determination of compliance with Sec. 194.24, please refer
to CRA CARD 24. 5. Future State Assumptions (Sec. 194.25)
Section 194.25 stipulates that performance assessments and
compliance assessments ``shall assume that characteristics of the
future remain what they are at the time the compliance
application is prepared, provided that such characteristics are
not related to hydrogeologic, geologic or climatic conditions.''
Section 194.25 also requires DOE to provide documentation of the
effects of potential changes of hydrogeologic, geological, and
climatic conditions on the disposal system over the regulatory
time frame. Section 194.25 focuses the PA and compliance
assessments on the more predictable significant features of
disposal system performance, instead of allowing unbounded
speculation on all developments over the 10,000-year regulatory
time frame.
For the CRA, DOE updated its assessment of the features, events
and processes (FEPs) and subsequent scenarios that are used in
performance and compliance assessments. As a result of this
assessment, DOE eliminated sixteen FEPs using the Future State
assumption (40 CFR 194.25 (a)), which assumes that these
activities will not change in the future.
EPA assessed whether all FEPs and appropriate future state
assumptions were identified and developed by DOE. EPA evaluated
DOE's criteria to eliminate (screen out) inapplicable or
irrelevant FEPs and associated assumptions. EPA also analyzed
whether there were potential variations in DOE's assumed
characteristics and determined whether the future state
assumptions were in compliance with Sec. 194.25(a). EPA
concludes that DOE adequately addressed the impacts of potential
hydrogeologic, geologic and climate changes to the disposal
system. The CRA includes all relevant elements of the performance
assessment and compliance assessments and is consistent with the
requirements of Sec. 194.25. For more information regarding
EPA's evaluation of compliance with this section, see CRA CARDs
25 and 32, and the corresponding TSD for FEPs (Air Docket
A-98-49, Item II-B1-11).
6. Expert Judgement (Sec. 194.26) The requirements of Sec.
194.26 apply to expert judgment elicitation, which is a process
for obtaining data directly from experts in response to a
technical problem. Expert judgment may be used to support a
compliance application, provided that it does not substitute for
information that could reasonably be obtained through data
collection or experimentation. EPA prohibits expert judgment from
being used in place of experimental data, unless DOE can justify
why the necessary experiments cannot be conducted. The 2004 CRA
did not identify any expert judgement activities that were
conducted since the 1998 certification decision. Therefore, EPA
determines that DOE remains in compliance with the requirements
of Sec. 194.26. (For more information regarding EPA's evaluation
of compliance with Sec. 194.26, see CRA CARD 26.) 7. Peer Review
(Sec. 194.27) Section 194.27 of the WIPP Compliance Criteria
requires DOE to conduct peer review evaluations related to
conceptual models, waste characterization analyses, and a
comparative study of engineered barriers. A peer review involves
an independent group of experts who are convened to determine
whether technical work was performed appropriately and in keeping
with the intended purpose. The required peer reviews must be
performed in accordance with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's
NUREG-1297, ``Peer Review for High-Level Nuclear Waste
Repositories,'' which establishes guidelines for the conduct of a
peer review exercise. DOE performed two conceptual model peer
reviews between the submission of the CCA and CRA: the Salado
Flow Conceptual Model Peer Review in March 2003 (see CRA Chapter
9, Section 9.3.1.3.4) and the Spalling Model Peer Review in
September 2003 (see CRA Chapter 9, Section 9.3.1.3.5). EPA
reviewed each of the conceptual model peer reviews as they were
performed and all documents related to each peer review. EPA's
review verified that the process DOE used to perform these peer
reviews was compatible with NUREG-1297 requirements. Therefore,
EPA determines that DOE remains in compliance with the
requirements of Sec. 194.27. (For more information regarding
EPA's evaluation of compliance with Sec. 194.27, see CRA CARD
27.) E. Assurance Requirements (Sec. Sec. 194.41-194.46) The
assurance requirements were included in the disposal regulations
to compensate in a qualitative manner for the inherent
uncertainties in projecting the behavior of natural and
engineered components of the repository for many thousands of
years (50 FR 38072). The assurance requirements included in the
WIPP Compliance Criteria are active institutional controls (Sec.
194.41), monitoring (Sec. 194.42), passive institutional controls
(Sec. 194.43), engineered barriers (Sec. 194.44), presence of
resources (Sec. 194.45), and removal of waste (Sec. 194.46).
The CRA did not reflect any significant changes to demonstrating
compliance with the assurance requirements. DOE appropriately
updated the information for the assurance requirements in Chapter
7 of the CRA and accurately reflected EPA decisions since the
1998 certification decision, such as reduction in the safety
factor for the magnesium oxide engineered barrier (194.44). EPA's
specific evaluation of compliance with the assurance requirements
can be found in CRA CARDs 41-46.
F. Individual and Groundwater Protection Requirements (Sec. Sec.
194.51 Through 194.55) Sections 194.51 through 194.55 of the
compliance criteria implement the individual protection
requirements of 40 CFR 191.15 and the ground- water protection
requirements of Subpart C of 40 CFR Part 191 at WIPP. Assessment
of the likelihood that the WIPP will meet the individual dose
limits and radionuclide concentration limits for ground water is
conducted through a process known as compliance assessment.
Compliance assessment uses methods similar to those of the PA
(for the containment requirements) but is required to address
only undisturbed performance of the disposal system. That is,
compliance assessment does not include human intrusion scenarios
(i.e., drilling or mining for resources). Compliance assessment
can be considered a ``subset'' of performance assessment, since
it considers only natural (undisturbed) conditions and past or
near-future human activities (such as existing boreholes), but
does not include the long-term future human activities that are
addressed in the PA.
Sections 194.51 through 194.55 describe specific requirements for
compliance with 40 CFR 191 requirements at WIPP. Section 194.51
states that the protected individual must be located at the
location expected to receive the highest dose from any
radioactive release. All potential exposure pathways are to be
considered and compliance assessments (CAs) must assume that
individuals consume 2 liters of water per day according to 40 CFR
194.52. 40 CFR 194.53 requires that all underground sources of
drinking water be considered and that
[[Page 18020]] connections to surface water be factored in any
CA. In 40 CFR 194.54 potential processes and events are to be
considered and selected in any CA and that existing boreholes or
other drilling activities be considered. 40 CFR 194.55 also
requires that the impact of uncertainty on any CA analysis and
that committed effective dose to individuals be calculated.
Radionuclide concentrations in underground sources of drinking
water (USDWs) and dose equivalent received from USDWs must also
be calculated.
In the CRA, DOE reevaluated each of the individual and ground
water requirements. DOE updated parameters related to the
individual and groundwater requirements for the undisturbed
scenario, for example, changes in population and water use (water
use increased from 282 gallons per person per day in the CCA to
305 in the CRA). In addition to updating information for the
compliance assessment, as a result of water wells that have been
drilled since the original CCA, DOE was able to confirm original
water source assumptions (CRA Chapter 8.2). DOE did not conduct
new detailed bounding dose calculations for the CRA because the
releases predicted by the CRA performance assessment for the
undisturbed scenario were lower than those used in the original
CCA (CRA Chapter 8.0). EPA reviewed DOE's CRA approach to
compliance with 40 CFR 194.51 to 40 CFR 194.55. EPA verified that
DOE's approach to addressing the individual and groundwater
requirements was the same as the original CCA (CRA CARDs 51/52,
53, 54, 55 for details). EPA agrees with DOE's conclusion that
the CRA PA results are lower than the original CCA and that the
recalculation of doses was not necessary for the CRA (CRA Chapter
8.1.2.2). Because DOE was required to correct, update, and rerun
the CRA PA, called the PABC, EPA reevaluated the impact of these
new results on compliance with 40 CFR 194.51 to 40 CFR 194.55.
EPA found the results of the PABC to be much like the CRA PA
results-- showing fewer releases for the undisturbed scenario
than the original CCA. EPA finds DOE in continued compliance with
40 CFR 194.51-194.55 requirements.
VI. How has the public been involved in EPA's WIPP
recertification activities? A. Public Information Since the 1998
certification decision, EPA has kept the public informed of our
continuing compliance activities at WIPP and our preparations for
recertification. EPA's main focus has been on distributing
information via the EPA Web site, and WIPP-NEWS e-mail messages.
In addition, EPA has published periodic WIPP Bulletins and kept
the WIPP Information line up-to-date.
Throughout the recertification process, the Agency posted any new
information or updates on its Web page. Many of our
recertification documents (including DOE-submitted
recertification materials, correspondence, Federal Register
notices, outreach materials, hearings transcripts, as well as
technical support documents) are available for review or download
(in Adobe .pdf format) from the EPA Web site at
http://www.epa.gov/radiation/wipp. Since February 2004, EPA has
sent out numerous announcements regarding the recertification
schedule, availability of documents on the EPA WIPP Web site, and
upcoming inspections at waste generator sites, as well as details
for the Agency's July 2004 and June 2005 stakeholder meetings in
New Mexico.
B. Stakeholder Meetings As discussed in the WIPP LWA, the
recertification process is not a rulemaking, therefore public
hearings were not required.
However, EPA held a series of public meetings in New Mexico in
both July 2004 and June 2005 to provide information about the
recertification process. In an effort to make these meetings as
informative as possible to all attending parties, EPA listened to
stakeholder input and concerns and tailored the meetings around
the public as much as possible.
The first meetings were held from July 26-29, 2004, in Carlsbad,
Albuquerque, and Santa Fe, New Mexico. The main purpose of these
meetings was to discuss EPA's recertification process and
timeline, as well as DOE's application and important changes at
WIPP since its opening. The meetings featured presentations and
poster sessions on specific WIPP technical issues and facilitated
discussions. In response to stakeholder suggestions, DOE staff
was also on hand to provide information and answer any
stakeholder questions. Participants were encouraged to provide
comments to EPA for our consideration during review of DOE's WIPP
application.
The second public session was held on June 7, 2005, in
Albuquerque, New Mexico. The main purpose of this meeting was to
update the public on EPA's recertification schedule and provide
more in-depth, technical information related to stakeholder
questions and comments raised at the first series of meetings.
Summaries of EPA's stakeholder meetings are posted on the EPA Web
site and in the dockets. Many of the issues raised by the public
are identified in the meeting summaries and have been addressed
by EPA in the Compliance Application Review Documents (CARDs)
under the relevant section.
C. Public Comments on Recertification EPA posted the
recertification application on its Web site immediately following
receipt. EPA announced receipt of the recertification application
in the Federal Register on May 24, 2004. The notice also
officially opened the public comment period on the
recertification application.
For recertification, EPA sought public comments and input related
to the changes in DOE's application that may have a potential
impact on WIPP's ability to remain in compliance with EPA's
disposal regulations.
The comment period on the recertification application closed 560
days after it opened, on December 5, 2005. This was 45 days after
EPA's announcement in the Federal Register that the
recertification application was complete.
EPA received four sets of written public comments during the
public comment period. EPA considered significant comments from
the written submissions and the stakeholder meetings in its
evaluation of continuing compliance. EPA addresses these comments
in CARDs that are relevant to each topic.
In addition to comments on specific sections of 40 CFR Part 194,
EPA received comments on general issues. Some people commented on
the content of the CRA throughout the recertification process.
With EPA submitting numerous requests for additional information
to DOE, commenters believed that the CRA was ``grossly flawed and
incomplete,'' and thus, there was not adequate information for
the public to review for comment in the allotted timeframe.
Certain commenters also suggested that EPA and DOE should discuss
the initial recertification process to ensure that the next
application would be more timely and adequate.
EPA provided guidance to DOE on its expectations for the first
recertification application (see correspondence in Air Docket
A-98-49, Category II-B3). Upon submission of the CRA by DOE, the
Agency found it necessary to request a considerable amount of
supplemental information. Following receipt of the additional
information, EPA promptly made the completeness determination.
[[Page 18021]] Once the recertification application was deemed
complete, EPA conducted its technical evaluation and issued the
recertification decision within the six-month timeframe specified
by the WIPP LWA.
EPA believes that future recertification processes should not be
as lengthy. The Agency intends to meet with DOE to discuss and
work on improving future recertification applications and
processes.
VII. Where can I get more information about EPA's WIPP-related
activities? A. Supporting Documents for Recertification The
Compliance Application Review Documents, or CARDs, contain the
detailed technical rationale for EPA's recertification decision.
The CARDs discuss DOE's compliance with each of the individual
requirements of the WIPP Compliance Criteria. The document
discusses background information related to each section of the
compliance criteria, restates the specific requirement, reviews
the original 1998 certification decision, summarizes changes in
the CRA, and describes EPA's compliance review and decision--most
notably, any changes that have occurred since the original
certification. The CARDs also list additional EPA technical
support documents and any other references used by EPA in
rendering its decision on compliance. All technical support
documents and references are available in Air Docket A-98-49,
with the exception of generally available references and those
documents already maintained by DOE or its contractors in
locations accessible to the public. For more detailed information
on EPA's recertification decision, there are a number of
technical support documents available. These are found in Air
Docket A-98-49, Category II-B1.
B. WIPP Web Site, Listserv, Information Line, and Mailing List
For more general information and updates on EPA's WIPP
activities, please visit our WIPP Internet homepage at
http://www.epa.gov/radiation/wipp. A number of documents
(including DOE-submitted recertification materials, letters,
Federal Register notices, outreach materials, hearings
transcripts, as well as technical support documents) are
available for review or download (in Adobe .pdf format). The
Agency's WIPP-NEWS service, which automatically e-mails
subscribers with up-to-date WIPP announcements and information,
is also available online. Any individuals wishing to subscribe to
the listserv can join by visiting
https://lists.epa.gov/read/all_forums/subscribe?name=wipp-news or
by following the instructions listed on our WIPP Web site.
Interested citizens may also contact EPA's toll-free WIPP
Information Line at 1-800-331-WIPP. The information line offers a
recorded message regarding current EPA WIPP activities, upcoming
meetings, and publications. Callers are also offered the option
of joining EPA's WIPP mailing list. Periodic mailings, including
a WIPP Bulletin and fact sheets related to specific EPA
activities, are sent to members of the mailing list (currently
over 2,000 members).
C. Dockets In accordance with 40 CFR 194.67, EPA maintains public
dockets (FDMS Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2004-0025 and Air Docket
A-98-49) that contain all the information used to support the
Agency's decision on recertification. The Agency established and
maintains the formal rulemaking docket in Washington, DC, as well
as informational dockets in three locations in the State of New
Mexico (Carlsbad, Albuquerque, and Santa Fe). The docket consists
of all relevant, significant information received to date from
outside parties and all significant information considered by EPA
in reaching a recertification decision regarding whether the WIPP
facility continues to comply with the disposal regulations. EPA
placed copies of the CRA in Category II-B2 of Air Docket A-98-49.
The Agency placed supplementary information received from DOE in
response to EPA requests in Category II-B2.
As part of the eRulemaking Initiative under the President's
Management Agenda, the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS)
was established in November 2005. FDMS was created to better
serve the public by providing a single point of access to all
federal rulemaking activities.
The final recertification decision and supporting documentation
can be found in hard-copy form primarily in the following
categories of Docket A-98-49: Category II-B1 (technical support
documents, reports, etc.), Category II-B2 (DOE submissions and
responses to EPA requests), Category II-B3 (EPA correspondence to
DOE, public comments) and Category II-B4 (final recertification
Federal Register notice, CARDs). Interested parties may also
search online in FDMS Docket ID No.
EPA-HQ- OAR-2004-0025 for any of these documents by title or key
word(s). For more information related to EPA's public dockets
(including locations and hours of operation), please refer to
Section 1.A.1 of this document.
VIII. What happens next for WIPP? What is EPA's role in future
WIPP activities? EPA's regulatory role at WIPP does not end with
its first recertification decision. The Agency's future WIPP
activities will include additional recertifications every five
years, review of DOE reports on conditions and activities at
WIPP, assessment of waste characterization and QA programs at
waste generator sites, announced and unannounced inspections of
WIPP and other facilities, and if necessary, modification,
revocation, or suspension of the certification.
Although not required by the Administrative Procedures Act (APA),
the WIPP LWA, or the WIPP Compliance Criteria, EPA intends to
continue docketing all inspection or audit reports and annual
reports by DOE on conditions and activities at the WIPP.
Future recertification processes will be similar to the process
completed by EPA for this first recertification, as described in
today's action. For example, EPA will publish a Federal Register
notice announcing its receipt of the next compliance application
and our intent to conduct such an evaluation. The application for
recertification will be placed in the docket, and at least a
30-day period will be provided for submission of public comments.
Following the completeness determination, EPA's decision on
whether to recertify the WIPP facility will again be announced in
a Federal Register notice (Sec. 194.64). Dated: March 29, 2006.
Elizabeth Cotsworth, Director, Office of Radiation and Indoor
Air.
[FR Doc. 06-3404 Filed 4-7-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
*****************************************************************
NOTE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107 this
material is distributed without profit or payment to those who
have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for
non-profit research and educational purposes only. For more
information go to:
*****************************************************************