*****************************************************************
07/31/06 **** RADIATION BULLETIN(RADBULL) **** VOL 14.180
*****************************************************************
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 UN Security UN Demands That Iran Suspend Nuclear Activities
2 Guardian Unlimited: Iran to Re-Evaluate Nuke Incentive Package
3 Guardian Unlimited: Iran Has Aug. 31 Deadline Under Resolution
4 BBC: UN issues Iran nuclear deadline
5 IRNA: Chavez calls on 3rd world states to support Iran N-program
6 IRIB PERSIAN NEWS: Review of proposals depends on Lebanon
7 OpinionEditorials.com: What if Iran Says No?
8 AFP: Iran defiant, nuclear crisis set to escalate -
9 AFP: UN braced to take Iran nuclear dispute closer to confrontation
10 IRNA: Defense minister: Nuclear disarmament best way to promote regi
11 AFP: Iran must suspend nuclear program or face international isolati
12 IRNA: Chinese envoy: Negotiation only solution to Iran's N-case -
13 AFP: US to tighten noose on North Korean missile technology -
14 [NYTr] Docs Reveal Nixon Admin Considered Nukes Against North
15 US: Detroit News: 'Manhattan' energy project yet another pork scheme
16 Interfax: Russia eliminates over 1,000 nuclear weapon carriers under
17 Interfax: Russia has 4,279 nuclear warheads - Defense Ministry
18 RIA Novosti: No new initiatives on arms control - Russia's defense m
19 RIA Novosti: Russia's arsenal has 927 nuclear delivery systems - min
NUCLEAR REACTORS
20 US: Strong firepower for you to use against nuclear power's misled
21 US: [NukeNet] New NIRS Factsheets: Nukes Not the Answer
22 US: NRC: NRC Staff to Meet with TVA Officials in Alabama to Discuss
23 US: AP Wire: Exelon says study reveals no new tritium leaks at nucle
24 allAfrica.com: Nigeria: 'Nigeria's Nuclear Technology for Peaceful P
25 US: NRC: NRC Staff to Hold Public Meeting on August 10 in Eunice, Ne
26 US: NRC: SUNSHINE FEDERAL REGISTER NOTICE
27 US: NRC: Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc.; Notice of
28 Scotsman.com: Nuclear pressure piles on McConnell
29 US: Times Herald: Nuclear plant guard fired for sleeping
NUCLEAR SECURITY
NUCLEAR SAFETY
30 [NukeNet] [Nucnews] Clean-Up Experts Rush to Serbian Nuke Site
31 Shanghai Daily: City has built super bunker for 200,000
32 Scoop: Depleted Uranium Situation Worsens Requires Action
33 US: Deseret News: Thyroid disease linked to radiation
NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE
34 US: The Australian: Uranium mining gaining support
35 Guardian Unlimited: Towns 'should be paid for buried nuclear waste'
36 US: Sydney Morning Herald: Support for uranium mine 'growing' -
37 BBC: 'Urgency needed' on nuclear waste
38 BBC: 'Haste needed' on nuclear waste
39 BBC: Safety pledge over nuclear waste
40 Independent: Top scientists demand deep burial of radioactive waste
41 AFP: Leading scientists urge authorities to bury radioactive waste -
42 US: EPA: comment period for wastes from INEL to WIPP
43 Telegraph: Top scientists demand deep burial of radioactive waste
44 US: AU ABC: Gillard refuses to comment on Beazley uranium backflip.
45 US: KVIA.com: WIPP says some Los Alamos waste must be repackaged
46 News & Star: Nuclear repository back on the agenda
47 times and star: Nuke dump back on the agenda
48 nature.com: Britain urged to store nuclear waste underground -
49 US: Salt Lake Tribune: Fish on a ferry in contamination cleanup
PEACE
US DEPT. OF ENERGY
50 KnoxNews: OR security proposals still under review
51 DOE: Energy Department Awards $116 Million to Small Businesses
52 DOE: DOE Awards Contract for Management and Operation of Argonne
53 Tri-City Herald: Plan for waste under review
54 KCBJ: Feds will meet about nuclear agency at Bannister complex -
55 DOE: Office of Science; Climate Change Science Program Product
56 Paducah Sun: Union-Carbide-retirees-await-help-from-court-Congress -
57 Dayton Daily News: Bids sought to finish Mound cleanup
*****************************************************************
*****************************************************************
FULL NEWS STORIES
*****************************************************************
*****************************************************************
1 UN Security UN Demands That Iran Suspend Nuclear Activities
Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2006 15:00:54 -0400
UN SECURITY COUNCIL DEMANDS THAT IRAN SUSPEND NUCLEAR ACTIVITIES
New York, Jul 31 2006 3:00PM
Saying that Iran has not taken required steps to assure the world
it is not developing nuclear arms, the United Nations Security Council
today <"http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs//2006/sc8792.doc.htm">demanded
a suspension of the country’s nuclear enrichment and
reprocessing activities, threatening sanctions for non-compliance.
Adopted by a vote of 14 to 1, with only Qatar in opposition, the
resolution was the Council’s first action on the issue passed under
Article 40 of Chapter VII of the UN Charter, which allows for
enforcement measures.
By the resolution, the Council expressed the intention, in the event
that Iran does not comply by the end of August, to “undertake
appropriate measures,” under the sanctions clause, “to persuade
Iran to comply with this resolution,” underlining, however, that
sanctions could not be applied without another Council decision.
In the meantime, however, the Council called on all States to prevent
the transfer to Iran of materials and technology that could
be used in enrichment, reprocessing or ballistic missile programmes.
The Council said Iran’s compliance with this resolution would have
to be confirmed by a report requested at the end of next month
from the UN International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the world
body’s nuclear watchdog, which, in a series of previous reports this
year, has been unable to verify that Iran’s nuclear programme
was peaceful, though it had not seen any diversion of material to
nuclear weapons or other explosive devices.
In March 2006, the IAEA referred the issue to the Security Council,
which issued a statement at that time calling for a similar suspension,
saying that compliance would contribute to a diplomatic,
negotiated solution to the stalemate.
After Iran failed to respond to that call by the required deadline,
the Council took up the issue again in May, while the body’s permanent
members – China, France, the Russian Federation, the United
Kingdom and the United States – along with Germany, were also
pursuing a diplomatic solution, offering incentives to Iran for
its compliance.
Through today’s resolution, the Council endorsed those efforts, seeking
a “long-term, comprehensive arrangement which would allow
for the development of relations and cooperation with Iran based
on mutual respect and the establishment of international confidence
in the exclusively peaceful nature of Iran’s nuclear programmes.”
Iran says its activities are solely for energy purposes but the United
States and other countries insist it is clandestinely seeking
to produce nuclear weapons. Last August, Tehran rescinded its
voluntary suspension of nuclear fuel conversion, which can produce
the enriched uranium necessary either for nuclear power generation
or for nuclear weapons.
After today’s Council vote, Iran’s representative, Javad Zarif, again
maintained the peaceful nature of his country’s nuclear programme,
saying “it was not the first time that Iran’s endeavours to
stand on its own feet and make technological advances had faced
the stiff resistance and concerted pressure of some powers permanently
represented in the Council.”
While agreeing with the need to verify Iran’s activities, Nassir
bin Abdulaziz al-Nasser, Qatar’s representative, explained that he
voted against the resolution because he did not want to proceed
when his region was “inflamed.” In addition, he said a few more
days could help identify Iran’s real intentions, especially since
it had not rejected the diplomatic initiatives, but had only asked
for more time.
2006-07-31 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/
*****************************************************************
2 Guardian Unlimited: Iran to Re-Evaluate Nuke Incentive Package
From the Associated Press
[UP]
Monday July 31, 2006 5:16 AM
By NASSER KARIMI
Associated Press Writer
TEHRAN, Iran (AP) - Iran's president on Sunday said the fighting
between Israel and Hezbollah guerrillas in Lebanon has forced
Tehran to re-evaluate a Western nuclear incentives package, but
his country still plans to respond to the offer next month.
``Events in Lebanon affected our evaluations about ... (the)
package of incentives. We should review it carefully. I have
asked my colleagues to review it more carefully,'' President
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said during a news conference.
Earlier in the day, Iran's Foreign Ministry warned that Tehran
would abandon the package if the U.N. Security Council approves
a resolution against it on Monday.
``If any resolution is issued against Iran tomorrow, the package
would be left off the agenda by Iran,'' Foreign Ministry
spokesman Hamid Reza Asefi told reporters. ``We will definitely
revise our nuclear policy.''
Asefi's comments were the first official Iranian response to a
draft resolution giving it until the end of August to suspend
uranium enrichment or face the threat of international
sanctions.
The draft was formally circulated to the full 15-member U.N.
Security Council late Friday and observers said it would likely
be adopted in the next week.
Referring to the crisis in Lebanon, Asefi said that any Security
Council action against Iran ``will confront the region with more
tension.''
Tehran said last week it would reply by Aug. 22 to a Western
incentives package, but the council decided to go ahead with its
draft resolution anyway. The package includes economic
incentives and a provision for the United States to offer Iran
some nuclear technology, lift some sanctions and join direct
negotiations.
The proposal also calls for Iran to impose a long-term
moratorium on uranium enrichment, which can produce reactor fuel
or bomb material.
The U.S. and some of its allies accuse Iran of seeking nuclear
weapons. Tehran maintains its program is purely peaceful and
aimed at generating electricity.
Iran has said it will never give up its right under the Nuclear
Nonproliferation Treaty to enrich uranium and produce nuclear
fuel but has indicated it may temporarily suspend large-scale
activities to ease tensions.
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006
*****************************************************************
3 Guardian Unlimited: Iran Has Aug. 31 Deadline Under Resolution
From the Associated Press
[UP]
Monday July 31, 2006 7:46 PM
AP Photo UNDK106
By NICK WADHAMS
Associated Press Writer
UNITED NATIONS (AP) - The U.N. Security Council passed a
weakened resolution Monday giving Iran until Aug. 31 to suspend
uranium enrichment or face the threat of economic and diplomatic
sanctions. Iran immediately rejected the council action, saying
it would only make negotiations more difficult concerning a
package of incentives offered in June for it to suspend
enrichment.
``All along it has been the persistence of some to draw
arbitrary red lines and deadlines that has closed the door to
any compromise,'' said Iran's U.N. Ambassador Javad Zarif.
``This tendency has single-handedly blocked success and in most
cases killed proposals in their infancy.
``This approach will not lead to any productive outcome and in
fact it can only exacerbate the situation.''
Because of Russian and Chinese demands, the text was watered
down from earlier drafts, which would have made the threat of
sanctions immediate. The draft now essentially requires the
council to hold more discussions before it considers sanctions.
The draft passed by a vote of 14-1. Qatar, which represents Arab
states on the council, cast the lone dissenting vote.
``It's a strong resolution,'' President Bush said in Miami. He
thanked U.S. allies who backed the resolution, saying, ``The
Iranians must hear loud and clear that the world is intent on
working together to make sure that they do not end up with a
nuclear weapon or the know-how to build a nuclear weapon.''
He called the resolution a reminder to Americans that the United
States has a strategy in place to ``send a common message, a
unified message to the Iranian leadership.''
State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said ``when to use any
sanctions is going to be a subject of discussion'' by the United
States with other countries. In fact, McCormack said,
discussions ``in general'' had begun.
He said it was ``in the interest of Iran, in the interest of the
international community, in the interest of their people to
comply.''
``Are they going to stomp their feet and hold their breath until
they turn blue?'' he asked.
Drafted by Britain, France and Germany with U.S. backing, the
resolution follows a July 12 agreement - by the foreign
ministers of those four countries, plus Russia and China - to
refer Tehran to the Security Council for not responding to the
incentives package.
The ministers asked that council members adopt a resolution
making Iran's suspension of enrichment activities mandatory. The
resolution includes that demand and calls on all states ``to
exercise vigilance'' in preventing the transfer of all goods
that could be used for Iran's enrichment and ballistic missile
programs.
``If you remember the reason for that resolution is to make the
suspension of enrichment and related activities mandatory and
then to give Iran a deadline by which it should accept the now
mandatory requirement that it suspend its enrichment
activities,'' Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice told reporters
on a flight from Jerusalem.
After the resolution was adopted, Zarif told the council it had
no legal legitimacy to demand Iran suspend uranium enrichment
and reprocessing. He repeated Iran's claim that it has every
right to pursue nuclear technology and does not want to develop
nuclear weapons.
Tehran said last week it would reply to the Western incentive
package on Aug. 22, but the council decided to go ahead with a
resolution and not wait for Iran's response.
On Friday, Iran again called for international negotiations on
its nuclear ambitions and said it was considering the
incentives. Western nations have dismissed the idea of such
talks without a halt to Iran's uranium enrichment.
The United States and some of its allies accuse Iran of seeking
to produce highly enriched uranium and plutonium for nuclear
weapons. Tehran maintains its nuclear program is purely peaceful
and aimed at generating electricity.
The resolution would call on the U.N nuclear agency, the Vienna,
Austria-based International Atomic Energy Agency, to report back
by Aug. 31 on Iran's compliance with the resolution's demands.
If Iran does not comply, the council would move to adopt
political and economic sanctions, the resolution said.
Diplomats said the threats spelled out in the resolution would
be revoked if Iran agrees to the package of incentives.
``It does not mean an end to the negotiations and we reaffirm
the proposals,'' France's U.N. Ambassador Jean-Marc de La
Sabliere said. ``We appeal to Iran to positively respond to the
substantive proposals that we made last month.''
Explaining his ``no'' vote, Qatar's U.N. Ambassador Nassir
Al-Nasser said that while the demands of the six nations were
legitimate, the resolution will only exacerbate tensions in the
region and Iran should be given more time to respond.
``We do not agree with the tabling of this resolution at a time
when our region is in flames,'' Al-Nasser said. ``We see no harm
in waiting for a few days to exhaust all possible means and in
order to identify the real intentions of Iran.''
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006
*****************************************************************
4 BBC: UN issues Iran nuclear deadline
Last Updated: Monday, 31 July 2006
[Preliminary installation of a turbo generator at Iran's Bushehr
nuclear power plant. File photo]
Iran says its nuclear programme is entirely peaceful
The UN Security Council has passed a resolution giving Iran a
month to suspend uranium enrichment or face possible sanctions.
The resolution was passed by 14 votes to one, with Qatar the lone
dissenter.
The resolution says "appropriate measures" will be taken if Iran
does not comply, but does not threaten the immediate imposition
of sanctions.
Iran's ambassador to the UN, Javad Zarif, angrily rejected the
move.
The US and other nations accuse Iran of trying to develop nuclear
weapons, but Iran says its motives are peaceful.
"Iran's peaceful nuclear programme poses no threat to
international peace and security and therefore dealing with this
issue in the Security Council is unwarranted and void of any
legal basis or practical utility," Mr Zarif said, according to
Reuters news agency.
Differing positions
The draft resolution was negotiated over the past two weeks by
the five permanent Council members - the US, UK, China, France,
Russia - as well as Germany.
It follows a 12 July agreement to refer Iran to the UN Security
Council for failing to respond to a package of energy, commercial
and technological incentives to suspend enrichment. Iran has said
it will respond to this package by 22 August.
Resolution 1696 gives Iran until 31 August to suspend uranium
enrichment and open its nuclear programme to international
inspections.
SECURITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
Permanent: China France, Russia, UK, US Temporary: Argentina,
Republic of Congo, Denmark, Ghana, Greece, Japan, Peru, Qatar,
Slovakia, Tanzania
If it does not comply, the council would consider adopting
"appropriate measures" under Article 41 of Chapter 7 of the UN
Charter, which relates to economic sanctions.
Russia and China argued against the specific mention of
sanctions, and say the Council will have to hold further
discussions on what steps to take should Iran fail to meet the
deadline.
But both want Iran to accept what is on offer and prove to the
world that its nuclear programme is aimed at generating
electricity, not building bombs, says the BBC's Daniel Lak at the
United Nations.
'Timing wrong'
The US says it does not believe Tehran's assertions and has
pushed for tough international action, says our correspondent,
and the US ambassador to the UN John Bolton welcomed the vote.
"This is the first Security Council resolution on Iran in
response to its nuclear weapons programme, reflecting the gravity
of this situation and the determination of the council," he said.
"We hope this resolution will demonstrate to Iran that the best
way to end its international isolation is to simply give up the
pursuit of nuclear weapons."
The UN ambassador for Qatar - the only Arab nation with a seat on
the Security Council - said the Council's demands were legitimate
but the timing was wrong.
"We do not agree with the resolution at a time when our region is
in flames," Nassir Abdulaziz Al-Nasser said.
Iran is a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty
(NPT), but points out it is entitled to pursue nuclear power
generation within the terms of the treaty.
*****************************************************************
5 IRNA: Chavez calls on 3rd world states to support Iran N-program
Tehran, July 31, IRNA
Iran-Venezuela-Chavez
Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez here Sunday called on the third
world countries to support Iran's peaceful nuclear program.
Speaking in a joint press conference with his Iranian
counterpart Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Chavez said how some of the big
powers could possibly allow themselves to say Iran had no right
to have access to the peaceful nuclear energy.
Such expectation, he said, rooted from selfishness of those big
powers.
As for Tehran-Caracas cooperation in the field of energy,
Chavez said the two capitals have decided "to form a strategic
oil company" which would work in the fields of identifying oil
fields as well as oil exploration, drilling and trade.
Terming his talks with Iranian officials as "positive," the
Venezuelan president said signing 11 documents for bilateral
cooperation was an indication that the two countries intend to
further promote their cooperation in the future.
Referring to the massacre of innocent civilians, children in
particular, in the Zionist regime's heinous attack on the
Southern Lebanese city of Qana, Chavez said it was a shameful,
disgracing and atrocious act.
Why the Zionist regime is not directly facing the Lebanese
army, asked the Venezuelan president adding if the Zionists are
after war why they do not look for and find a real army to fight
against.
Condemning the Zionist regime's crimes against humanity, Chavez
called on the international community to be more sensitive
towards the incessant massacre of defenseless civilians in
Lebanon, particularly women and children.
Chavez wound up his two-day official visit to Iran Sunday night
and left Tehran for Hanoi, Vietnam.
*****************************************************************
6 IRIB PERSIAN NEWS: Review of proposals depends on Lebanon
2006/07/31
President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on Sunday said the developments in
Lebanon and Palestine have affected IRI's examination of the EU
package of proposals.
Addressing a joint press conference, also attended by his
Venezuelan counterpart Hugo Chavez, he said the matter needs
more careful considerations.
chavez wound up an official two-day visit to IRI and left Tehran
for Hanoi, Vietnam, Sunday night.
Tehran welcomes negotiations, President Ahmadinejad said urging
Washington to refrain from launching disinformation.
"The issue of IRI's nuclear case can be settled through
negotiations," he emphasized.
"We are examining the European package, considering our
interests and definitive legitimate rights and will announce our
views on the announced date," he noted.
Nuclear energy is clean and renewable, and all nations have the
right to use it, said Ahmadinejad adding, "the people of IRI, in
accordance with international rules and regulations have the
right to make use of peaceful nuclear technology."
Ahmadinejad also asserted that the government "is determined to
fully exploit the rights of the Iranian nation".
Condemning the Zionists' atrocities in Lebanon, he said the
Zionists commit crimes because they are unable to tolerate the
brave resistance of the Lebanese nation.
Those who established such a corrupted regime are responsible
for its atrocities, he said adding Washington and London should
be accountable for the Zionists' heinous crimes.
M/D
Copyright 2004, All Rights Reserved By Islamic Republic of Iran
Broadcasting News Network Sponsored By IRIB News Computer Center.
E-Mail: Webmaster@IRIBNEWS.ir
*****************************************************************
7 OpinionEditorials.com: What if Iran Says No?
(Part 2) - Reeson
http://www.opinioneditorials.com
July 31, 2006
Greg C. Reeson
Almost two months ago, when European Union Foreign Policy Chief
Javier Solana presented an incentives package to Iran to
encourage the Islamic Republic to curb its nuclear activities, I
wrote a column questioning what, if anything, the world
community would do in the event that Iran rejected the proposal.
In that column, I argued that Iran, in responding that the
package of incentives required further study, was probably
stalling for time while it continued its program without
international oversight.
Responding to the August 22nd date put forth by the Iranian
government for a formal reply to the package, many countries,
including the United States and Great Britain, declared the date
unacceptable, citing a maximum period of weeks, rather than
months, for Iran to agree to suspend the enrichment of uranium
and join in multilateral talks about its nuclear future.
However, the international community, in the form of the United
Nations, has been unable to reach an agreement on the course of
action to be pursued in order to press Iran on its nuclear
ambitions. We are now at the end of July and the only thing that
has been accomplished to date is a draft resolution requiring
Iran to suspend uranium enrichment activities by the end of
August or face possible sanctions. Iranian state radio is
already reporting that such a resolution will be rejected and
Iran will not be subject to international demands.
In setting a deadline, the members of the Security Council are
seeking to send the message that they are united and they are
serious. But as history has repeatedly shown us, rarely are the
five permanent members of the Council anything close to
resembling united, or serious.
Time and again, the United States, Great Britain, China, France
and Russia find themselves at odds over competing economic and
security interests. Just the threat of a veto can stall action
and prevent a matter from ever coming to a vote before the
Council. Consensus on serious matters is seldom achieved, and I
expect more of the same with regard to the Iranian nuclear
program.
There is little reason to expect the Iranian regime to accept
the proposal to stop their nuclear agenda. The leadership in
Tehran knows what everyone else knows, that there is little
likelihood of any meaningful sanctions coming out of the
Security Council, and there is absolutely no possibility of a
resolution authorizing military action against Iranian nuclear
facilities.
Which brings us back to the original question. What if Iran
rejects the package of incentives and continues its uranium
enrichment program, effectively telling the rest of the world to
mind its own business and stop infringing on Iran’s national
rights?
The United Nations will inevitably bog down in its own
incompetence and no significant agreement among the permanent
members will be reached. A nuclear-armed Iranian regime is a
threat to the entire region, a threat that Israel cannot ignore.
Will Prime Minister Olmert authorize a strike similar to the
Israeli attack on Iraqi nuclear facilities at Osirak in 1981?
Even if he wanted to, he would probably be restrained by the
United States government in the interest of preventing further
destabilization in the area.
Will the United States and Great Britain take matters into their
own hands, either through sanctions or military action?
Independently enforced sanctions are probably a safe bet, but
direct military action is not likely. The Anglo-American
alliance is working diligently with the Iranians in an attempt
to quell the violence in Iraq by putting pressure on the Shiite
militias that are engaging in the recent surge in sectarian
fighting.
While the United States and England are certainly capable of
executing a military strike against Iranian targets, despite
concerns about their commitments in Afghanistan and Iraq, such a
use of force would do more to increase tensions in the Middle
East than it would to alleviate those tensions. A military
strike would only add to the anti-American and anti-British
sentiment in a region already torn apart by hatred and violence.
The end result is likely to be some form of accommodation on the
nuclear program, with a promise of additional influence on Iraqi
Shiites from the Iranian regime, along with some form of
international monitoring of Iranian nuclear progress. In
exchange, western nations will fulfill their pledges in the
incentives package, including easing current sanctions,
assisting with WTO membership, and upgrading the Iranian air
fleet.
That will set the stage for more negotiations and more
concessions from both sides. But in the end, I fear that we will
see a radical regime dedicated to the destruction of Israel and
a sworn enemy of the United States in possession of nuclear
weapons. As long as the international community lacks the will
to come together in the face of real threats, we should all be
concerned about what happens if Iran says no.
Greg Reeson is a freelance writer living in Fort Lee, VA. His
columns have appeared in The New Media Journal, The Land of the
Free, The Veteran’s Voice, The Washington Times, The American
Daily, The American Chronicle, Associated Content, and Opinion
Editorials.com.
© 2002 - 2004 Frontiers of Freedom| All rights reserved |
*****************************************************************
8 AFP: Iran defiant, nuclear crisis set to escalate -
by Stefan Smith Mon Jul 31, 7:03 AM ET
TEHRAN (AFP) - The crisis over Iran's nuclear programme looked
set to escalate this week, with Tehran vowing to defy and
retaliate against a tough resolution expected to be adopted by
the UN Security Council.
A prominent MP warned Monday that Iran could halt cooperation
with inspectors from the UN's International Atomic Energy Agency
" /> (IAEA) and even quit the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
"If the United Nations " /> adopts a resolution, it could lead to
examining suspension of Iran's membership to the NPT and revising
Iran's cooperation with the IAEA," Alaeddin Borujerdi, head of
the parliamentary national security commission told Mehr news
agency.
Iran's leadership has also signalled that Israel " /> 's attacks
against the Palestinian territories and Lebanon have undermined
the chances of a diplomatic solution to the row by putting the
Islamic republic in no mood for compromise.
President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said the Middle East crisis had
made it "clear that international organisations have become a
tool in the hand of domineering powers".
"The incidents in Lebanon and Palestine have influenced our
examination," he said of Iran's consideration of an international
offer of incentives in exchange for a halt of sensitive atomic
work.
Iran is a major backer of the Palestinian militant group Hamas
and the Lebanese Shiite movement Hezbollah, but denies providing
arms.
"The government is determined to fully exploit the rights of the
Iranian nation," Ahmadinejad said, underlining Tehran's
continued unwillingness to accept the terms of the international
offer.
Iran says it only wants to enrich uranium to the levels needed
for reactor fuel and that this is a right enshrined by the
nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. But the process can be
extended to make weapons.
"Nuclear energy is clean and renewable, and all nations have the
right to use it," the president said Sunday.
With Iran accused of trying to buy time, the Security Council is
expected this week to pass a draft resolution that gives Tehran
until August 31 to halt enrichment. A refusal to comply would
prompt discussions on economic and political sanctions.
"By putting pressure and trying to intimidate Iran, no country
will achieve anything. On the contrary, the situation will
worsen," foreign ministry spokesman Hamid Reza Asefi warned
Sunday.
Iran has already ignored a non-binding Security Council demand
to halt enrichment.
"If tomorrow they pass a resolution against Iran, the package
will not be on the agenda any more," he said of the
international offer, which the five Security Council members
plus Germany hope will still be accepted.
When asked to elaborate on what specific measures Iran might
take, Asefi replied: "They know what I am talking about."
They have also played up Iran's regional clout and oil wealth,
and Asefi said that "issuing this resolution will worsen the
crisis in the region".
Diplomats close to the issue said the expected UN resolution
will mark a turning point in the three-year-old crisis, which
kicked off when the UN's atomic watchdog sounded the alarm over
nearly two decades of undeclared nuclear work in Iran.
"The Iranians are aware that defying a Security Council
resolution is a very serious thing," said a Tehran-based
diplomat, who asked not to be named.
"But for the time being they appear to be digging in for
confrontation, and there is no indication that the position will
change anytime soon," he said.
Another senior envoy said he saw little chance of Iran complying
with the expected resolution.
"I think Iran will wait to see what kind of sanctions it is
likely to face if it ignores the deadline. We are moving into a
period of brinksmanship here," he said.
Copyright © 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The
*****************************************************************
9 AFP: UN braced to take Iran nuclear dispute closer to confrontation -
by Tim Witcher Mon Jul 31, 4:05 AM ET
UNITED NATIONS (AFP) - The United Nations " /> United
NationsSecurity Council is expected to pass a resolution that
could take the international community one step closer to a
confrontation with Iran " /> Iranover its nuclear programme.
The draft resolution that gives Iran until August 31 to halt its
uranium enrichment work is expected to be easily passed by the
council following weeks of negotiations among the major powers.
If Iran, which is maintaining a hard line going into the vote,
refuses to halt its nuclear work, the Security Council can start
discussing economic and political sanctions.
The United States and its allies believe Iran is seeking to
build a nuclear bomb. Iran insists its programme is for peaceful
purposes.
The US ambassador to the UN John Bolton has said that if Iran
does not comply by the end of August then his country will
"forcefully" press for sanctions.
Russia and China, which strongly opposed any talk of sanctions
in the current resolution, have not yet indicated how they see
the next phase of the dispute with Tehran.
"I think the Iranians are cornered," US Undersecretary of State
Nicholas Burns said Sunday.
"What they specifically thought was that they could divide China
and Russia, on the one hand, from the United States and Europe
on the other, and that's not happened," he said.
Burns said he believed that Iran had been "surprised" by Russia
and China agreeing to the resolution. "This is going to be a
significant blow to them," he said on Fox News television.
Asked what type of sanctions Iran could face, Burns said:
"Obviously, we're going to have to focus on the nuclear industry
and try to cut off dual-use exports, exports of technologies
that can help them further their enrichment and reprocessing
activities.
"We certainly would like to inhibit the ability of Iranians to
travel, Iranian government officials, or for people to profit
from our scientific and technological expertise," he added.
Iran threatened Sunday to reject an offer of international
economic and political incentives to stop its uranium enrichment
if the Security Council passes the resolution.
Iranian Foreign ministry spokesman Hamid Reza Asefi said Tehran
could "revise" its policies -- implicitly warning that future
access for UN inspectors could end -- and that the proposed UN
resolution would "worsen the crisis in the region".
"If tomorrow they pass a resolution against Iran, the package
will not be on the agenda any more," he said of the
international incentives.
Iranian leaders have already warned they could halt cooperation
with inspectors from the UN's International Atomic Energy Agency
" /> International Atomic Energy Agency(IAEA) and even quit the
nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
Britain, China, France, Russia and the United States -- the five
permanent members of the Security Council -- and Germany drew up
the draft resolution during weeks of painstaking talks.
Russia's UN ambassador, Vitaly Churkin, has stressed the lack of
a threat of sanctions in the resolution which he called "an
invitation to dialogue" with Iran.
But he also acknowledged that if Iran did not respond, the
Security Council would then consider "measures of pressure, like
sanctions" under Article 41 of Chapter Seven of the UN Charter.
Article 41 would not allow the use of force.
The draft resolution calls on Iran to follow IAEA directives
"without further delay".
If passed, it would call on the IAEA director Mohammed ElBaradei
to give a report on whether Iran has complied by August 31.
While warning of further measures, the resolution "underlines
that further decisions will be required should such additional
measures be necessary," meaning that a new UN Security Council
resolution would have to be passed to get sanctions.
Copyright © 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The
*****************************************************************
10 IRNA: Defense minister: Nuclear disarmament best way to promote regional peace
Tehran, July 31, IRNA
Iran-Security-Disarmament
Defense Minister Mostafa Mohammad Najjar said here Monday that
nuclear disarmament is the best option for promotion of security
and sustainable peace in the region.
He made the remark at a meeting with the Ministry of Defense
officials in charge of foreign relations affairs, while
referring to the Zionist regime's crimes in Qana, where the
lives of Lebanese and Palestinian people were taken by various
unusual weapons.
The minister said that the Zionist regime's all-out air, marine
and ground war not only targets Lebanon's Hizbollah as well as
the Palestinian and Lebanese people's resistance, but it is a
war against international peace and security.
He said that lack of practical unity in the world of Islam in
facing the aggression on Islamic states is one of the main
causes for such crimes on part of Islam's enemies.
"Consensus, understanding, practical measures and common
approach of the Islamic states to such bitter events will be
effective in preventing them," he added.
Turning to Zionists attack on civilians and destruction of
residential areas and economic infrastructures in Lebanon and
Palestine as the clear signs of war crime, he said that the
heads of Zionist regime should stand trial as war criminals and
be punished.
"The war criminals of the Zionist regime should expect facing a
destiny worse than that of Hitler and Saddam," he added.
Underlining that the resistance of Lebanese and Palestinian
people against the Zionist regime and the US has made their
strategic goals fail, he said, "The courageous people of Lebanon
and Palestine as well as Hizbollah's resistance once more showed
that reliance on any type of weapons, even nuclear, gets them
nowhere in confronting the will of free and independent nations."
Najjar said that the US insistence on materializing the said
Middle East peace plan mainly has to do with its intended full
hegemony in the region, to be followed by its hegemony over the
entire world.
"The administrators of the US and the Zionist regime, whose
policy is principally based on militarism, coup d'etat,
occupation, killing and plundering the world nations, are not in
line with eace, tranquility, democracy and human rights.
"Besides, to ensure Israel's hegemony over the Islamic and Arab
Middle East they consider any crime as legitimate," said the
minister.
*****************************************************************
11 AFP: Iran must suspend nuclear program or face international isolation - US
Mon Jul 31, 2:34 PM ET
WASHINGTON (AFP) - Iran " /> Iranfaces international isolation
and the possibility of punishing sanctions if it fails to heed a
UN Security Council resolution calling for a suspension of its
controversial nuclear program, Washington said.
State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said the resolution,
which passed 14 to 1, is meant to compel Tehran back to the
negotiating table.
The council gave Tehran an August 31 deadline to comply. If it
does not, Iran will head "down the road of further isolation,"
McCormack told reporters at a briefing.
"The international community has offered them a pathway ... so
that we can have negotiations," said McCormack.
"They don't have anywhere to hide. They don't have any
protectors," he said.
"It is in their interest, it is in the interest of the
international community for them to comply."
Resolution 1696, adopted by the Security Council Monday,
expressed "serious concern" over Iran's refusal to comply with
International Atomic Energy Agency " /> International Atomic
Energy Agency(IAEA) orders to halt uranium enrichment and other
work that could lead to developing a nuclear bomb.
But the text of the resolution stopped short of an immediate
threat of sanctions, which have been opposed by Russia and China,
and said punitive action would have to be the subject of further
discussions.
Copyright © 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The
*****************************************************************
12 IRNA: Chinese envoy: Negotiation only solution to Iran's N-case -
, New York, Aug 1, IRNA
--
Chinese Deputy UN Ambassador Lio Jen Min in a Security Council
meeting on Monday, which adopted resolution 1696 against Iran's
nuclear program, said that negotiation and dialogue are the only
solution to Iran's nuclear dossier and the talk must begin
promptly.
He said, "Lack of confidence among related groups to Iran's
nuclear program is the main problem."
Lio by referring to the principal and main role of the
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), urged Iran and other
countries to show self-restraint.
He added, "The resolution is for strengthening the role of IAEA
and Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and support of IAEA director
general."
Lio expressed sorrow that Iran did not respond positively to
the EU proposal package and said if Iran declares its positive
answer, there would not be any other action in the UN Security
Council.
*****************************************************************
13 AFP: US to tighten noose on North Korean missile technology -
Mon Jul 31, 6:25 AM ET
MANILA (AFP) - The United States will move to tighten the screws
on North Korea " /> North Korea's acquisition of funds and
technology for manufacturing nuclear weapons and missiles.
US Assistant Secretary of State Christopher Hill ruled out a
military response by Washington over Pyongyang's continued
refusal to freeze its nuclear weapons program and its snubbing of
multilateral talks to end the crisis.
But among other measures, Washington will see to it that North
Korea would not be able to counterfeit American currency and get
its hands on new missile technology, he said Monday.
"We're going to do everything we can do to make it difficult for
the North Koreans to do that," Hill said during a university
forum in Manila.
"We are also going to do everything we can do to make it
difficult for them to produce these weapons," he said.
Hill said Washington was prepared to work closely with China in
trying to woo the Stalinist North back to the negotiating table.
"We don't want to consider this as a bilateral issue. We are
going to do this multilaterally," Hill stressed.
"We want to solve this through diplomatic means," he said.
"As we go forward from here, we can work closely with the
Chinese government to bring the North Koreans" back to the
negotiating table, Hill said.
In regional security talks in Kuala Lumpur on Friday, US
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice
" /> Condoleezza Riceurged North Korea to rejoin six-nation
negotiations on its nuclear programme. She said the United
States was ready "at any time, at any place and without any
conditions" to meet it under the six-nation talks framework that
began three years ago.
But the North, which left the talks in November and caused
outrage earlier this month when it test-fired seven missiles,
said it would not return until US financial sanctions against it
were dropped.
It said it was also considering withdrawing from the Association
of Southeast Asian Nations Regional Forum, one of the few
diplomatic gatherings it attends.
Copyright © 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The
*****************************************************************
14 [NYTr] Docs Reveal Nixon Admin Considered Nukes Against North
Date: Tue, 1 Aug 2006 02:03:31 -0400 (EDT)
X-Sender-Host-Name: olm.blythe-systems.com
X-Spam-Class: HAM-VERY-WHITELIST
Via NY Transfer News Collective * All the News that Doesn't Fit
National Security Archive - Jul 31, 2006
http://www.nsarchive.org
National Security Archive Update, July 31, 2006
Nixon White House Considered Nuclear Options Against North Vietnam,
Declassified Documents Reveal
New Evidence Adds Historical Context to Current Debate about Nuclear
Attack on Iran Nuke Sites
For more information contact:
William Burr - 202/994-7000
Jeffrey Kimball - 513/529-5121
Washington, DC, 31 July 2006 - The Bush White House's reported
interest in using nuclear weapons against Iran's nuclear energy
complex is but the most recent example of how American officials
since the administration of Harry S. Truman have given serious
thought to employing such weapons in crisis situations. Details
about one of these episodes were revealed today in a set of formerly
top secret documents published by the National Security Archive
that appear to confirm rumors and secondhand reports that President
Richard M. Nixon and his national security adviser, Henry A.
Kissinger, discussed the option of using tactical nuclear weapons
against North Vietnam as part of preparations for operation "Duck
Hook," which was scheduled to be launched against North Vietnam in
early November 1969.
According to a memorandum from Kissinger aides Anthony Lake and
Roger Morris to Pentagon military planner Captain Rembrandt Robinson,
the president would need to decide in advance how far he would be
willing to go; that is, whether the president would be willing to
use tactical nuclear weapons. This issue, staffers pointed out,
could not be decided "in the midst of the exercise." Among the
"Important Questions" mentioned in another planning document Kissinger
probably forwarded to or discussed with Nixon was this one: "Should
we be prepared to use nuclear weapons?"
Nixon ultimately decided against going ahead with the Duck Hook
attack plans in 1969 and thus, as his predecessors had in prior
situations, tacitly ruled out using nuclear weapons in Vietnam--although
the issue would resurface in 1972. In the end, he decided that the
costs of using nuclear weapons were higher than any conceivable
political or military benefit.
Released late last year by the U.S. National Archives, these documents
raise significant questions about White House military planning
against North Vietnam. Why did Lake and Morris bring up the question
of using tactical nuclear weapons? To what extent were they responding
to instructions by Kissinger to raise the matter? Did Kissinger and
Nixon believe that nuclear weapons were potentially efficacious for
use against North Vietnam in the circumstances of 1969? To what
extent did Nixon or Kissinger push for military plans to use nuclear
weapons against North Vietnam? What considerations led Nixon and
Kissinger to abandon the concept of nuclear weapons use from their
Vietnam planning?
These documents, along with an essay by Archive senior analyst Dr.
William Burr and Dr. Jeffrey Kimball of Miami University, were
published today on the Archive's Web site.
http://www.nsarchive.org
THE NATIONAL SECURITY ARCHIVE is an independent non-governmental
research institute and library located at The George Washington
University in Washington, D.C. The Archive collects and publishes
declassified documents acquired through the Freedom of Information
Act (FOIA). A tax-exempt public charity, the Archive receives no
U.S. government funding; its budget is supported by publication
royalties and donations from foundations and individuals.
*
================================================================
.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
================================================================
*****************************************************************
15 Detroit News: 'Manhattan' energy project yet another pork scheme -
07/31/06 -
[Detnews.com]
Dems want more bureaucracy, not real solutions
It's good to see that congressional Democrats are concerned
about energy and gas prices, but if they really want to provide
some relief for consumers, they'll start supporting the domestic
solutions that actually will make a difference.
This week could be an especially active one for pandering. Gas
prices in Michigan have gone as high as $3.15 a gallon and
temperatures in the 90s mean electricity bills will remain high
to keep the air conditioners humming. It's the perfect setup for
the election, but voters shouldn't be fooled.
Of particular interest is a federal proposal made public on
Tuesday that would, among other things, devote $5 billion over
10 years to establish a "New Manhattan Center for High
Efficiency Vehicles" for developing automotive technologies.
But unlike the Manhattan Project, for which the Democratic plan
is named, automotive research and development already is strong,
and it appropriately is guided by what consumers want, not
government directives. Also, there was no market or private
investment for building the atomic bomb, so federal funds were
warranted.
The plan would establish a national biofuels infrastructure and
delivery system; promote mass transit; create a national energy
security commission and require that federal government vehicle
fleets be powered by alternative fuels. In short, the money will
pay for yet another expansion of the federal bureaucracy to
attack a problem the federal government is unequipped to solve.
Prices at the pump are certainly affecting American families,
though not as severely as politicians would have us think.
Consumption of gasoline is up nearly 2 percent from this time
last year and when adjusted for inflation, gasoline prices are
comparable with those paid in 1981.
Attainable energy independence solutions have been offered
repeatedly, but Democrats most often vote against them.
Most recently, Democrats killed proposals to drill for known oil
reserves in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. They've also
blocked expanded drilling in the Gulf of Mexico and off the
coasts.
The U.S. Senate last week agreed to reopen debate on a proposal
to open 8.3 million acres of the Gulf to energy exploration. The
measure must be approved, along with a companion proposal to
allow drilling 50 miles off the coasts.
Nuclear power also must be considered as a viable alternative
energy option and the siting of plants expedited.
Environmentalists abhor the idea, but they also reject most
other solutions that don't rely 100 percent on conservation.
Nuclear power is the surest way to ease our dependence on
foreign-oil and has proven to be safe.
It would allow the national economy to keep growing, without
increasing the dependence on foreign oil. But Democrats, led by
Sen. Harry Reid of Nevada, have blocked a proposal to develop a
nuclear waste dump in Yucca Mountain in Reid's home state.
Without a safe place to store expended fuel rods, the potential
for nuclear power is limited.
Addressing these issues might actually result in expanding
America's energy options faster than the creation of committees
and task forces and multibillion-dollar federal agencies.
© Copyright 2006 The Detroit News. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
16 Interfax: Russia eliminates over 1,000 nuclear weapon carriers under SORT
Updated: Aug 1 2006 9:56AM (MSK)
Jul 31 2006 2:32PM
MOSCOW. July 31 (Interfax) - Russia has eliminated over 1,000
nuclear weapon delivery vehicles under the Strategic Offensive
Reductions Treaty (SORT), head of the Russian Defense Ministry's
department for control over the fulfillment of treaties Lt. Gen.
Nikolai Artyukhin told a Monday briefing in Moscow.
"We strictly comply with our SORT commitments and maintain and
develop our nuclear forces correspondingly. Russia has destroyed
over 1,000 nuclear weapon carriers throughout the period of the
treaty's validity," he said.
© 1991-2006 Interfax
All rights reserved
*****************************************************************
17 Interfax: Russia has 4,279 nuclear warheads - Defense Ministry
Đóńńęŕ˙ âĺđńč˙ Interfax.com Site map
Jul 31 2006 1:49PM
MOSCOW. July 31 (Interfax) - Russia had 927 strategic offensive
weapon carriers and 4,279 nuclear warheads, as the United States
had 1,225 and 5,966 correspondingly, as of January 1, 2006, the
Russian Defense Ministry's Lt. Gen. Nikolai Artyukhin said.
"The information was received under the Strategic Offensive
Reductions Treaty (SORT), which is a working instrument in the
reduction of strategic offensive weapons," he told a Monday
briefing in Moscow.
© 1991-2006 Interfax
All rights reserved
*****************************************************************
18 RIA Novosti: No new initiatives on arms control - Russia's defense minister
31/ 07/ 2006
KALININGRAD, July 31 (RIA Novosti) - Neither Russia nor the
United States have new proposals on controls over strategic
offensive weapons, the Russian defense minister said Monday.
"During the G8 summit in St. Petersburg and bilateral
Russian-U.S. consultations, the leaders of the two countries
instructed respective foreign and defense ministers to study the
possibility of future agreements in the sphere of control over
strategic weapons," Sergei Ivanov told a news conference in
Kaliningrad, Russia's exclave in the Baltic region.
"No decisions have been made so far," he said.
Speaking on the occasion of the 15th anniversary of the START-I
treaty, the minister said Russia would fulfill all obligations
under the treaty until it expires in 2009.
President Vladimir Putin proposed in late June that talks be
opened with Washington on replacing START-I, which was signed at
the end of the Soviet era, with a new arms deal.
The treaty was followed by START-II, which banned the use of
multiple re-entry vehicles but never entered into force and was
later bypassed by the Strategic Offensive Reductions Treaty,
signed on May 24, 2002 by Vladimir Putin and George W. Bush in
Moscow.
SORT, which expires on December 31, 2012, limited both
countries' nuclear arsenal to 1,700-2,200 warheads each. The
treaty has been criticized for a lack of verification provisions
and the possibility of re-deploying stored warheads.
According to latest inspection reports, Russia possesses 927
nuclear delivery vehicles and 4,279 nuclear warheads for
strategic offensive weapons, while the United States owns
1,255and 5,966 respectively.
© 2005 RIA Novosti
*****************************************************************
19 RIA Novosti: Russia's arsenal has 927 nuclear delivery systems - ministry-1
31/ 07/ 2006
MOSCOW, July 31 (RIA Novosti) - Russia possesses 927 nuclear
weapons delivery systems, a senior defense official said Monday.
"As of January 1, Russia owned 927 nuclear delivery vehicles
and 4,279 nuclear warheads for strategic offensive weapons,
while the United States owns 1,255and 5,966 respectively," said
Nikolai Artyukhin, head of the Defense Ministry's department for
contract compliance control.
Under the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty signed in 1991 by the
United States and the then-Soviet Union, the countries were
obliged to reduce their numbers of nuclear warheads from about
10,000 to 6,000 each by Dec. 5, 2001. The treaty also required
each country to reduce the number of its ballistic missiles and
strategic bombers to 1,600.
Artyukhin said Russia had conducted 356 inspections in the
United States and the U.S. had made 509 checks, including 437 in
Russia, since the treaty came into effect in 1994.
Besides Russia and the U.S., also signatory to the treaty, which
expires in 2009, are Kazakhstan, Ukraine and Belarus, where
nuclear weapons and their delivery vehicles were based during
Soviet times.
Artyukhin said Russia had scrapped over 1,000 nuclear delivery
vehicles since the document came into force.
"Russia rigorously complies with its commitments under START-I
and accordingly conducts its policy in the field of nuclear
weapons," the official said.
© 2005 RIA Novosti
*****************************************************************
20 Strong firepower for you to use against nuclear power's misled
Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2006 15:12:50 -0700
X-Nohoney: yes white-hard - relay H=adsl-63-203-231-61.dsl.snfc21.pacbell.net (borg.energy-net.org) [63.203.231.61]
X-Sender-Host-Address: 63.203.231.61
X-Sender-Host-Name: adsl-63-203-231-61.dsl.snfc21.pacbell.net
X-Spam-Class: HAM-VERY-WHITELIST
July 27th, 2006
Dear Readers,
Enclosed is an excellent letter from Carrie Dickerson, with one significant
correction (AS NOTED IN CAPS). Carrie is one of the most amazing (and
oldest, at 90+ years) activists I know, and the author of Aunt Carrie's War
Against BLACK FOX Nuclear Power Plant -- a war she won, by the way -- and
practically single-handed, so don't think you can't -- but one that needs
to be won again and again, all around the world. People are making money
off your child's deformities, and their child's deformities, and your
cancers, and your descendent's cancers. That is the problem with nuclear
power.
Also, an article about the recent G8 Conference and what you WEREN'T
TOLD. This is the biggest, darkest secret that everyone needs to know --
the Russians are coming with mobile Chernobyls for you! Patriots of the
Earth, Unite! Because those who would pollute this earth until it is a
LIVING HELL for those who come later, will be able to do so very easily if
we do not stop them (if I sound desperate, well, believe me, you are, too).
Next is a letter to a reporter for the Philadelphia Inquirer, about the
Limerick (PA) nuclear power plant's plan to poison the place with dry
casks. David Lochbaum won't appreciate my comments, but I don't appreciate
his in the article, either! (This letter includes ant attachment which has
been sent to this list previously.)
Lastly is a suggestion for what to do with my tritium article from earlier
this year. This article is especially relevant because the Lawrence
Livermore Laboratories (CA) is trying to take a "small" step towards
building a "FUSION" reactor (so "small" they are already more than a
billion dollars over budget, and they've hardly done anything!). This
fusion reactor, if they can get it to work, will combine tritium and
deuterium (two "heavy" isotopes of hydrogen) and thus release energy like
the sun does. But A) Where will they get the tritium? And B) How can they
possibly think they can contain or convert all the tritium? They
can't. Fusion reactors are perfectly workable -- in the sun and in theory
on Earth. But real experience with fission reactors has proven that the
theory and the practice will NOT be the same -- and, in fact, I believe it
is a physical impossibility for fusion reactors to operate cleanly. It
will not happen, ever. Alas.
NOTE: A couple of months ago, I created an educational poster about
IONIZING RADIATION which I sent two copies each to about 100 activists and
activist organizations around the United States. I've heard back from many
of you -- THANKS for the kind words, all! Over the next month I will try
to mail out another couple of hundred copies, including around the world,
to other activists I know, so if you've gotten something from me before
(for example, my PROTECTING CALIFORNIA booklet last year), please be
patient (unless you have an urgent need) and it will probably arrive in the
next six weeks or so. If you want some now, or don't think you're on my
physical mailing list, please send me your request! The poster was created
for a museum in Barcelona, Spain, which is currently holding a six-month
Chernobyl exhibit. I am delighted and honored to have a copy hanging in
the museum (CCCB)! The poster is a colorized, 24 inch by 36 inch version
of a famous poster from the 70s, with a few small technical changes. I'm
sorry to say that I apparently neglected to mark all of the mailing tubes
as "MEDIA MAIL" (a special postal rate which can be used for educational
material) and so some of them may have arrived incorrectly marked "POSTAGE
DUE." If yours did, please let me know and I'll refund the additional
postage you had to pay for the posters to arrive (although actually, you
shouldn't have had to pay it, as they were certainly NOT marked "First
Class," but who knew?) Anyway, as long as I have posters, there is no
charge for them. None. And I've got about 700 of them left, although
about 400 of them were slightly damaged when shipped to me from the printer.
Sincerely,
"Ace" Hoffman
Carlsbad, CA
--------------------------------------------------------------------
There once was a nuke plant named Limerick
Which made all the good locals very sick
It hasn't melted down yet
But you can make a safe bet
Some day 500 miles downwind they'll curse Limerick!
--------------------------------------------------------------------
====================================================
Carrie Dickerson letter about nuclear power:
====================================================
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2006 19:42:06 EDT
Subject: Carrie Dickerson says: Nuclear Not Wanted (and dangerous)
From: Thinkcivic@aol.com
BG: The excellent letter below is a "photo", according to my computer. I
had a terrible time copying and pasting it. I couldn't copy it into Word
Perfect. I couldn't print it! Beware. [NOTE: ACE HAS TYPED IT IN; IT'S
NOW IN TEXT FORM -- ACE]
Apologies for duplicates. (in haste)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
A number of recent articles have downplayed the dangers of nuclear
power. This is clearly the beginning of a push to force nuclear power
plants on us all.
During a sojourn in the hospital, Carrie Dickerson was dismayed to discover
how many of the staff were totally ignorant or misinformed about this
issue. Please read Carrie's letter to the Claremore Progress and pass it
on to anyone too young to remember what's wrong with nuclear power. Ask
them to send it on too, please.
Carrie Dickerson's July 21, 2006 letter to the editor of the Claremore Progress
Date: 7/27/06 10:44:46 AM Pacific Daylight Time
From: plemon@fugue.com
Editor,
In her book, Nuclear Madness, Dr. Helen Caldicott says, "The fuel cycle,
including uranium mining, milling, enrichment, and fuel fabrication,
building the nuclear power reactors, the transportation and storage of
radioactive waste and decommissioning of old reactors, all create excessive
amounts of carbon dioxide, the global warming pollutant."
According to Washington based Nuclear Information and Resource Service
(NIRS), "nuclear power plants are built to leak. They cannot operate
without regular, deliberate releases of radioactive liquids, gases and
particles (That cause cancer, leukemia and other untold health effects)
into the environment during their routine, everyday operations. It does
not take an accident."
"Nuclear power is now by far the most expensive form of electricity," says
Dr. Caldicott. On July 29, 2005, Congress approved a subsidy of $13
Billion for nuclear power resuscitation. All across the 60 years of the
Nuclear Age, huge subsidies of taxpayers' money have been allocated to the
nuclear industry, including the nuclear fuel cycle. The subsidies should
be included in the cost.
Again, I quote NIRS, "The Yucca Mountain site, approved as a national
repository for used nuclear fuel, is known to be geologically unsuitable
and seismically unstable. It is in the highest risk category for
earthquakes, which have fractured the rock of the mountain, creating
pathways for radioactivity to percolate to the groundwater below - a source
of water for drinking and irrigation.
"Moving tens of thousands of shipments of high-level wastes through 45
states and Washington, DC, for more than 30 years will not solve the
problem. There would be about as much waste stored on site after Yucca
Mountain is full as there is at those plants today." (Radioactive wastes
have long half-lives -- some as long as 4.5 Billion years!)
We should stop generating more nuclear waste until, if ever, a safe
disposal solution can be found. [NOTE: THIS IS A TECHNICAL IMPOSSIBILITY
AS MUCH AS RUNNING A NUKE WITHOUT DELIBERATE RELEASES IS. THE PLANTS MUST
ALL BE SHUT DOWN. -- ACE]
I am a member of a number of environmental organizations. We staunchly
oppose nuclear power. There are numerous ways to create ample amounts of
safe energy, without compromising all life.
Carrie Dickerson, Claremore, OK
===============================================
G8 Conference was about nukes -- but not the ones you think they were
talking about:
===============================================
NOTE: I hope Jack's wrong that "we deserve to be damned" but he probably
knows better than I do, having designed nuclear power plants in his
younger, more foolish years. -- ACE
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To: Jacksha1@aol.com
From: Russell 'Ace' Hoffman
Wow -- this absolutely is sickening. What a stupid species we must be...
At 05:14 PM 7/22/2006 -0400, Jacksha1@aol.comwrote:
>We are doomed!
>
>The decision to go with Nuclear Power is now being placed in the hands,
>and heads of the most dishonest, corrupt, mean, disgusting bastards that
>ever been placed on this planet, politicians, and businessmen, just like
>Jack Welch.
>
>My God what have we done to ourselves?
>
>We hold up, as heroes, those people whose only contribution in life is
>that they have made a lot of money, or lied their way into public office.
>
>We deserve to be damned!
>
>John Shannon
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>By Rob Edwards Environment Editor
>
>
>"World leaders are planning a massive expansion of nuclear power in their
>own countries and across the developing world, according to documents
>drawn up for the G8 summit and leaked to the Sunday Herald.
>
>An action plan for global energy security to be agreed in St Petersburg
>next weekend envisages a network of nuclear fuel plants in G8 countries
>combined with the widespread sale of reactors to developing countries as
>long as they promise not to use them for makingg nuclear bombs.
>
>G8 leaders also want to resurrect fast breeder reactors, which are highly
>controversial because they breed plutonium, a nuclear explosive. It was
>this type of reactor that was pioneered, and abandoned, at Dounreay on the
>north coast of Scotland.
>
>Environmentalists accuse leaders of double standards and dangerous
>hypocrisy. But the G8's nuclear plans are likely to be backed by Prime
>Minister Tony Blair, whose own much-heralded energy review favouring new
>nuclear stations in the UK is due to be launched this week.
>
>The G8 summit is due to take place in St Petersburg between July 15 and
>17, just over a year
>
>after the leaders of the world's eight most powerful countries met at
>Gleneagles in Scotland. This time it will be led by Russian president
>Vladimir Putin, who has put global energy security at the top of the agenda.
>
>Confidential drafts of the energy plan of action drawn up by the sherpas,
>the senior G8 officials who guide prime ministers and presidents towards
>the summit, have been passed to the Sunday Herald.
>
>One of the plan's main aims is to spread nuclear power stations around the
>globe.
>
>The latest version of the action plan says: Those of us who have plans
>relating to the use and/or expansion of nuclear energy believe that its
>development will promote prosperity and global energy security, while
>simultaneously offering a positive contribution to the climate change
>challenge.
>
>Improving the economic com petitiveness of nuclear power will “benefit
>all nations, the plan argues. But nuclear expansion has to be based, it
>says, on a robust regime for assuring nuclear non-proliferation and a
>reliable safety and security system for nuclear materials and facilities.
>
>The idea is to keep the more sensitive nuclear facilities that can be
>easily diverted for making bombs within the G8. Other countries would not
>be allowed to enrich uranium fuel, or to reprocess spent fuel to extract
>plutonium.
>
>They will be permitted to run reactors to generate electricity but will
>have to buy fuel enrichment and reprocessing services from G8 countries.
>Participation of developing countries in a shared nuclear energy system
>through developing the network of international centres providing nuclear
>fuel services could be a viable option for reducing their energy poverty
>and bridging the energy gap, the plan says.
>
>At the same time, G8 leaders are proposing to bring back fast breeder
>reactors, which were scrapped in Germany, France and the UK in the 1990s
>because they were too expensive. They are designed to create and burn
>plutonium and are much less reliant on imports of uranium.
>
>The leaked action plan says: “A significant step in promotion of self-
>sustainable nuclear power would be attained through the development of
>innovative nuclear power systems based on closed nuclear fuel cycles with
>fast neutron reactors.
>
>This is a dramatic change, since fast reactors have been off the political
>agenda in Western countries for at least a decade. And it will run into
>fierce opposition because of the risks it poses for international efforts
>to control the spread of nuclear weapons.
>
>We've come to expect double standards and dangerous hypocrisy from the G8
>but this year they are set to surpass themselves, said Shaun Burnie of
>Greenpeace International.
>
>On the one hand we have the endorsement and promotion of the most
>dangerous nuclear technology ever conceived plutonium fast bbreeder
>reactors and reprocessing while at the same time condemning the nuclear
>proliferation threat from Iran and North Korea.
>
>WWF Scotland director Dr Richard Dixon added: Incredibly, this rich boys'
>club seems on course to peddle reactors to the Earth's poorer nations, at
>the same time as they are warning us how terribly dangerous the world is.
>
>Among the G8 countries, only Italy and Germany are sceptical of the
>nuclear future. Russia, the US, Japan, Canada, France and the UK are all
>enthusiasts and see great potential for increasing nuclear business.
>
>Two versions of the G8 global energy security plan of action have been
>leaked, one dated March 6 and the other May 12. On nuclear energy their
>wording is similar in substance and there are no sections in brackets,
>suggesting the text is not in dispute.
>
>The drive for nuclear power is being led by Putin, who is keen to maximise
>Russia's technology expertise (AND URGE TO MAKE MONEY WITH AN UTTER LACK
>OF CONCERN FOR THE ENVIRONMENT, HUMAN RIGHTS, ETC. - ACE). He has a plan
>for mass producing reactors, installing them on barges and selling them
>around the world as “floating nuclear power plants.
>
>
>
>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://mail.energyjustice.net/mailman/listinfo/nukenet_energyjustice.net
===============================================
Letter to Sandy Bauers, Philadelphia Inquirer:
===============================================
To: "Sandy Bauers"
Subject: Re: Dry Cask Storage Versus Wet Pool Storage Versus Shutting the
Reactors Down (etc.)
July 27th, 2006
Dear Sandy Bauers,
Your July 23rd, 2006 article on Limerick's plan to start using dry cask
storage stated that either the NRC or Exelon or both (it's unclear which)
claimed that there are no other options to dry cask storage. That's not
true. Shutting the plant down is a reasonable option, the one that should
be taken.
I have included, below, several items related to dry cask storage which I
hope will interest you. I have spoken on the subject at numerous public
hearings, and have interviewed hundreds of scientists on related
matters. I hope you will consider these comments carefully.
I would like to note that some activists call David Lochbaum an "enabler"
because of comments such as those published in your article. To contend
that dry casks are safer than spent fuel pools is foolhardy at best, but at
any rate, it is such "managing the risk" comments that hide the truth --
you are NOT choosing a safer alternative to spent fuel pool storage at all,
because you (Penna) are choosing BOTH. For the terrorists, that's just peachy.
Please feel free to contact me any time. Your article was sent to me by my
father, a resident of the Philadelphia area.
Sincerely,
Ace Hoffman
Carlsbad, CA
=============================================================
Letter to Barbara Byron, California Energy Commission:
=============================================================
To: "Barbara Byron"
June 13th, 2006
Dear Ms Byron,
Thank you for your email (shown below in its entirety).
I stand by my comments 100%, including my assessment of your own relevant
technical knowledge, and the idea that you do not consider me a human
being, do not feel my ideas have any relevance in the real world, and that
you have -- diligently -- failed to consider my presentations and comments,
year after year after year, to the extreme danger and detriment of the
citizens of California.
I hope that your letter signifies a change in policy for the State of
California, whom you represent to me on these issues.
Regarding the quote you included in your response, the NAS made numerous
assumptions regarding manners of dispersal which negate their
conclusions. Those assumptions are not reflective of the real world.
The total amount of spent fuel in dry casks versus the total amount in
spent fuel pools is the question one must ask first, which you have skipped
(your NAS quote goes straight to which one is bigger, not asking how many
of each there are, or may be). There are a limited number of spent fuel
pools and nobody expects to build more (unless they build more reactors),
but we can keep building dry casks ad nauseam (pun intended), because they
are much more cost-effective for the utility. A well-built new spent fuel
pool would probably cost BILLIONS of dollars, or close to it.
By the way, spent fuel pools above nuclear reactors, as with most Boiling
Water Reactors, are inherently dangerous, and every one of those reactors
should be shut down immediately and permanently for that reason
alone. California's four Pressurized Water Reactors should be shut down
immediately too, but not because the spent fuel pools are above the
reactors. Rather, one good reason is because the Spent Fuel Pools are NOT
inside the containment domes, and thus NOT protected very well from
airplane strikes (have you checked the thickness of their roofs lately, in
light of the "new" terrorism threats, as well as the STRUCTURAL INTEGRITY
of those buildings after all these years sitting in the rust-inducing
salty, irradiated air?).
Of course, if California's reactors's spent fuel pools or dry casks were
INSIDE the reactor containment dome, I doubt anyone would think it was safe
to also operate the reactor! Well, that works out conveniently, since
there is no reason to operate the reactors, anyway. Certainly not for
electricity, which can be obtained other ways, as your own agency's reports
on increases in energy production in the state over the past five years
have proven incontrovertibly.
Regarding your quote's assertion about how far the contents would spread
and how much damage would be done, the amount of fuel in the release
scenarios in any estimation by the NAS, the NRC, the DOE, or the CEC is
invariably a tiny, tiny fraction of ONE dry cask or ONE spent fuel pool --
say, 0.07% or less -- thus, the quote's "total inventory" point is
irrelevant and obfuscating. To talk about a release of several tons of
fission products from a dry cask AS IF that is a scenario the NAS has
actually considered is preposterous. Releases of such magnitude are
considered either IMPOSSIBLE, or so unlikely as to make it unnecessary to
calculate their consequences.
Such arrogance sank the Titanic and doomed two space shuttles, so far.
The cut-off point for Federal Nuclear Government Work is generally when
"they" think something has a likelihood of less than one in one million,
sometimes one in ten million. But who decides what those Las Vegas odds
are? Pro-nuclear, biased "scientists" with plenty of "wriggle room" for
"fudge factors," that's who! Ever hear of the book How to Lie With
Statistics? It's the bible of the nuclear industry.
Your quote -- you -- speak of TOTAL INVENTORIES while, mathematically, only
acknowledging FRACTIONAL RELEASES.
Furthermore, the damage done by radionuclides in minute quantities -- after
a dispersal has become part of the "global background radiation burden" --
is a matter of serious and significant debate. Or to put it bluntly, that
same NAS doesn't keep up to date with the current literature -- the
scientific theories and statistical data -- and nor does the C.E.C., let
alone the "Health Physics" community. Low level radiation is far more
hazardous than the pro-nuclear industry assumes. California leads the way
on understanding the hazards of second-hand ("low-level") cigarette
smoke. We should be as enlightened about LLR.
And as to the fission product inventories specifically, there are hundreds
of isotopes of the full spectrum of elements in the Periodic Table in each
spent fuel rod, and some of them are being released constantly from the
fuel rods, and the public needs to be thoroughly and totally protected from
these "irradiations" -- and told about them. Any place where dry casks are
stored, there cannot be people. So when you talk about spreading them out,
you are talking about stealing hundreds, then thousands, then tens of
thousands of acres from Californians.
And that's without an accident!
Some of the radioactive spent fuel byproducts are radioactive for mere
days, which of course means if they get out they are an immediate
concern. Others last for thousands of years and will seep around the
planet over time even if they don't disperse very far in the original accident.
Of course, all the NAS scenarios you religiously believe in assume a
miraculous cleanup can occur, even though real-life experience with
radioactive spills SELDOM results in a successful COLLECTION of the
waste: Most of the time, the waste is DISPERSED and this is considered the
same as a true CLEAN-UP. But due to the health hazard at ATOMIC LEVELS
from nuclear fission products, dispersal only makes identification of
CULPRITS difficult if not impossible. It spreads the deaths out over time
and distance, but IT DOES NOT SAVE LIVES.
In any dry cask, a significant percentage of the original fuel load
(Uranium-235) hasn't yet been split (that's why some people want to
reprocess the stuff), and the reactions still continue -- hence all that
decay heat, which, while several orders of magnitude less than the moment
the fuel is removed from the reactor, is still a significant chemical and
physical process -- including that it is destroying (irradiating) the
zirconium cladding you mentioned, as well as the steel and concrete which
the dry cask containers are built out of. They can't last forever, and
they won't, but we have no backup plan in place for if they start failing
earlier than your esteemed scientists -- who have been wrong so many times
before -- expect. (Steam Generators were supposed to last, too.)
Fission products continue to be created constantly by the spent fuel,
albeit at a lower rate (from about three to six orders of magnitude lower)
than when the fuel was in the reactor. Some of the radioactive isotopes
with especially long half-lives are actually still increasing and will be
for, perhaps (depending on the exact mix of any particular dry cask),
centuries or even millennia to come.
You cannot determine the health hazard of a radioactive substance from its
half-life alone. You must also determine how it interacts with the
environment and with the human body, and how ITS "radioactive daughter
products" (if any) react, and THEIR daughter products, and so on. Of
course, the NAS knows it all, I am to assume from your letter! Despite
that fact that it was 50 years AFTER the dawn of the nuclear age that the
scientific community actually agreed that there is no minimum threshold, no
safe dose, of radiation! And even that "agreement" has not been fully
accepted, and the exact details of the various mechanisms for damage are
still largely unknown, but hey, that's science, isn't it? Imprecise.
It is your legal responsibility to assume the worst, in all cases where
legitimate scientific ambiguity exists. The nuclear industry has always
assumed that things would work out in their favor, and hasn't been right
once yet.
Let me remind you that terrorism with nuclear weapons is not out of the
question. Not impossible. Not even "unlikely." In fact, it's probably
inevitable sooner or later that a nuclear weapon will be used against a
civilian target. That could obliterate all your "little" dry casks -- the
whole farm around Diablo Canyon or San Onofre. Even a "tiny" nuclear
blast could open them all. The NAS didn't happen to mention that, did they?
One tsunami could ALSO destroy the whole farm, too. Have you forgotten
Bande Ache?
Please see my addition comments immediately below.
Sincerely,
Ace Hoffman
Carlsbad, CA
==========================================================
Nuclear Terrorism against dry casks, nuclear power excursions, and related
issues:
==========================================================
Subject: How Cheney and friends use the complexities of nuclear power to
pocket billions of dollars and destroy the planet
May, 2006
It's taken more than 30 years, and well over 3,000 interviews (hundreds in
person, thousands over the phone, and thousands more by email), but here's
what I've learned:
Nuclear power is really, really complicated.
Duh? Duh, you say? Are you a nuclear engineer? If so, what portion of
the whole puzzle did YOU study? I'll find an expert who's just as good.
And if not, then please just step aside for the moment and watch the
Biggies battle it out. Watch the pro-nuke "experts" dance from one reason
to another to prove their point. That is, watch them give up on one reason
we simply MUST have nukes only to argue something different, that you had
already argued with them before. This is what they do. Circular
arguments, with many steps (remember, nukes are complicated, right?).
I did a couple of animation of nuclear power plants last year. They are
extremely accurate depictions (see URLs, below), and even several
pro-nuclear sources have described them as "excellent" and asked to use
them to describe nuclear power to the public, to university students.
Okay, that doesn't make me a nuclear scientist, but if you find me a
pro-nuclear scientist and give me his arguments, I'll find another
scientist who'se credentials are just as good to go over my answer if I
need to, but I'll answer every one of his arguments. I've done it before
and I'll do it again -- I'll let them argue for 50 pages and dozens of
letters if it takes them that long to circulate around to their previous
arguments (repeat themselves) or, as is MORE LIKELY, they end up arguing
both sides of a coin, which show's they are being merely argumentative,
which is not the same as debate.
For example, most pro-nukers can be induced to argue FOR wind power within
10 pages of "debate" (utter gibberish on their part, mind you). No matter
if they started out saying it couldn't work. Eventually you can always
dance them around to admitting that renewables COULD work, if only.
If only this, if only that. If only they weren't so ugly. If only they
didn't kill birds. If only they didn't put a lake where a canyon or a
flood plain used to be. If only, if only, if only.
Then, when you turn the conversation to the specific, unique, and
INTRACTABLE problems of nuclear power and say, "these are so much more
serious than ANY of the arguments against renewable energy," the cycle
starts to repeat itself, as they argue that wind power could never replace
nuclear power because of this, and that, and so on. It's all hogwash.
The latest voodoo reason to support nuclear power is fear of global
warming. Not that global warming isn't a problem -- it's just that nuclear
isn't the solution.
It would take every issue of every week of this newsletter to describe all
the problems nuclear power presents, but in this guest editorial, I'd like
to concentrate on some immediate problems California (and many other states
and countries around the world) are facing.
First and foremost is the continued accumulation of ever-increasing
mountains of nuclear waste -- so called "High Level Radioactive
Waste," which is also known as "Spent Fuel," a term the nuclear industry
likes, because it sounds so harmless. Well, it isn't harmless and worse,
it cannot be safely contained for long periods with defying the laws of
physics, which say that a radioactive breakdown is strong enough to break
ANY chemical bond -- and not just any chemical bond, but thousands of them
at once.
By operating nuclear power plants, we are creating enormous problems for
future generations. So-called "experts" STILL, after 50 years of knowing
better, write about the possible creation of containment systems that will
not break down, will not become radioactive themselves, will not fail, no
matter how many years they are required to last.
Other pro-nuke "experts" STILL, after 50 years of knowing better, talk
about "rocketing the waste to the sun." Really, it's not been forgotten,
and I'm talking about by so-called "rocket scientists." REAL "rocket
scientists" who obviously are not statisticians, for statistically, after
50 years, we know that that method could not possibly reliably loft all
77,000 tons (or whatever the exact correct value is; one hear's so many
different numbers) of high level radioactive waste out to space. It's
preposterous.
Still other "highly qualified experts" (I don't know WHO does the
qualifying, but they get articles in high places so someone must) think
that dumping the waste in tectonic subduction zones deep in the oceans is
the answer. They're wrong on several counts, and their numbers are few,
but they're out there.
Glass vitrification is another dream, but the construction delays in the
Hanford, Washington nuclear facility to try it might put the lid on the
idea. It was a bad idea to begin with, but so is leaving that waste the
way it currently is stored, in leaky tanks.
Which brings us to San Onofre and Diablo Canyon. They are creating
so-called "High Level Radioactive Waste" at the rate of about a ton every
two days for the four reactors. There is now approximately ten million
pounds of the HLRW stuff and it isn't being rocketed to the sun (thank
goodness) or anything -- it's "just" sitting there.
About five years after it is removed from the reactor, spent fuel can be
removed from a pool where it is stored deep underwater, and placed in "dry
casks." This transfer itself is a very dangerous operation. Every step
-- and every added step -- is dangerous. By not having a long-term
solution, we are adding lots of steps, every one of which carries an added
grave risk.
These dry casks are massive things, but not so massive that a terrorist
cannot break them open. Not so massive that an earthquake, tsunami, or
other natural disaster cannot harm them, although the utility will claim
otherwise -- it's a lie. It's an engineering impossibility at the price /
performance ratio they must work under to do what they claim they are doing
AT A PROFIT. How so? A couple of inches of steel and a few feet of
concrete just aren't enough to guarantee the job.
And if a dry cask catches fire, it could easily be as bad as a meltdown of
the nuclear reactor itself -- perhaps worse. Each dry cask holds about 1/4
of a full reactor's load of fuel, and if they catch fire, they cannot be
put out with water -- it takes flooding them with noble gases, but no one
can get close enough to do it (they won't live long enough to get close, if
they try) and the casks are not being stored in pits where such a thing
would even be possible, AND there is no automated delivery system for such
a calamity, nor are there stores of such chemicals on site.
What does the nuclear industry and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission do
instead?
They assume such a thing simply cannot happen. Really -- that's what they
do. That's the fantasy-land they operate under. Their idea of a
"worst-case scenario" very specifically does NOT include more than perhaps
0.01% percent of the fuel burning or escaping in any way, if that. Zero
Point Zero One Percent.
These "what-if" accident scenarios are utterly unrealistic. In reality, a
dry cask fire can cause widespread death and destruction, just like a
nuclear plant. Furthermore, by storing the dry casks so close to the
nuclear reactors, IF a reactor accident occurs, both the spent fuel pools
and the dry storage casks are vulnerable to secondary failures,. For
example, some explosive accidents can throw the lid of the reactor half a
mile into the air. The lid weighs about 20,000 pounds. If it lands in
the spent fuel pool or on a dry storage cask, it would cause a secondary
release of radiation that might be bigger than the first.
Of course, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has a way around this. They
simply deny that such accidents are possible. They do this by designating
such explosive deconstruction as being "outside the design-basis accident."
In other words, the NRC simply refuses to admit that things can go that
wrong. They believe, instead, that the safety systems and backup systems
will work as designed, even though experience has shown that to be a
baseless assumption.
For example, the Monticello nuclear reactor had its main safety system
UNAVAILABLE for nearly 30 years -- since the plant was constructed until
just a few years ago -- because 32 shipping bolts were not removed from
eight humongous bellows, when parts were installed at the plant during its
original construction.
And after that, the system was never tested or inspected. This is just one
of many, many indications that the NRC is a lap-dog regulatory agency and
the industry it regulates is dangerously incapable of meeting the
incredibly high standards required by nuclear power.
Both San Onofre AND Diablo Canyon -- all four of California's aging nuclear
power plants -- are, for all intents and purposes, being completely rebuilt
as we speak. By dividing the work up into pieces the full cost -- well over
a billion dollars PER PLANT and probably two or three -- is made to appear
in media reports as much smaller amounts, and the work is made to appear as
little more than accelerated maintenance -- a seemingly good thing, eh?
Well, it's a bunch of bull. What's going on is a complete rebuild ALMOST
from the ground up, but a piece at a time. There are so many old wiring
systems and parts in those plants, though, that no one that works there
knows how the system really works -- I guarantee it (and I know quite a few
employees and ex-employees at the plant, by the way).
Here are some of the parts that have recently been replaced or probably
will be soon, in one or more reactors at San Onofre alone: Steam
generators, "heaters" (about 30 per reactor), reactor pressure vessel
heads, one main rotor (there is one per reactor) had to be rebuilt after
the fire in 2001. Hundreds of pumps, wiring systems, feedback loops and
circuit boards (these are humongous things that have to be put in place
with forklifts and cranes, nothing like a household circuit at all!).
Yet, in the end, to call these reactors "like new" or even "newly
refurbished" would be inappropriate, because, try as they might, there are
still hundreds of systems which are corroding in place in the radioactive
and salty, smog-filled environment in which these reactors sit. The parts
replacement projects are mostly being done on a "when it fails, replace it"
basis, rather than on a preventive-maintenance schedule.
And what of the NRC? The industry is "self-regulated" -- they only do
paperwork audits, 99% of the time that they do ANY audit at all.
In California, the operation of our nuclear power plants continues, decade
after decade, in opposition to the things Californians love. We do not love
the risk from earthquakes, tsunamis, riots, or anything else, we live here
IN SPITE of these risks. But risks are cumulative, and the added burden of
nuclear power is a risk that has been foisted on the citizens of this state
-- and on the planet -- through immoral and undemocratic manipulation of
public opinion for the past half century.
For example: Let's take a quick look at tritium: Tritium is a radioactive
isotope of hydrogen, with one proton and two neutrons in its nucleus. When
it undergoes radioactive decay, it releases a beta particle -- which is
just a very high-speed electron -- from the nucleus. As this happens, one
of the neutrons (the one that ejected the electron) becomes a proton
instead, and the atom becomes, not a very heavy hydrogen atom like it was,
but a light helium atom. (Normal helium has two protons and two neutrons in
its nucleus. Helium from tritium has two protons and ONE neutron in its
nucleus.)
Too technical? Sure, and the nuclear industry is counting on that. So I'll
try to refrain for the rest of this commentary.
Tritium is produced at -- and released into the environment from -- all
nuclear power plants. Federal regulations are lax on tritium, because it
would cost the nuclear industry billions, or shut them down, if they showed
proper concern for tritium's hazards.
Pro-nukers -- health physicists, specifically, the specialists who should
know better -- will tell you (and have told me) that tritium's beta
particle is relatively harmless, because it is a "low-energy" beta
particle, as beta particles go. In fact, they might add, in low doses it
might even be good for you.
But find a BETTER expert to talk to (they do exist), and you'll learn that
beta particles, when they are ejected from the nucleus of an atom (oh, here
we go again!), "dump" all that excess energy that they get ejected with at
"the end of their track." At the beginning of the track, the beta particle
is traveling TOO FAST (a significant fraction of the speed of light) to be
near another atom long enough to have much influence, but as the beta
particle slows down, it stays in the vicinity of each atom it passes long
enough to have a significant effect -- long enough to cause ionizing
radiation damage.
Now, of course, this IS certainly too technical for the average Californian
-- I've been studying it for more than 30 years and it's hard for me, too.
And thus we are frozen out of the discussion, accused of being emotional
and unaware of the facts, or being just another California "whacko
environmentalist."
But there ARE experts who will back up what I've just written regarding
tritium, and we need to start listening to them. Indeed, across the
country there seems to be a renewed interest in the damage lowly little
tritium can do. Tritium leaks have been found at several nuclear plants and
local residents, despite official propaganda from the Feds, are scared.
When the blackouts of '01 occurred here, the real reason was probably
because three of our four nuclear power plants were "down and out" and the
fourth one dropped out now and then and well. The "powers that be" in
charge of power in California engineered the blackouts to "prove" that we
need all the power, by any means, that we can get.
And now, Southern California Edison (SCE), the operator of San Onofre
Nuclear WASTE Generating Station (called SONGS, not SONWGS, officially,
since the waste is ignored), is running millions of dollars worth of ads
telling Californians that SCE is making major investments in proven green
technologies such as WIND POWER.
Yet at the same time, shills for their nuclear industry, such as
academicians who were invited to speak to the California Energy Commission
last year at rare public hearings (where testimony was NOT sworn, and much
of it WAS useless), tell us that WIND POWER hasn't got a chance.
Who's lying?
Both are, and solely to make nukes look good. There is NO real effort to
solve our energy problem with renewables, even though it is perfectly
possible to do. Instead, the Bush Administration is pushing nuclear power
like never before, with every trick in the book and several new ones, such
as the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's new policy to license both the
construction AND the operation of a nuclear power plant at the SAME TIME,
so that, after the billions of dollars and 5 to 10 years of construction,
no citizen can oppose the plant before fuel is finally loaded (as happened
at Shoreham on Long Island, New York, leaving a bitter, bitter taste in the
Nuclear Mafia's mouth). (NOTE: I understand about 5% of the fuel was, in
fact, loaded for a time. -- ACE)
AND they have approved the licensing of new nuclear power plants on old
sites -- even ones where the previous reactors have been "decommissioned"
or perhaps NOT EVEN BUILT! (And "decommissioned, by the way, is a euphemism
for grinding them up into radioactive dust and spreading them around the
globe, and/or hauling them off in truckloads and trainloads to some waste
dump somewhere, except, of course, for the "spent fuel," which just sits,
vulnerable, on our coasts.)
If California continues to insist on self-ignorance about this issue -- if
we are fooled by the fear of global warming into supporting nuclear power
(it's not a solution, as many highly technical articles by highly qualified
experts has shown), we are in for a lot of hurt.
A nuclear disaster would be the worst part of ANY accompanying earthquake,
tsunami, or terrorist act. It would dwarf Katrina and 9-11 combined. It
MUST be avoided, but the only way to do that is to wise up. Will we?
Ace Hoffman
Carlsbad, CA
At 09:49 AM 6/13/2006 -0700, "Barbara Byron" wrote:
>The National Academy of Sciences Public Report (2006) Safety and
>Security of Commercial Spent Nuclear Fuel Storage concluded (p. 68) that
>dry cask storage has several potential safety and security advantages
>over pool storage.
>
>"Less spent fuel is at risk in an accident or attack on a dry storage
>cask than on a spent fuel pool. An accident or attack on a dry cask
>storage facility would likely affect at most a few casks and put a few
>tens of metric tons of spent fuel at risk. An accident or attack on a
>spent fuel pool puts the entire inventory of the pool, potentially
>hundreds of metric tons of spent fuel at risk."
>
>"The potential consequences of an accident or terrorist attack on a dry
>cask storage facility are lower than those for a spent fuel pool. There
>are several reasons for this difference:
>
>(1) There is less fuel in a dry cask than in a spent fuel pool and
>therefore less radioactive material available for release,
>
>(2) Measured on a per-fuel-assembly basis, the inventories of
>radionuclides available for release from a dry cask are lower than those
>from a spent fuel pool because dry casks store older, lower decay-heat
>fuel.
>
>(3) Radioactive material releases from a breach in a dry cask would
>occur through mechanical dispersion. Such releases would be relatively
>small. Certain types of attacks on spent fuel pools could result in a
>much larger dispersal of spent fuel fragments. Radioactive material
>releases from a spent fuel pool also could occur as the result of a
>zirconium cladding fire, which would produce radioactive aerosols. Such
>fires have the potential to release large quantities of radioactive
>material to the environment."
===============================================
Tritium URL:
===============================================
So far, this article has stopped every pro-nuker dead in their tracks. One
even offered me a "residency" at his university (Purdue), when challenged
to either respond in detail (after telling me tritium was safe), OR offer
me said residency. So why not see what YOU can do with it?
I suggest you print it out and submit it at EVERY hearing as a supplement
to your own written and / or oral testimony. Demand a technically
accurate response. Submit this whole newsletter, too! Make 'em squirm and
stammer and face the truth: Nuclear power is the highest folly of mankind
(so far).
Tritium explained:
http://animatedsoftware.com/environment/tritium/2006/EPATritiumStandard.htm
===============================================
Contact information for "Ace:"
===============================================
*************************************************
** THE ANIMATED SOFTWARE COMPANY
** Russell "Ace" Hoffman, Owner and Chief Programmer
** P.O. Box 1936, Carlsbad CA 92018-1936
** (800) 551-2726
** (760) 720-7261
** Fax: (760) 720-7394
** Visit the world's most eclectic web site:
** http://www.animatedsoftware.com
*************************************************
IF YOU RECEIVED THIS EMAIL IN ERROR AND/OR DO NOT WISH TO RECEIVE ANY MORE
EMAILS FROM US FOR ANY REASON, PLEASE CONTACT RUSSELL HOFFMAN AT:
rhoffman@animatedsoftware.com
MailTo:rhoffman@animatedsoftware.com?Subject=Unsubscribe-me-please .
Please be sure that "Unsubscribe-me-please" appears in the subject line.
*****************************************************************
21 [NukeNet] New NIRS Factsheets: Nukes Not the Answer
Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2006 15:12:54 -0700
X-Nohoney: yes white-hard - relay H=adsl-63-203-231-61.dsl.snfc21.pacbell.net (borg.energy-net.org) [63.203.231.61]
X-Sender-Host-Address: 63.203.231.61
X-Sender-Host-Name: adsl-63-203-231-61.dsl.snfc21.pacbell.net
X-Spam-Class: HAM-VERY-WHITELIST
NukeNet Anti-Nuclear Network (nukenet@energyjustice.net)
From: Michael Mariotte
THINK NEW ATOMIC REACTORS CAN BE BUILT CHEAPLY AND ON-TIME?
THINK AGAIN!
The Bush Administration and nuclear power industry have asserted that
new nuclear reactors-unlike the current generation--would be built at
competitive prices and on schedule.
The Nuclear Energy Institute, for example, has made repeated claims that
new power reactors can be built for about $1,500-$2,000/kw. This means
a standard 1,000 MW reactor could be built for about $1.5-$2.0 billion;
a large 1,500 MW reactor would be expected to cost about $2.25-$3
billion.
Current real-world experience shows that these claims are just
pipedreams.
* On July 11, 2006, the Finnish government reported that the construction
schedule for its new EPR (European Pressurized Reactor) already has
slipped by a full 12 months-and construction of this reactor began only
15 months ago, in April 2005! Cost for this 1600 MW reactor is
estimated to be three billion Euros, or about $3.7 Billion dollars, and
that is with extremely favorable loan interest rates that wouldn't be
available to private US utilities. Several US utilities, such as
Constellation Energy, have expressed interest in the EPR design.
* In June 2006, Toshiba purchased the world's largest manufacturer of
atomic reactors: Westinghouse. The company heralded the purchase by
asserting that Westinghouse could expect 20 or more new reactor orders
in the next several years. Industry analysts quoted by Reuters said each
reactor order would be worth $2.6 Billion to Toshiba, a price already
above the NEI's stated cost goal. Since Toshiba only supplies the
reactors and doesn't perform the construction, nor much of the
non-nuclear side of the plant, actual prices for a fully-constructed
Westinghouse reactor can be expected to reach at least the range of the
EPR, and probably even higher. On the other hand, the cost of the EPR
can be expected to increase as further construction delays are
experienced.
In short, anyone thinking a new generation of atomic power reactors can
be built at competitive prices should think again-and think hard.
One more quick news item: in July 2006, it was reported that uranium
prices have risen some 600% over the past five years: from $7.25/pound
in January 2001 to $45.50/pound in June 2006. Continued price rises
would threaten nuclear power's traditional operating cost advantage over
some other fuel sources (coal, gas), making nuclear's economics outlook
even bleaker.
Michael Mariotte
Executive Director
July 28, 2006
[1] For example, see Nuclear Energy Institute Wall Street Briefing, "A
Solid Business Platform for Future Growth," February 2, 2006,
http://www.nei.org/documents/Wall_Street_Briefing_2-2-06.pdf "To be
conservative, the NEI financial analysis assumes a capital cost of
approximately $2,000 per kilowatt for the first few plants built,
declining to approximately $1,500 per kilowatt for the later plants."
[2] "Finland's 5th Nuclear Reactor Delayed," Tuesday July 11, 2006, by
Matti Huuhtanen, Associated Press
3 "Toshiba sees US nuke plant orders for Westinghouse," Tuesday, June
27, 2006, Reuters
------------------------------------------------------------------------
New fact sheets on NIRS website: View them and use them!
Are Federal Permissible Standards for Tritium Too Permissive? [New
NIRS fact sheet]
http://www.nirs.org/factsheets/tritiumnaturalbackground.pdf
Why New Nukes are Risky. [Coalition briefing paper on the economic risks
of nuclear power, presented to Wall Street analysts.]
http://www.nirs.org/factsheets/whynewnukesareriskyfcts.pdf
Nuclear Power and Climate: Why Nukes Can't Save the Planet. [NIRS factsheet.]
http://www.nirs.org/factsheets/nukesclimatefact606.pdf
And don't forget to send this link to all of your friends/work
colleagues/church groups/college classmates and everyone you meet to
encourage them to sign the Petition for A Sustainable Energy Future!
http://www.nirs.org/petition/index.php?r=ft
_______________________________________________________________________
Subscribe/Unsubscribe Here: http://www.energyjustice.net/nukenet/
Change your settings or access the archives at:
http://mail.energyjustice.net/mailman/listinfo/nukenet_energyjustice.net
*****************************************************************
22 NRC: NRC Staff to Meet with TVA Officials in Alabama to Discuss Unit 1 Restart at
Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant
News Release - Region II - 2006-03 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY
COMMISSION
Office of Public Affairs, Region II No. II-06-034
July 27, 2006 CONTACT: Ken Clark (404) 562-4416 Roger D.
Hannah (404) 562-4417 E-mail: opa2@nrc.gov
Nuclear Regulatory Commission officials will meet with Tennessee
Valley Authority officials from 6:00 until 8:30 p.m. (CDT) on
Thursday, August 3 at Calhoun Community College near Decatur,
Ala., to discuss the status of TVAs restart efforts for the Unit
1 reactor at the Browns Ferry nuclear plant.
The meeting, which is open to the public, will be held at the
College, located at 6230 U.S. Highway 31 North in the Tanner
community. NRC officials will be available after the business
portion of the meeting to answer questions from interested
observers.
The agenda for the meeting is to discuss the status of the Unit
1 recovery efforts, including completed work activities,
schedules for future milestones, response to challenges, closure
of restart items and other activities important to NRC oversight
and inspection of Unit 1.
All three units of the Browns Ferry plant were shut down in 1985
but retained NRC operating licenses. Unit 2 was restarted in
1991 and Unit 3 was restarted in 1995. TVA has been doing
extensive work on Unit 1 and said it expects to have that unit
ready to begin operating again on or before early 2007.
Last revised Friday, July 28, 2006
*****************************************************************
23 AP Wire: Exelon says study reveals no new tritium leaks at nuclear plants
07/31/2006 |
Associated Press
WARRENVILLE, Ill. - No new leaks of tritium - a potential
carcinogen - have been found in a study of Exelon Corp.'s 11
nuclear plants in Illinois, Pennsylvania and New Jersey, the
company said Monday.
Exelon launched the $5 million environmental study in February
after officials learned of leaks dating back to 1996 at the
company's Braidwood plant in Illinois, where slightly elevated
levels of tritium were detected in two drinking water wells near
the plant.
Environmental officials say exposure to tritium can increase
cancer risks, but Exelon has said levels found near Braidwood
don't pose a health threat. Tritium is a radioactive form of
hydrogen commonly found in groundwater, but it is more
concentrated in water used in nuclear reactors.
Preliminary study results show no tritium leaks at Exelon's six
plants in Illinois, three in Pennsylvania and one New Jersey,
said spokesman Craig Nesbit. He said leaks have been repaired
and a state-approved cleanup is under way at Braidwood, about 60
miles southwest of Chicago.
The study tested mechanical systems that handle tritium and
analyzed plant operation records to determine whether past leaks
or spills may have occurred, Nesbit said. The Braidwood leak was
caused by malfunctioning valves on an underground pipe that
carries water with tritium to the Kankakee River, where it is
legally dumped.
Tests on water from more than 1,800 wells on or near the 11
plants also revealed no tritium levels that pose health hazards
for workers or the public, Nesbit said. Other than Braidwood, no
tritium beyond permitted discharges was found in water tested
from wells outside plant boundaries.
But the ongoing study detected tritium that exceeds natural
levels in groundwater collected on 10 of the plant sites. The
tests revealed no tritium at Oyster Creek Generating Station in
New Jersey.
The study says tritium barely exceeds natural levels at most of
the plants. Levels only exceeded federal limits at Braidwood and
Illinois' Dresden plant, where Exelon reported high levels of
tritium to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission nearly two years
ago.
Additional wells are being installed at Exelon plants for
long-term monitoring of tritium levels, Nesbit said.
Warrenville-based Exelon Nuclear says the study is continuing
and finals results are expected by September.
"We said when we launched this project that we owe it to our
neighbors to ensure the environmental integrity of our plants
... We are issuing this progress report to demonstrate that we
have approached this the right way and that the results are
good," Exelon chief nuclear officer Chris Crane said in a
statement.
*****************************************************************
24 allAfrica.com: Nigeria: 'Nigeria's Nuclear Technology for Peaceful Purposes'
Nigeria First (Abuja)
July 31, 2006
Abuja
President Olusegun Obasanjo has declared that Nigeria's
aspirations for the acquisition of nuclear technology are for
peaceful applications that will aid the socio-economic
development of the country.
Inaugurating the Board of the Nigeria Atomic Energy Commission
(NAEC) in Abuja on July 31, the President also emphasized that
Nigeria was "unequivocally committed to the Nuclear
Non-proliferation Treaty.
The President described as "unfortunate" the inability of past
administrations to inaugurate the Board of NAEC 30 years after
it was established by Decree 46 of August 1976 during his tenure
as military Head of State.
He said that with the inauguration, "NAEC will now be centrally
placed to play its role for the eventual deployment of nuclear
power plants for electricity generation, among other uses in
Nigeria."
President Obasanjo is the chairman of the Board. Other members
of the 10-man Board "which will serve as the vehicle mandated by
law to promote, coordinate and streamline the implementation of
the national nuclear energy programme," are: the Ministers of
Science and Technology, Power and Steel, Defence, Finance, and
Solid Minerals; the National Security Adviser (NSA); Special
Adviser to the President on Energy, a nuclear physicist, Prof.
Ibrahim Umar and the Director-General of NAEC.
Copyright © 2006 Nigeria First. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
25 NRC: NRC Staff to Hold Public Meeting on August 10 in Eunice, New Mexico to Discuss
Inspection Program for LES Uranium Enrichment Plant
News Release - Region II - 2006-03 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY
COMMISSION
Office of Public Affairs, Region II No. II-06-035
July 28, 2006 CONTACT: Ken Clark (404) 562-4416 Roger D.
Hannah (404) 562-4417 E-mail:
Nuclear Regulatory Commission officials will hold a public
meeting at Eunice, N.M., on August 10 to discuss the NRCs
inspection program for a gas centrifuge uranium enrichment
plant, called the National Enrichment Facility, to be
constructed and operated by Louisiana Energy Services near
Eunice.
The meeting will be held from 7:00 until 9:00 p.m. at the Eunice
Community Center, located at 1115 Avenue I. The public is
invited to attend and to participate by providing comments and
asking questions throughout the meeting.
The NRC inspection staff will discuss the agencys inspection
process, areas to be inspected, construction inspection
objectives, and enforcement of NRC requirements.
Last revised Monday, July 31, 2006
*****************************************************************
26 NRC: SUNSHINE FEDERAL REGISTER NOTICE
FR Doc 06-6613
[Federal Register: July 31, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 146)]
[Notices] [Page 43227] From the Federal Register Online via GPO
Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr31jy06-115]
AGENCY HOLDING THE MEETINGS: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
DATE: Week of July 24, 2006.
PLACE: Commissioners' Conference Room, 11555 Rockville Pike,
Rockville, Maryland.
STATUS: Public and Closed.
Additional Matters To Be Considered Week of July 24, 2006
Thursday, July 27, 2006 3 p.m. Discussion of Management Issues
(closed--ex. 2). * * * * * *The schedule for Commission meetings
is subject to change on short notice. To verify the status of
meetings call (recording)--(301) 415- 1292. Contact person for
more information: Michelle Schroll, (301) 415- 1662.
* * * * * Additional Information By a vote of 5-0 on July 24 and
25, 2006, the Commission determined pursuant to U.S.C. 552b(e)
and Sec. 9.107(a) of the Commission's rules that ``Discussion of
Management Issues (closed--ex 2)'' be held July 27, 2006 and by a
vote of 4-1 that the meeting be held on less than one week's
notice to the public. Commissioner Jaczko did not vote to hold
the meeting on short notice.
* * * * * The NRC Commission Meeting Schedule can be found on the
Internet at: . nrc. gov/what-we-do/policy-making/schedule. html.
* * * * * The NRC provides reasonable accommodation to
individuals with disabilities where appropriate. If you need a
reasonable accommodation to participate in these public meetings,
or need this meeting notice or the transcript or other
information from the public meetings in another format (e.g.,
braille, large print), please notify the NRC's Disability Program
Coordinator, Deborah Chan, at 301-415-7041, TDD: 301-415-2100, or
by e-mail at . Determinations on requests for reasonable
accommodation will be made on a case-by-case basis.
* * * * * This notice is distributed by mail to several hundred
subscribers; if you no longer wish to receive it, or would like
to be added to the distribution, please contact the Office of the
Secretary, Washington, DC 20555 (301-415-1969). In addition,
distribution of this meeting notice over the Internet system is
available. If you are interested in receiving this Commission
meeting schedule electronically, please send an electronic
message to ,gov, Dated: July 26, 2006 Sandy Joosten, Office of
the Secretary.
[FR Doc. 06-6613 Filed 7-27-06; 12:58 pm] BILLING CODE 7590-01-M
*****************************************************************
27 NRC: Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc.; Notice of
FR Doc E6-12169
[Federal Register: July 31, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 146)]
[Notices] [Page 43225-43227] From the Federal Register Online via
GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr31jy06-114]
Consideration of Issuance of Amendment to Facility Operating
License, Proposed No Significant Hazards Consideration
Determination, and Opportunity for a Hearing The U.S. Nuclear
Regulatory Commission (the Commission) is considering issuance of
amendments to Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-68 and NPF-81
issued to Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. (SNC), for
operation of the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant (VEGP), Units 1
and 2, located in Burke County, Georgia.
The proposed amendment would revise, Technical Specification (TS)
5.5.9, ``Steam Generator (SG) Tube Surveillance Program,'' to
incorporate changes in the SG inspection scope for VEGP, Unit 1
during Refueling Outage 13 and the subsequent operating cycle and
for Unit 2, during Refueling Outage 12 and the subsequent
operating cycle.
The proposed changes modify the inspection requirements for
portions of SG tubes within the tubesheet region of the SGs.
Before issuance of the proposed license amendment, the Commission
will have made findings required by the Atomic Energy Act of
1954, as amended (the Act), and the Commission's regulations.
The Commission has made a proposed determination that the
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
Under the Commission's regulations in Title 10 of the Code of
Federal Regulations (10 CFR) Section 50.92, this means that
operation of the facility in accordance with the proposed
amendment would not (1) involve a significant increase in the
probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated;
or (2) create the possibility of a new or different kind of
accident from any accident previously evaluated; or (3) involve a
significant reduction in a margin of safety. As required by 10
CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has provided its analysis of the issue
of no significant hazards consideration, which is presented
below: 1. Does the proposed license amendment involve a
significant increase in the probability or consequences of an
accident previously evaluated? No. The previously analyzed
accidents are initiated by the failure of plant structures,
systems, or components. The proposed changes that alter the SG
inspection criteria do not have a detrimental impact on the
integrity of any plant structure, system, or component that
initiates an analyzed event. The proposed changes will not alter
the operation of, or otherwise increase the failure probability
of any plant equipment that initiates an analyzed accident.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant
increase in the probability of an accident previously evaluated.
Of the applicable accidents previously evaluated, the limiting
transients with consideration to the proposed changes to the SG
tube inspection criteria, are the SG tube rupture (SGTR) event
and the steam line break (SLB) accident.
During the SGTR event, the required structural integrity margins
of the SG tubes will be maintained by the presence of the SG
tubesheet. SG tubes are hydraulically expanded in the tubesheet
area. Tube rupture in tubes with cracks in the tubesheet is
precluded by the constraint provided by the tubesheet. This
constraint results from the hydraulic expansion process, thermal
expansion mismatch between the tube and tubesheet and from the
differential pressure between the primary and secondary side.
Based on this design, the structural margins against burst
discussed in Regulatory Guide (RG) 1.121, ``Bases for Plugging
Degraded PWR SG Tubes,'' are maintained for both normal and
postulated accident conditions.
The proposed changes do not affect other systems, structures,
components or operational features. Therefore, the proposed
changes result in no significant increase in the probability of
the occurrence of a SGTR accident.
At normal operating pressures, leakage from primary water stress
corrosion cracking (PWSCC) below the proposed limited inspection
depth is limited by both the tube-to-tubesheet crevice and the
limited crack opening permitted by the tubesheet constraint.
Consequently, negligible normal operating leakage is expected
from cracks within the tubesheet region. The consequences of an
SGTR event are affected by the primary-to-secondary leakage flow
during the event. Primary-to-secondary leakage flow through a
postulated broken tube is not affected by the proposed change
since the tubesheet enhances the tube integrity in the region of
the hydraulic expansion by precluding tube deformation beyond its
initial hydraulically expanded outside diameter.
The probability of a SLB is unaffected by the potential failure
of a SG tube as this failure is not an initiator for a SLB.
The consequences of a SLB are also not significantly affected by
the proposed changes. During a SLB accident, the reduction in
pressure above the tubesheet on the shell side of the SG creates
an axially uniformly distributed load on the tubesheet due to the
reactor coolant system pressure on the underside of the
tubesheet. The resulting bending action constrains the tubes in
the tubesheet thereby restricting primary-to-secondary leakage
below the midplane.
The hydraulically expanded tube-to-tubesheet joints in Model F
SGs are not leaktight without the tube end weld. Considerations
were also made with regard to the potential for
primary-to-secondary leakage during postulated faulted
conditions. However, the leak rate during postulated accident
conditions would be expected to be less than that during normal
operation for indications near the bottom of the tubesheet based
on an evaluation [by the Westinghouse Electric Company dated July
11, 2006] which shows that while the driving pressure increases
by about a factor of almost two, the flow resistance increases
because the tube-to-tubesheet contact pressure also increases.
Depending on the depth within the tubesheet, the relative
increase in resistance could easily be larger than that of the
pressure potential. Therefore, the leak rate under normal
operating conditions could exceed its allowed value before the
accident condition leak rate would be expected to exceed its
allowed value. This approach is termed an application of the
``bellwether principle.'' While such a decrease in the leak rate
is expected, the postulated accident leak rate could
conservatively be taken to be bounded by twice the normal
operating leak rate if the increase in contact pressure is
ignored.
Since normal operating leakage is limited by the TS changes
proposed in SNC letter NL-06-0124 and by NEI 97-06 to less than
0.10 gpm [gallons per minute], (150 gpd [gallons per day])
throughout one SG in the VEGP Units 1 and 2 SGs, the attendant
accident condition leak rate, assuming all leakage to be from
lower tubesheet indications, would be bounded by 0.20 gpm in the
faulted SG which is less than the accident analysis assumption of
0.35 gpm to the affected SG included in Section 15.1.5 of the
VEGP Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR). Hence it is
reasonable to omit any consideration of inspection of the tube,
tube end weld, bulges/ overexpansions or other anomalies below 17
inches from the top of the hot leg tubesheet.
Based on the above discussion, the proposed changes do not
involve an increase in the consequences of an accident previously
evaluated.
2. Does the proposed license amendment create the possibility of
a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated? No. The proposed changes do not involve the use or
installation of new equipment and the currently installed
equipment will not be operated in a new or different manner. No
new or different system interactions are created and no new
processes are introduced.
The proposed changes will not introduce any new failure
mechanisms, malfunctions, or accident initiators not already
considered in the design and licensing bases.
Based on this evaluation, the proposed change does not create the
possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any
accident previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction in
a margin of safety?
[[Page 43226]] No. The proposed changes maintain the required
structural margins of the SG tubes for both normal and accident
conditions. Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) 97-06, ``Steam
Generator Program Guidelines,'' and Regulatory Guide (RG) 1.121,
``Bases for Plugging Degraded PWR Steam Generator Tubes,'' are
used as the bases in the development of the limited tubesheet
inspection depth methodology for determining that SG tube
integrity considerations are maintained within acceptable limits.
RG 1.121 describes a method acceptable to the NRC for meeting
General Design Criteria (GDC) 14, ``Reactor coolant pressure
boundary,'' GDC 15, ``Reactor coolant system design,'' GDC 31,
``Fracture prevention of reactor coolant pressure boundary,'' and
GDC 32, ``Inspection of reactor coolant pressure boundary,'' by
reducing the probability and consequences of a SGTR. RG 1.121
concludes that by determining the limiting safe conditions for
tube wall degradation the probability and consequences of a SGTR
are reduced. This RG uses safety factors on loads for tube burst
that are consistent with the requirements of Section III of the
American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) Code.
Application of the limited tubesheet inspection depth criteria
will preclude unacceptable primary-to-secondary leakage during
all plant conditions. The methodology for determining leakage
provides for large margins between calculated and actual leakage
values in the proposed limited tubesheet inspection depth
criteria.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant
hazards consideration under the criteria set forth in 10 CFR
50.92(c). The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and,
based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10
CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to
determine that the amendment request involves no significant
hazards consideration.
The Commission is seeking public comments on this proposed
determination. Any comments received within 30 days after the
date of publication of this notice will be considered in making
any final determination.
Normally, the Commission will not issue the amendment until the
expiration of 60 days after the date of publication of this
notice. The Commission may issue the license amendment before
expiration of the 60- day period provided that its final
determination is that the amendment involves no significant
hazards consideration. In addition, the Commission may issue the
amendment prior to the expiration of the 30- day comment period
should circumstances change during the 30-day comment period such
that failure to act in a timely way would result, for example in
derating or shutdown of the facility. Should the Commission take
action prior to the expiration of either the comment period or
the notice period, it will publish in the Federal Register a
notice of issuance. Should the Commission make a final No
Significant Hazards Consideration Determination, any hearing will
take place after issuance. The Commission expects that the need
to take this action will occur very infrequently.
Written comments may be submitted by mail to the Chief, Rules and
Directives Branch, Division of Administrative Services, Office of
Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington,
DC 20555-0001, and should cite the publication date and page
number of this Federal Register notice. Written comments may also
be delivered to Room 6D59, Two White Flint North, 11545 Rockville
Pike, Rockville, Maryland, from 7:30 a.m. to 4:15 p.m. Federal
workdays. Documents may be examined, and/or copied for a fee, at
the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR), located at One White Flint
North, Public File Area O1 F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first
floor), Rockville, Maryland.
The filing of requests for hearing and petitions for leave to
intervene is discussed below.
Within 60 days after the date of publication of this notice, the
licensee may file a request for a hearing with respect to
issuance of the amendment to the subject facility operating
license and any person whose interest may be affected by this
proceeding and who wishes to participate as a party in the
proceeding must file a written request for a hearing and a
petition for leave to intervene. Requests for a hearing and a
petition for leave to intervene shall be filed in accordance with
the Commission's ``Rules of Practice for Domestic Licensing
Proceedings'' in 10 CFR part 2. Interested persons should consult
a current copy of 10 CFR 2.309, which is available at the
Commission's PDR, located at One White Flint North, Public File
Area O1F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville,
Maryland. Publicly available records will be accessible from the
Agencywide Documents Access and Management System's (ADAMS)
Public Electronic Reading Room on the Internet at the NRC Web
site, .
If a request for a hearing or petition for leave to intervene is
filed by the above date, the Commission or a presiding officer
designated by the Commission or by the Chief Administrative Judge
of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel, will rule on the
request and/or petition; and the Secretary or the Chief
Administrative Judge of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board
will issue a notice of a hearing or an appropriate order.
As required by 10 CFR 2.309, a petition for leave to intervene
shall set forth with particularity the interest of the petitioner
in the proceeding, and how that interest may be affected by the
results of the proceeding. The petition should specifically
explain the reasons why intervention should be permitted with
particular reference to the following general requirements: (1)
The name, address and telephone number of the requestor or
petitioner; (2) the nature of the requestor's/petitioner's right
under the Act to be made a party to the proceeding; (3) the
nature and extent of the requestor's/petitioner's property,
financial, or other interest in the proceeding; and (4) the
possible effect of any decision or order which may be entered in
the proceeding on the requestor's/petitioner's interest. The
petition must also identify the specific contentions which the
petitioner/requestor seeks to have litigated at the proceeding.
Each contention must consist of a specific statement of the issue
of law or fact to be raised or controverted. In addition, the
petitioner/requestor shall provide a brief explanation of the
bases for the contention and a concise statement of the alleged
facts or expert opinion which support the contention and on which
the petitioner intends to rely in proving the contention at the
hearing. The petitioner/requestor must also provide references to
those specific sources and documents of which the petitioner is
aware and on which the petitioner intends to rely to establish
those facts or expert opinion. The petition must include
sufficient information to show that a genuine dispute exists with
the applicant on a material issue of law or fact. Contentions
shall be limited to matters within the scope of the amendment
under consideration. The contention must be one which, if proven,
would entitle the petitioner to relief. A petitioner/requestor
who fails to satisfy these requirements with respect to at least
one contention will not be permitted to participate as a party.
Those permitted to intervene become parties to the proceeding,
subject to any limitations in the order granting leave to
intervene, and have the opportunity to participate fully in the
conduct of the hearing.
If a hearing is requested, the Commission will make a final
determination on the issue of no
[[Page 43227]] significant hazards consideration. The final
determination will serve to decide when the hearing is held. If
the final determination is that the amendment request involves no
significant hazards consideration, the Commission may issue the
amendment and make it immediately effective, notwithstanding the
request for a hearing. Any hearing held would take place after
issuance of the amendment. If the final determination is that the
amendment request involves a significant hazards consideration,
any hearing held would take place before the issuance of any
amendment.
Nontimely requests and/or petitions and contentions will not be
entertained absent a determination by the Commission or the
presiding officer of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board that
the petition, request and/or the contentions should be granted
based on a balancing of the factors specified in 10 CFR
2.309(c)(1)(i)-(viii). A request for a hearing or a petition for
leave to intervene must be filed by: (1) First class mail
addressed to the Office of the Secretary of the Commission, U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001,
Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff; (2) courier,
express mail, and expedited delivery services: Office of the
Secretary, Sixteenth Floor, One White Flint North, 11555
Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852, Attention: Rulemaking
and Adjudications Staff; (3) E-mail addressed to the Office of
the Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, ; or (4)
facsimile transmission addressed to the Office of the Secretary,
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC, Attention:
Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff at (301) 415-1101,
verification number is (301) 415-1966. A copy of the request for
hearing and petition for leave to intervene should also be sent
to the Office of the General Counsel, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, and it is requested that
copies be transmitted either by means of facsimile transmission
to 301-415-3725 or by E-mail to . A copy of the request for
hearing and petition for leave to intervene should also be sent
to Arthur H. Domby, Esquire, Troutman Sanders, NationsBank Plaza,
600 Peachtree Street, NE., Suite 5200, Atlanta, GA 30308-2216,
the attorney for the licensee.
For further details with respect to this action, see the
application for amendment dated July 20, 2006, which is available
for public inspection at the Commission's PDR, located at One
White Flint North, Public File Area O1 F21, 11555 Rockville Pike
(first floor), Rockville, Maryland. Publicly available records
will be accessible from the Agencywide Documents Access and
Management System's (ADAMS) Public Electronic Reading Room on the
Internet at the NRC Web site, .
Persons who do not have access to ADAMS or who encounter problems
in accessing the documents located in ADAMS, should contact the
NRC PDR Reference staff by telephone at 1- 800-397-4209,
301-415-4737, or by e-mail to .
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 25th day of July 2006.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Christopher Gratton, Sr. Project Manager, Plant Licensing Branch
II-1, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear
Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. E6-12169 Filed 7-28-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
*****************************************************************
28 Scotsman.com: Nuclear pressure piles on McConnell
Mon 31 Jul 2006
PETER MACMAHON
JACK McConnell, the First Minister, will today come under
renewed pressure to say whether he favours building new nuclear
power stations in Scotland.
Mr McConnell will face fresh questions over his stance after the
publication of the final report from the independent body
charged with finding ways of safely disposing of nuclear waste.
The Committee on Radioactive Waste Management (CoRWM) is
expected to conclude that radioactive by-products can be safely
contained in deep underground storage bunkers.
CoRWM, is also expected to call for more research into the
geological conditions necessary to ensure that nuclear waste can
be stored safely for hundreds of years.
Last night, the First Minister's opponents sought to exploit the
differences between Scottish Labour, which favours new nuclear
power stations, and its Liberal Democrat Executive partners, who
are against.
Chris Ballance, a Scottish Green MSP, said: "Previous admissions
by CoRWM reveal Jack McConnell will never be able to justify a
new nuclear reactor for at least 40 years, and it exposes the
arrant nonsense that proposals to manage the nuclear waste
legacy could possibly be described as 'solving' the problem."
The nationalists' Richard Lochhead said: "There is now no place
to hide for this First Minister on the issue of nuclear power.
The publication of this report means that it is now time for
Labour and Lib Dem ministers to come off the fence."
Meanwhile, Sir David Wallace, vice-president of the Royal
Society warned against further delays in taking decisions. He
said: "The nature of scientific knowledge is such that there
will always be levels of uncertainty associated with any method
of disposing of radioactive waste.
"There is considerably less uncertainty surrounding burying
radioactive waste deep underground in stable geological
formations than other options. It is important that we act with
urgency, because identifying appropriate sites and then
consulting on and building these deep storage facilities will
take decades."
Professor Gordon MacKerron, chairman of CoRWM, said: "The UK has
been creating radioactive waste for 50 years without any clear
idea of what to do with it. The issue has dragged on for too
long.
"Today we will announce our final recommendations, which we are
confident will, for the first time, provide a realistic strategy
to deal with this problem."
A spokeswoman for Mr McConnell said that the Executive would not
comment until it had seen the final CoRWM report.
*****************************************************************
29 Times Herald: Nuclear plant guard fired for sleeping
By EVAN BRANDT
07/28/2006
POTTSTOWN - Sleeping on the job is never a good idea,
particularly if you are a security officer at a nuclear power
plant.
One employee there found that out this week.
Exelon Nuclear's Limerick Generating Station announced Wednesday
that a security supervisor had been "removed from duty" for being
"inattentive" the day before.
Asked if the supervisor in question was sleeping, Exelon
spokeswoman Beth Rapczynski said, "It appears that she was."
The name of the supervisor was not released.
Security at the plant is provided by an outside contractor,
Wackenhut Nuclear Security.
It was Wackenhut's decision to remove the supervisor from duty,
and it is Wackenhut that investigated the incident.
According to the press release issued Wednesday by Exelon, the
incident began on Tuesday when the security supervisor "outside
the protected area of the plant did not respond to a radio
communication from another officer."
As required by the company's procedure, "A second officer
investigated immediately and found the supervisor inattentive to
duty. The supervisor was relieved of duty and site security
initiated an immediate investigation," according to the release.
In addition to notifying the federal Nuclear Regulatory
Commission of the incident, Exelon also notified the
Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection's Bureau of
Radiation Protection as well as the Pennsylvania Emergency
Management Agency and local officials.
"While this performance issue is unacceptable, other officers
utilized the station's security processes and procedures to
promptly identify and report this personnel issue," Ron
DeGregorio, the plant's vice president, said in the release.
The sleeping supervisor did not affect the security at the
station, according to the release.
Rapczynski said the incident showed that the station's
overlapping coverage and frequent checks on officers was working
as designed.
"Wackenhut, with our oversight, is conducting a thorough
investigation to identify any additional steps we might take to
prevent recurrence and to appropriately address the performance
issue," DeGregorio said.
Since the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, security at
nuclear plants across the country has been increased and
Limerick is no exception.
Over the past several years, the plant has increased the number
of security officers stationed there, the layers of vehicle
barriers, as well adding more razor wire fencing and additional
electronic surveillance.
Security and safety have also been central to the debate over
the plant's plans to begin storing radioactive spent nuclear
fuel in steel and concrete casks on an exposed concrete slab
within the plant site's perimeter.
Opponents of the plan - citing a federal court ruling that a
similar project in California must take the possibility of a
terrorist attack on the casks into its environmental planning -
are calling on Exelon to make the casks more secure by keeping
them out of sight and spreading them out so all the casks cannot
be affected by a single attack.
Exelon has responded that its plans are in keeping with NRC
regulations.
The NRC has not yet responded to the court ruling, which was
issued in June.
In the meantime, the Limerick Township Supervisors earlier this
month granted preliminary site plan approval to the concrete
slab and drainage plan required for the casks to be erected.
©The Times Herald 2006
Copyright © 1995 - 2006 Townnews.comAll Rights Reserved.
*****************************************************************
30 [NukeNet] [Nucnews] Clean-Up Experts Rush to Serbian Nuke Site
Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2006 15:13:19 -0700
X-Nohoney: yes white-hard - relay H=adsl-63-203-231-61.dsl.snfc21.pacbell.net (borg.energy-net.org) [63.203.231.61]
X-Sender-Host-Address: 63.203.231.61
X-Sender-Host-Name: adsl-63-203-231-61.dsl.snfc21.pacbell.net
X-Spam-Class: HAM-VERY-WHITELIST
NukeNet Anti-Nuclear Network (nukenet@energyjustice.net)
Nukenet:
I watched the people go through the carnage in Israel and Lebanon
on TV. Little do they know it's what they don't see that will kill you!
I'm talking about man-made ionizing radiation and depleted
uranium used in bombs. DU is an illegal WMD under the Geneva
Convention. You can't fool Mother Nature forever! At some point
she sends the bill and EVERYONE will pay with their money and
their lives! DU radiation kills for at least 4.5 billion years.
Regards,
Dennis F. Nester
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/wire/sns-ap-serbias-nuclear-horrors,1,1957332.story?coll=sns-ap-world-headlines
Clean-Up Experts Rush to Serbian Nuke Site
By GEORGE JAHN
Associated Press Writer
2:35 AM PDT, July 27, 2006
VINCA, Serbia — The Vinca reactor stands still, its decrepit innards purged
of their unused weapons-grade fuel. But it remains Serbia's little shop of
nuclear horrors, and a potential magnet for terrorists.
That makes it representative of the next step in the world's quest to lift
the threat of nuclear material falling into the wrong hands -- first by
taking control of the fuel that makes atomic bombs, and now by tackling the
lesser but still potent menace of a dirty bomb, meaning radiation spread by
blowing up radioactive material with conventional explosives.
At the Vinca Institute of Nuclear Sciences outside Belgrade, there are only
a few armed guards in sight, and the barbed-wire fence around the 48-acre
facility is only as tall as a man.
For would-be terrorists, "it's almost like a candy store," says Mike Durst,
the International Atomic Energy Agency's point man working to strip Vinca
of its attraction to nuclear thieves.
These fears are driving international agendas. Presidents Bush and Vladimir
Putin used a summit of the world's richest countries earlier this month to
launch the "Global Initiative to Combat Nuclear Terrorism," which calls for
better accounting and protection of the Vincas of the world, scattered
around the former Soviet Union, Eastern Europe, Asia and Africa.
The new program is meant to build on others created by the Bush
administration, including the 3-year old "Global Threat Reduction
Initiative" to deal with a broad range of vulnerable nuclear and
radiological materials around the world.
Most of the existing programs focus on unused weapons-grade fuel, nearly
100 pounds of which lay in Vinca until four years ago, when Washington,
Moscow and Belgrade mounted a joint operation to remove it.
Helicopters and 1,200 heavily armed troops including snipers were deployed
along with decoy trucks to thwart potential mischief-makers. Half of
Belgrade was sealed off, and within six hours, the fuel -- enough to make
at least two simple nuclear warheads -- was trucked from Vinca to the
airport and onward to a Russian government plant about 470 miles east of
Moscow.
But that still leaves dozens of other badly secured and dangerous nuclear
facilities to deal with.
Inside the Vinca reactor building, 8,000 spent fuel rods sit in pools of
brackish water. Dozens contain uranium in varying degrees of enrichment --
potential dirty bomb material, not to mention the environmental hazard.
The bomb-worthy material is not uranium, but its highly radioactive
byproducts. These would quickly kill any terrorist who was not equipped
with protective suits, robotic arms and tons of lead to encase the stolen
material.
Still, research reactors such as Vinca tend to be less heavily protected
than power plants, and experts like Durst fear terrorists shown willing to
sacrifice their lives in other situations might do so as well to secure the
material. And while building a full-blown nuclear device is technologically
daunting, terrorists could easily use the material such as that in the rods
to construct a dirty bomb.
With just one dirty bomb, "you could hit Broadway, and you couldn't
decontaminate it for years," says Obrad Sotic, Vinca's former operations
manager.
And there are concerns other than raids on Vinca. While no nuclear material
is known to have gone missing employees speak openly of the potential
temptations of selling some on the black market as a way supplementing
monthly incomes of less than $750.
There's a lot to steal -- old medical and industrial equipment, and tons of
material inside the reactor or in two rickety corrugated metal sheds. There
are bags of irradiated grass, containers of depleted uranium ammunition
fired by NATO during its 1999 Kosovo campaign, and several tons of
yellowcake -- processed uranium ore of the kind Iran plans to process and
enrich in what the U.S. says is an attempt to make nuclear arms.
The Serbian Science Ministry, which is responsible for Vinca, has a budget
of less than $90 million for this year. That wouldn't cover the cost of
upgrading security, shipping the spent fuel back to Russia and dismantling
the reactor.
A centrally monitored alarm system is being installed and police will be
tasked with security under a plan being worked out under IAEA guidance.
Also foreseen is the shipment of the spent fuel to Russia and building
safer storage facilities for the collected nuclear junk. The ultimate goal
is to dismantle of the reactor and other parts of the facility.
But again, money is a problem.
Sending the spent fuel back to Russia will cost around $10 million, and
more money is needed to reprocess the fuel in Russia. Building better
storage will cost an additional $5 million. About 60 percent of that amount
has been pledged by donor countries, but dismantling the facility will cost
some $60 million.
For Serbia's science minister, Aleksandar Popovic, the 2002 operation to
remove the weapons-grade fuel has left the job only half done.
He told The Associated Press he was "very unhappy" that help has not
materialized for the other half.
"Once the spent fuel is gone, I'll be one happy guy," he said.
--------------------
*See also: NucNews Links and Archives (by date) at :
http://nucnews.net * (Posted for educational and
research
purposes only, in accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107).
_______________________________________________________________________
Subscribe/Unsubscribe Here: http://www.energyjustice.net/nukenet/
Change your settings or access the archives at:
http://mail.energyjustice.net/mailman/listinfo/nukenet_energyjustice.net
*****************************************************************
31 Shanghai Daily: City has built super bunker for 200,000
Wenhui-Xinmin United Press Group
Gu Jia 2006-07-31 SHANGHAI has built a 90,000-square-meter
underground bunker to protect its residents from nuclear
radiation, poisonous gas, explosions and natural disasters,
Shanghai Morning Post said.
This city's largest underground bunker, stretching north to the
Baoshan area and south to Xinzhuang, can hold 200,000 people at
one time, said an official from the Shanghai Civil Air Defense
Office.
The huge bunker has 15 passageways, each 4 kilometers long, which
connect to underground shelters of more than 10 shopping centers,
office buildings, entertainment venues, traffic facilities and
residential houses, said the report.
"Residents can escape natural or contrived disasters in the
bunker," said the official. "In an emergency, water, electricity
and oxygen systems can ensure inhabitants of up to seven to 15
days of basic life."
Part of the underground bunker will be used for commercial use,
as a parking lot and a warehouse, when it's not being utilized
as an emergency center, said the report.
Shanghai Daily Home | Copyright © 2001-2005 Shanghai Daily
Company
*****************************************************************
32 Scoop: Depleted Uranium Situation Worsens Requires Action
By President Bush, Prime Minister Blair, and Prime Minister Olmert
Monday, 31 July 2006, 1:39 pm
Opinion: Dr. Doug Rokke Ph.D.., former Director, U.S. Army Depleted
Uranium project
/www.uruknet.info
July 24, 2006
The delivery of at least 100 GBU 28 bunker busters bombs
containing depleted uranium warheads by the United States to
Israel for use against targets in Lebanon will result in
additional radioactive and chemical toxic contamination with
consequent adverse health and environmental effects throughout
the middle east.
Today, U.S., British, and now Israeli military personnel are
using illegal uranium munitions- America's and England's own
"dirty bombs" while U.S. Army, U.S. Department of Energy, U.S.
Department of Defense, and British Ministry of Defence officials
deny that there are any adverse health and environmental effects
as a consequence of the manufacture, testing, and/or use of
uranium munitions to avoid liability for the willful and illegal
dispersal of a radioactive toxic material - depleted uranium.
The use of uranium weapons is absolutely unacceptable, and a
crime against humanity. Consequently the citizens of the world
and all governments must force cessation of uranium weapons use.
I must demand that Israel now provide medical care to all DU
casualties in Lebanon and clean up all DU contamination.
U.S. and British officials have arrogantly refused to comply
with their own regulations, orders, and directives that require
United States Department of Defense officials to provide prompt
and effective medical care to "all" exposed individuals.
Reference: Medical Management of Unusual Depleted Uranium
Casualties, DOD, Pentagon, 10/14/93, Medical Management of Army
personnel Exposed to Depleted Uranium (DU) Headquarters, U.S.
Army Medical Command 29 April 2004, and section 2-5 of U.S. Army
Regulation 700-48. Israeli officials must not do so now.
They also refuse to clean up dispersed radioactive Contamination
as required by Army Regulation- AR 700-48: "Management of
Equipment Contaminated With Depleted Uranium or Radioactive
Commodities" (Headquarters, Department Of The Army, Washington,
D.C., September 2002) and U.S. Army Technical Bulletin- TB
9-1300-278: "Guidelines For Safe Response To Handling, Storage,
And Transportation Accidents Involving Army Tank Munitions Or
Armor Which Contain Depleted Uranium" (Headquarters, Department
Of The Army, Washington, D.C., JULY 1996). Specifically section
2-4 of United States Army Regulation-AR 700-48 dated September
16, 2002 requires that:
(1) "Military personnel "identify, segregate, isolate, secure,
and label all RCE" (radiologically contaminated equipment).
(2) "Procedures to minimize the spread of radioactivity will be
implemented as soon as possible."
(3) "Radioactive material and waste will not be locally disposed
of through burial, submersion, incineration, destruction in
place, or abandonment" and
(4) "All equipment, to include captured or combat RCE, will be
surveyed, packaged, retrograded, decontaminated and released IAW
Technical Bulletin 9-1300-278, DA PAM 700-48" (Note: Maximum
exposure limits are specified in Appendix F).
The previous and current use of uranium weapons, the release of
radioactive components in destroyed U.S. and foreign military
equipment, and releases of industrial, medical, research
facility radioactive materials have resulted in unacceptable
exposures. Therefore, decontamination must be completed as
required by U.S. Army Regulation 700-48 and should include
releases of all radioactive materials resulting from military
operations.
The extent of adverse health and environmental effects of
uranium weapons contamination is not limited to combat zones but
includes facilities and sites where uranium weapons were
manufactured or tested including Vieques; Puerto Rico; Colonie,
New York; Concord, MA; Jefferson Proving Grounds, Indiana; and
Schofield Barracks, Hawaii. Therefore medical care must be
provided by the United States Department of Defense officials to
all individuals affected by the manufacturing, testing, and/or
use of uranium munitions. Thorough environmental remediation
also must be completed without further delay.
I am amazed that fifteen years after was I asked to clean up the
initial DU mess from Gulf War 1 and over ten years since I
finished the depleted uranium project that United States
Department of Defense officials and others still attempt to
justify uranium munitions use while ignoring mandatory
requirements. I am dismayed that Department of Defense and
Department of Energy officials and representatives continue
personal attacks aimed to silence or discredit those of us who
are demanding that medical care be provided to all DU casualties
and that environmental remediation is completed in compliance
with U.S. Army Regulation 700-48.
But beyond the ignored mandatory actions the willful dispersal
of tons of solid radioactive and chemically toxic waste in the
form of uranium munitions is illegal
(http://www.traprockpeace.org/karen_parker_du_illegality.pdf)
and just does not even pass the common sense test and according
to the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, DHS, is a dirty
bomb. DHS issued "dirty bomb" response guidelines, (
http://www.access.gpo.gov/su_docs/aces/fr-cont.html ), on
January 3, 2006 for incidents within the United States but
ignore DOD use of uranium weapons and existing DOD regulations.
These guidelines specifically state that: "Characteristics of
RDD and IND Incidents: A radiological incident is defined as an
event or series of events, deliberate or accidental, leading to
the release, or potential release, into the environment of
radioactive material in sufficient quantity to warrant
consideration of protective actions. Use of an RDD or IND is an
act of terror that produces a radiological incident." Thus the
use of uranium munitions is "an act or terror" as defined by
DHS. Finally continued compliance with the infamous March 1991
Los Alamos Memorandum that was issued to ensure continued use of
uranium munitions can not be justified.
In conclusion: the President of the United States- George W.
Bush, the Prime Minister of Great Britain-Tony Blair, and the
Prime Minister of Israel Olmert must acknowledge and accept
responsibility for willful use of illegal uranium munitions-
their own "dirty bombs"- resulting in adverse health and
environmental effects.
President Bush, Prime Minister Blair, and Prime Minister Olmert
should order:
1. medical care for all casualties,
2. thorough environmental remediation,
3. immediate cessation of retaliation against all of us who
demand compliance with medical care and environmental
remediation requirements,
4. and stop the already illegal the use (UN finding) of depleted
uranium munitions.
References- these references are copies the actual regulations
and orders and other pertinent official documents:
http://www.traprockpeace.org/twomemos.html
http://www.traprockpeace.org/rokke_du_3_ques.html
http://www.traprockpeace.org/du_dtic_wakayama_Aug2002.html
http://www.traprockpeace.org/karen_parker_du_illegality.pdf
http://www.access.gpo.gov/su_docs/aces/fr-cont.html
http://cryptome.org/dhs010306.txt
ENDS
*****************************************************************
33 Deseret News: Thyroid disease linked to radiation
[deseretnews.com]
Monday, July 31, 2006
By Joe Bauman
Deseret Morning News
Federal scientists have uncovered a link between radiation
exposure from a nuclear weapons plant and autoimmune disease.
By extension, it is another indication of the dangers of
the open-air atomic testing that rained fallout on Utah and
throughout the United States.
The Hanford Birth Cohort study was released last week by
the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. It
examined residents who lived for at least one year near the
Hanford Nuclear Reservation between 1944 and 1957, when the
plant was releasing radioactive gas while manufacturing
plutonium for bombs. Their health reports were compared with
those of a similar number who lived in other areas of Washington.
The study tallied conditions of 1,160 people in both
areas. To be counted as among those in the more heavily exposed
area, people had to have lived in Adams, Benton or Franklin
counties, Wash., or at least one year between Jan. 1, 1945, and
Dec. 31, 1951.
The control group included residents living in Mason, San
Juan or Whatcom counties.
"The study found a small increased risk of Hashimoto's
thyroiditis . . . for men who lived closer to (the) Hanford
facility," says a report posted on the Internet at
www.atsdr.cdc.gov/hanford/docs/New%20Hanford.pdf.
Hashimoto's thyroiditis is an autoimmune disease caused by
the thyroid gland producing too little thyroid hormone, it adds.
Oddly, the percentage of women with the disorder was the same
among both groups, indicating that this exposure affected only
men.
The report offers this explanation for the exposure: "The
Hanford nuclear facility released large amounts of iodine-131
and other radioactive materials into the air from 1944 to 1957.
Iodine-131 (radioactive iodine) was carried by winds and
deposited on vegetation. Cows and goats ate the vegetation
contaminated by iodine-131. Iodine-131 passed into the cow's and
goat's milk that people drank."
The bulk of the exposure for those affected came through
this source, it adds, but people also were exposed by eating
contaminated fruits and vegetables and by breathing air with the
radioactive material in it.
"Once inhaled or ingested, iodine-131 is deposited in the
thyroid gland. Children who lived in Adams, Benton or Franklin
counties at the time of the releases received the highest doses
of iodine-131."
The study found no evidence for an increased rate of
diseases like rheumatic fever, stroke, fibromyalgia or heart
attacks.
The study found that 10 men among the 291 checked in the
high-exposure counties had the autoimmune thyroid condition,
compared with four men among 385 checked in the control group.
That was 3.4 percent of men in the high-exposure counties
compared to just slightly over 1 percent in the nonexposed
counties.
Men in the exposed counties were 3.31 times as likely as
men in the more distant counties to have the disorder, the
report notes. It labeled this finding "statistically
significant" and advised people who think they may have been
exposed to see their physicians.
The study has many gaps, including its apparent ignoring
of cancer. It also does not attempt to refine the risk to
someone who lived throughout the entire period in the
high-exposure counties, compared with those who lived there just
a year. Finally, exposed children were the most vulnerable, it
says, but does not state how many of those studied were adults
while living in the high-exposure counties.
This is a "red flag" warning, said Dr. Peter Rickards, a
Twin Falls, Idaho, podiatrist who was involved in a federal
study concerning the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory.
"It is interesting that they did find actually triple the
rate" for autoimmune thyroiditis among men, he said.
"This is really important. I'm not sure I believe at all
that the women did not reflect the higher autoimmune (disease)
rate," he said.
Rickards is calling for the federal government to give
documented downwinders, both in Utah and Washington, $500
vouchers for medical exams.
This would be a "very inexpensive, efficient way to track
the actual documented downwinders," he said.
Rickards warned that the study might turn out to be "just
the tip of the iceberg" of autoimmune disorders among those
exposed to radiation.
This was the latest in a series of studies linking health
effects to radiation involving nuclear bombs. Iodine-131 from
above-ground tests at the Nevada Test Site has been tied to
cancer.
A Centers for Disease Control and Prevention advisory on
the Internet points out: "People exposed to I-131, especially
during childhood, may have an increased risk of thyroid disease,
including thyroid cancer many years later. Thyroid cancer is
uncommon and is usually curable."
E-mail: bau@desnews.com
© 2006 Deseret News Publishing Company
*****************************************************************
34 The Australian: Uranium mining gaining support
This story is from our news.com.aunetwork Source: AAP
July 31, 2006
A RISING number of Australians say they support an expansion of
uranium mining, according to a new poll following Labor leader
Kim Beazley's policy backflip on the issue.
Roy Morgan Research says 38 per cent of Australians say there
should be more than three uranium mines in operation, up from 25
per cent support in June.
The telephone poll was conducted over Sunday and Monday nights,
and pollster Gary Morgan said it contained good news for Mr
Beazley who has flagged a review of Labor's three-mines-only
policy.
"The positive news for Mr Beazley is that 38 per cent of
Australians - up 13 per cent (since) June - say that more than
three uranium mines should be operating," Mr Morgan said.
"Also of importance to Mr Beazley is the increase in support
from ALP voters."
The number of Labor voters who said they supported expanded
uranium mining also increased to 38 per cent, a rise of 18 per
cent in just seven weeks.
The poll also showed 44 per cent of respondents who identified
as Liberal-National Party voters support expanded uranium
mining.
Men are also significantly more in favour of expanded uranium
mining, the poll also showed, with 59 per cent in support
compared to just 18 per cent of women.
Privacy Terms © The Australian
*****************************************************************
35 Guardian Unlimited: Towns 'should be paid for buried nuclear waste'
Matt Weaver and agencies
Monday July 31, 2006 Guardian Unlimited
[A cow grazes on a field next to Sellafield nuclear plant] A cow
grazes on a field next to Sellafield nuclear plant. Photograph:
EPA
Local communities should be offered incentives to volunteer for
having lethal radioactive waste buried in their area, an
independent committee appointed by the government concluded
today.
The Committee on Radioactive Waste Management unanimously
decided that burial deep underground, at a cost of Ł10bn, was
the best way of dealing Britain's nuclear waste.
In its final report it noted that Britain's nuclear programme
has already generated 470,00 cubic metres of waste - enough to
fill the Royal Albert Hall five times. But it said that for
decades efforts to find a long-term solution to the waste had
"failed".
It also that acknowledged "geological disposal" was highly
controversial and that it would take "several decades" to
identify suitable sites that would be accepted locally.
A spokesman for the committee said it would be up to individual
communities to determine the detail of the incentives package.
He said: "If all you offer a community is nuclear waste, the
answer will be 'no'. The way forward is to work in partnership
with the communities to identify real benefits appropriate to
the area. This could include economic development, regeneration,
or improved infrastructure such as roads and transport links."
He pointed out that other countries have adopted a similar
approach, including South Korea which offers cash incentives
running to millions, and Belgium, which offers economic
development.
In the meantime the committee said that the radioactive storage
facilities that are currently being used would have to be
reviewed and secured from the threat of terrorism. Some will
have to be moved underground with "heavily reinforced walls and
roofs," it said.
It concluded that "as soon as possible", current depots should
be closed and the waste buried instead.
But it added that if replacement depots were needed in the
interim, they should be designed to last for up to 100 years,
because finding appropriate burial sites would take so long to
resolve.
It said that burial sites should not be imposed on communities
but selected from those that volunteer to take the waste. In
return local communities will be offered "community packages".
The committee's report says: "For the process to be fair, a
local community hosting a facility should be better off after
siting than before. This reflects and acknowledges the service
that is being provided for society at large."
It recommended that an independent body should be set up to
oversee the selection of sites.
Professor Gordon MacKerron, chairman of the committee, said:
"The UK has been creating radioactive waste for 50 years without
any clear idea of what to do with it. The issue has dragged on
for too long."
Speaking on the BBC's Today programme he conceded that the Ł10bn
costs of deep burial was a "great", but added: "It's a
relatively small proportion of the total bill for management of
our nuclear liabilities and waste, which is now about Ł65bn."
Prof MacKerron acknowledged that the proposed solution would not
be risk-free: "There is no such thing as zero-risk, but if you
look at the risk of the various alternatives, burying deep
underground looks to us the least risky," he said.
The government welcomed what it described as a "ground-breaking"
report. Environment secretary David Miliband said: "Public
safety and environmental protection will be our utmost concern
in taking forward the programme for the long- term management of
the UK's higher activity wastes."
He added: "We have no intention of forcing nuclear waste on any
community."
Sir David Wallace, vice-president of the Royal Society said: "It
is inevitable that a robust and flexible long-term management
strategy will require further research but this must not be used
as an excuse to delay the implementation of a disposal
programme, including the process of identifying suitable sites.
"There is considerably less uncertainty surrounding burying
radioactive waste deep underground in stable geological
formations than other options.
Liberal Democrat shadow environment secretary Chris Huhne said
that deep burial looked like the "least bad solution" for
dealing with existing waste, providing communities could be
found willing to take it on.
But he said the report's analysis of the cost and problems of
dealing safely with nuclear waste showed that anyone
contemplating a new generation of atomic energy plants "needs
their head examining".
"It is a real warning about the dangers and costs of creating
yet more (waste)," he told Today.
He added: "Despite the fact that we are one of the safest and
most stable democracies in the world, can we really guarantee
that future generations are going to be as stable for 3,000
years - a period as long as going back to the Pharaohs and the
pyramids?"
Useful links
British Energy
Department of Trade and Industry
British Nuclear Fuels Ltd
Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament
Greenpeace
Come Clean WMD awareness programme
UK atomic energy authority
National Radiological Protection Board
Friends of the Earth
World Nuclear Association
World Nuclear Transport Institute
[UP]
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006
*****************************************************************
36 Sydney Morning Herald: Support for uranium mine 'growing' -
July 31, 2006 - 9:24PM
A rising number of Australians say they support an expansion of
uranium mining, according to a new poll following Labor leader
Kim Beazley's policy backflip on the issue.
Roy Morgan Research says 38 per cent of Australians say there
should be more than three uranium mines in operation, up from 25
per cent support in June.
The telephone poll was conducted over Sunday and Monday nights,
and pollster Gary Morgan said it contained good news for Mr
Beazley who has flagged a review of Labor's three-mines-only
policy.
"The positive news for Mr Beazley is that 38 per cent of
Australians - up 13 per cent (since) June - say that more than
three uranium mines should be operating," Mr Morgan said.
"Also of importance to Mr Beazley is the increase in support
from ALP voters."
The number of Labor voters who said they supported expanded
uranium mining also increased to 38 per cent, a rise of 18 per
cent in just seven weeks.
The poll also showed 44 per cent of respondents who identified
as Liberal-National Party voters support expanded uranium
mining.
Men are also significantly more in favour of expanded uranium
mining, the poll also showed, with 59 per cent in support
compared to just 18 per cent of women.
© 2006 AAP
+
*****************************************************************
37 BBC: 'Urgency needed' on nuclear waste
Last Updated: Monday, 31 July 2006
[Sellafield (BBC)]
Much of Britain's waste is stored at the Sellafield site
The UK government should move with haste to begin burying the
country's radioactive waste deep underground, says the Royal
Society.
The national scientific body made its call as the panel tasked
with finding a long-term solution to the waste problem prepared
to issue its final report.
The Committee on Radioactive Waste Management has already said
that deep geological disposal is the best option.
Current scientific knowledge supported this view, said the Royal
Society.
"It is important that we act with urgency because identifying
appropriate sites and then consulting on and building these deep
storage facilities will take decades," commented Sir David
Wallace, the society's vice president.
The Committee on Radioactive Waste Management (CoRWM) will issue
its final report on Monday.
UK NUCLEAR WASTE - VOLUMES AS PACKAGED FO DISPOSAL
[Spent nuclear fuel in a cooling pond at Sellafield, UK (BNFL)]
High-level waste - 2,000 cubic metres Intermediate-level waste -
350,000 cubic metres Low-level waste - 30,000 cubic metres Spent
fuel - 10,000 cubic metres Plutonium - 4,300 cubic metres Uranium
- 75,000 cubic metres
The panel was set up by the government to investigate the most
appropriate option, or combination of options, for managing
radioactive waste into the future.
It was specifically not asked to identify locations in the UK
where this storage and disposal should take place.
CoRWM released an interim report in April; Monday's publication
is not expected to differ on the main details.
A final disposal facility, or facilities, would be located
several hundred metres underground. The waste would be encased in
tough materials and would use the surrounding rock as a barrier
to prevent radioactive leakage into the environment.
Around one-third of the land in the UK is thought to be
geologically suitable for this purpose.
The committee said in April such stores could take several
decades to develop and robust interim measures were therefore
essential.
The Royal Society said it supported CoRWM's view that an
independent body be set up to oversee the staged decision-making
process into site selection and beyond.
"Such a body should have a much stronger science and engineering
capacity than CoRWM and also have public engagement and education
capability," the academy added.
[Deep nuclear storage facility (Posiva)] src=]
CoRWM goes for deep option
Action time on nuclear waste
Tackling UK's nuclear legacy
Sir David explained: "The management of radioactive
waste is a national issue that will require a continuing need for
an open public dialogue. This should form a vital part of the
long-term management of radioactive waste as the process moves to
selecting sites and beyond."
The UK's radioactive inventory from its current nuclear programme
is expected to include 470,000 cubic metres of materials.
This includes the highly active waste from fuel re-processing and
the irradiated remains of decommissioned reactors (it also
includes the uranium and plutonium in spent fuel rods, although
these are not technically classed as waste at the moment because
the materials could be re-cycled into more nuclear fuel).
CoRWM's extensive three-year investigation of the issues has
dismissed other disposal options, such as putting the waste on
the ocean floor or flying it into the Sun.
The UK government indicated in its recent energy review that it
was open to the idea of industry bringing forward proposals for a
new generation of nuclear power stations.
*****************************************************************
38 BBC: 'Haste needed' on nuclear waste
Last Updated: Monday, 31 July 2006
By Mark Kinver
Science and nature reporter, BBC News
[Sellafield (BBC)]
Much of Britain's waste is stored at the Sellafield site
It is now "time to get on with the job" of burying the
UK's radioactive waste deep underground, a nuclear advisory
group has said in its final report.
The Committee on Radioactive Waste Management (CoRWM) urged
ministers to create quickly a body to oversee the process of
identifying suitable sites.
Because building disposal facilities would take decades, CoRWM
said current storage methods also needed reviewing.
The report is the culmination of a 30-month study into the
issue.
CoRWM's chairman, Gordon MacKerron, said the report provided a
realistic roadmap for the problem of tackling the UK's growing
radioactive waste.
It is important that t government should review current storage
arrangements to check that they are going to work within the
context of our recommendations Prof Gordon MacKerron
"We have about 30 years' worth of not managing the long-term
problem of radioactive waste at all satisfactorily," he told
reporters at a briefing in central London.
"Although it will take several decades... we think we have now
set a direction that government can follow and where there will
be at least sufficient public confidence to move ahead.
"Early action is important. We think the government should build
on the momentum that we believe we have helped to create."
The committee's recommendations were broadly welcomed by the
scientific community.
"Geological disposal, including boreholes, of immobilised waste
is the correct solution for radioactive waste," said John
Roberts, from University of Sheffield's Department of
Engineering Materials.
"It is important that the government now heed the
recommendations [and] progress without delay."
UK NUCLEAR WASTE - VOLUMES AS PACKAGED FOR DISPOSAL
Spent nuclear fuel in a cooling pond at Sellafield, UK (BNFL)]
High-level waste - 2,000 cubic metres Intermediate-level waste -
350,000 cubic metres Low-level waste - 30,000 cubic metres Spent
fuel - 10,000 cubic metres Plutonium - 4,300 cubic metres Uranium
- 75,000 cubic metres
However, David Ball, of Middlesex University, who resigned from
the committee, said its findings were based on opinions rather
than sound science.
"The CoRWM experience has been the antithesis of good decision
making, having been infused throughout with political, commercial
and self interests," he claimed.
He added that the findings would be fair game for cries of "foul
play" from its detractors.
Greenpeace said the report was likely to be used by the
pro-nuclear lobby to push for new nuclear power plants.
"It seems inevitable that CoRWM's 'solution' will be part of the
justification for building a new generation of nuclear reactors
that create yet more radioactive waste," a statement by the
environmental group said.
The committee rejected this view, saying the idea of building new
reactors was not on the political agenda in 2003 when they began
their study.
'Integrated package'
The committee's key recommendations include: + In the long term,
"geological disposal" is the most suitable option + The need for
"robust interim storage" because the process of identifying and
building such a disposal facility may take "several decades" +
The immediate creation of an "oversight body" to begin
implementing the committee's recommendations + An "equal
partnership between government and potential host
communities"Professor MacKerron said the committee viewed its
findings as an integrated package and did not want individual
points to be "cherry picked".
"It is vital that government no longer tries to impose
radioactive waste management facilities on communities because we
have about 30 years of experience of that and we know it never
works; it always runs into the sand," he said.
[Deep nuclear storage facility (Posiva)] src=] Time to act on
waste
"Instead, we are proposing there should be an approach in which
communities are invited to be 'willing to participate'".
Professor MacKerron described it as: "A partnership approach in
which the implementing body and the local community can negotiate
on equal terms.
"Communities would have the right to withdraw from that process
up to a pre-determined point."
Any communities interested in hosting a site for deep geological
storage would have to be willing to accept a long-term
commitment, the committee warned.
At best, the site would not be ready to accept its first
consignment of radioactive waste for at least 35 years, and would
continue to receive waste for a further 65 years.
The committee estimated that it would cost Ł10bn to build a deep
burial facility, but warned that this figure was likely to rise.
Another additional cost could come from interim storage of the
waste while the repository was constructed, Professor MacKerron
added.
"Historically, we have always managed [temporary] storage as if
it only has to last for the next 20 or 30 years. We are saying
that storage may have to last for 100 years or more.
"Existing storage arrangements may or may not be satisfactory
but... we think it is important that the government should review
current storage arrangements to check that they are going to work
within the context of our recommendations," he said.
CoRWM's final report marks the completion of a two-and-a-half
year study, on behalf of the government, into the issue of
dealing with the nation's radioactive waste.
In April, it published an interim recommendation that the best
long-term solution for the disposal of the material was to bury
it deep in the ground, but the committee was not asked to
identify places in the UK where disposal would occur.
[Deep disposal of nuclear waste (BBC)]
*****************************************************************
39 BBC: Safety pledge over nuclear waste
Last Updated: Monday, 31 July 2006
[Dounreay]
The clean-up of Dounreay is expected to take until 2033
Environment Minister Ross Finnie has pledged that public safety
would be given top priority when dealing with the burial of
nuclear waste.
He was responding to an influential committee which has
recommended burying nuclear waste deep underground.
The Committee on Radioactive Waste Management also said robust
interim storage facilities would be required in the meantime.
Its remit did not cover recommending specific sites for the
burial.
However, it said a process had been set out to determine where
any facilities should be located, including identifying parts of
the UK with suitable geology.
We have no intention of forci nuclear waste on any community Ross
Finnie Environment Minister
The process leading to the creation of suitable facilities for
disposal may take several decades.
The committee also said communities in those areas should then be
invited to take part in discussions.
It has been estimated that the UK has enough radioactive waste to
fill almost 200 Olympic-sized swimming pools.
Mr Finnie said: "We have no intention of forcing nuclear waste on
any community."
He praised the committee's work, saying members had undertaken an
extensive programme and had examined all the options.
He added that the report would "provide a strong basis for taking
forward a programme to deal with higher level radioactive
wastes".
[Ross Finnie]
Mr Finnie said public safety is the key concern
The Scottish Executive has always insisted there will be no new
nuclear power stations until the issue of waste is resolved.
Mr Finnie said: "Public safety and environmental protection will
be our utmost concern in taking forward the programme for the
long-term management of the UK's higher activity wastes.
"The government well understands the importance of independent
scrutiny on issues of nuclear power.
"We will ensure in taking this programme forward that there is a
robust regulatory regime and independent oversight."
However, Nicola Sturgeon, the Scottish National Party's Holyrood
leader, said Mr McConnell must publicly state his position on new
nuclear power stations.
"He must come off the fence about Scotland's nuclear future," she
said.
"He cannot hide from the Scottish public any longer, he must be
clear about whether his legacy will condemn Scotland's next
generation to a future with additional deadly nuclear waste by
supporting the development of new nuclear power stations.
"The people of Scotland do not need, nor do they want, a new
generation of nuclear power."
Nuclear power remains unwante unsafe and uneconomic Nora
Radcliffe Liberal Democrats
The Scottish Greens called on Mr McConnell to reject the building
of new nuclear power stations, arguing instead for greater use of
renewable power.
Co-convener Robin Harper said: "It is clear that there is still
no solution to the problem of nuclear waste.
"What is needed now is the political willpower to seriously
advance renewable energy and energy efficiency."
Nora Radcliffe, the environment spokeswoman for the Liberal
Democrats, said: "This report must not be seen as giving a green
light to new nuclear build in Scotland.
"This report is dealing with our dangerous radioactive waste
legacy, not the separate question of new nuclear build.
"Nuclear power remains unwanted, unsafe and uneconomic."
She added that the Liberal Democrats would focus on improving
energy efficiency and investing in renewable energy.
The Scottish Executive said it would give a full response in the
autumn.
*****************************************************************
40 Independent: Top scientists demand deep burial of radioactive waste
By Amanda Brown, PA
Published: 31 July 2006
Proposals to bury the UK's existing radioactive waste deep
underground should be acted on urgently and not delayed by calls
for more scientific research, top scientists said today.
The statement from the Royal Society - the UK's national academy
of science - comes as the Committee on Radioactive Waste
Management, an independent committee appointed by the
Government, publishes its final recommendations today.
CoRWM published a draft series of proposals in April which the
Royal Society said supported the scientific commungity's
consensus that geological disposal is a "feasible and low risk
option."
It voiced its concern that CoRWM's recommendation for more
research and development into general uncertainties concerning
geological disposal, "may appear inconsistent with CoRWM's
conclusion that sufficient confidence can already be placed in
the long-term safety of this option."
Sir David Wallace, vice-president of the Royal Society said: "It
is inevitable that a robust and flexible long-term management
strategy will require further research but this must not be used
as an excuse to delay the implementation of a disposal
programme, including the process of identifying suitable sites.
"The nature of scientific knowledge is such that there will
always be levels of uncertainty associated with any method of
disposing of radioactive waste.
"However, there is considerably less uncertainty surrounding
burying radioactive waste deep underground in stable geological
formations than other options.
"It is important that we act with urgency because identifying
appropriate sites and then consulting on and building these deep
storage facilities will take decades. This time lag means a
long-term management strategy will require an interim storage
period, as recommended by CoRWM."
The Society supports CoRWM's recommendations that an independent
body is set up and oversees the staged decision making process
into site selection and beyond.
The report says: "Such a body should have a much stronger
science and engineering capacity than CoRWM and also have public
engagement and education capability."
Sir David added: "The management of radioactive waste is a
national issue that will require a continuing need for an open
public dialogue. This should form a vital part of the long-term
management of radioactive waste as the process moves to
selecting sites and beyond."
Professor Gordon MacKerron, chairman of the committee on
radioactive waste management, said: "The UK has been creating
radioactive waste for 50 years without any clear idea of what to
do with it.
"The issue has dragged on for too long. Today we will announce
our final recommendations, which we are confident will, for the
first time, provide a realistic strategy to deal with this
problem.
"It has taken an intensive two-and-a-half-year programme of
engagement with the public, stakeholders and the scientific
community to reach them. This is a complex issue but we think
our report will give communities a powerful voice in any future
decisions."
© 2006 Independent News and Media Limited
*****************************************************************
41 AFP: Leading scientists urge authorities to bury radioactive waste -
Mon Jul 31, 7:49 AM ET
LONDON (AFP) - Leading scientists have urged authorities to move
quickly to bury radioactive waste deep underground rather than
wait to clear up all doubts about such a disposal.
The Royal Society, Britain's national academy of science, said
scientists need to learn much more about how best to dispose of
radioactive waste but that such a need should not be "used as an
excuse" to delay action.
"The nature of scientific knowledge is such that there will
always be levels of uncertainty associated with any method of
disposing of radioactive waste," the society's vice president
Sir David Wallace said Monday.
"However, there is considerably less uncertainty surrounding
burying radioactive waste deep underground in stable geological
formations than other options," Wallace said.
"It is important that we act with urgency because identifying
appropriate sites and then consulting on and building these deep
storage facilities will take decades," he said.
He said this time lag means a long-term management strategy will
require an interim storage period, as recommended by the
Committee on Radioactive Waste Management (CoRWM), an
independent group appointed by the government.
The Royal Society supports CoRWM's recommendations that an
independent body be set up to oversee the staged decision-making
process into site selection and beyond.
In a review of its energy policy, the government said earlier
this month that nuclear power could make a significant
contribution to Britain's energy needs, alongside renewable
energy sources.
Copyright © 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The
*****************************************************************
42 EPA: comment period for wastes from INEL to WIPP
FR Doc E6-12215
[Federal Register: July 31, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 146)]
[Notices] [Page 43150-43154] From the Federal Register Online via
GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr31jy06-67]
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0597; FRL-8204-5]
Proposed Approval of the Advanced Mixed Waste Treatment Project's
Transuranic Waste Characterization Program at Idaho National
Laboratory AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.
ACTION: Notice of availability; opening of public comment period.
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (``EPA'' or ``we'')
is announcing the availability of, and soliciting public comments
for 45 days on, the proposed approval of the radioactive,
transuranic (``TRU'') waste characterization program implemented
by the Advanced Mixed Waste Treatment Project (``AMWTP'') at
Idaho National Laboratory (``INL''). This waste is intended for
disposal at the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (``WIPP'') in New
Mexico. In accordance with the WIPP Compliance Criteria, EPA
evaluated the AMWTP/INL's characterization of TRU debris and
solid waste from AMWTP/INL during an inspection conducted March
27-March 31, 2006. Using the systems and processes developed as
part of the Department of Energy's (``DOE's'') Carlsbad Field
Office (``CBFO''), EPA verified whether DOE could adequately
characterize TRU waste consistent with the Compliance Criteria.
The results of EPA's evaluation of the AMWTP/INL program and the
proposed approval are described in EPA's inspection report, which
is available for review in the public dockets listed in
ADDRESSES. We will consider public comments received on or before
the due date mentioned in DATES.
This notice summarizes the waste characterization processes
evaluated by EPA and EPA's proposed approval. As required by 40
CFR 194.8, at the end of a 45-day comment period, EPA will
evaluate public comments received, finalize the report responding
to the relevant public comments, and issue the final report and
an approval letter to DOE's CBFO. Based on previous EPA
inspections and approvals, AMWTP/INL is currently approved to
dispose of debris and solid waste at WIPP. AMWTP/INL is permitted
to continue waste characterization and disposal in accordance
with prior site approvals [[Page 43151]] while EPA establishes a
baseline approval. DATES: Comments must be received on or before
September 14, 2006. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified
by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ- OAR-2006-0597, by one of the following
methods:
http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions
for submitting comments.
E-mail: to a-and-r-docket@epa.gov
Fax: 202-566-1741
Mail: Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center,
Environmental Protection Agency, Mailcode: 6102T, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460.
Instructions: Direct your comments to Attn: Docket ID No.
EPA-HQ- OAR-2006-0597. The Agency's policy is that all comments
received will be included in the public docket without change and
may be made available online at http://www.regulations.gov,
including any personal information provided, unless the comment
includes information claimed to be Confidential Business
Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through
http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The www.regulations.gov Web
site is an ``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not
know your identity or contact information unless you provide it
in the body of your comment. If you send an e-mail comment
directly to EPA without going through http://www.regulations.gov,
your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included
as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket and
made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic
comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other
contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk
or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification,
EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files
should avoid the use of special characters, any form of
encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. For additional
information about EPA's public docket, visit the EPA Docket
Center homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm .
Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the
http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index,
some information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain
other material, such as copyrighted material, will be publicly
available only in hard copy. Publicly available docket materials
are available either electronically at http://www.regulations.gov
or in hard copy at 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. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rajani
Joglekar, 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:
joglekar.rajani@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. General Information
A. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA?
1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA
through http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail. Clearly mark the
part or all of the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI
information in a disk or CD ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the
outside of the disk or CD ROM as CBI and then identify
electronically within the disk or CD ROM the specific information
that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one complete version of
the comment that includes information claimed as CBI, a copy of
the comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI
must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket. Information
so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with
procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
2. Tips for Preparing Your Comments. When submitting comments,
remember to:
Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other
identifying information (subject heading, Federal Register date
and page number).
Follow directions--The agency may ask you to respond to
specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR) part or section number.
Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and
substitute language for your requested changes.
Describe any assumptions and provide any technical
information and/or data that you used.
If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you
arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to
be reproduced.
Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and
suggest alternatives.
Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use
of profanity or personal threats.
Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period
deadline identified.
II. Background
DOE is developing the WIPP near Carlsbad in southeastern New
Mexico as a deep geologic repository for disposal of TRU
radioactive waste. As defined by the WIPP Land Withdrawal Act
(LWA) of 1992 (Pub. L. 102- 579), as amended (Pub. L. 104-201),
TRU waste consists of materials containing processes having
atomic numbers greater than 92 (with half- lives greater than
twenty years), in concentrations greater than 100 nanocuries of
alpha-emitting TRU isotopes per gram of waste. Much of the
existing TRU waste consists of items contaminated during the
production of nuclear weapons, such as rags, equipment, tools,
and sludges.
On May 13, 1998, EPA announced its final compliance
certification decision to the Secretary of Energy (published May
18, 1998, 63 FR 27354). This decision stated that the WIPP will
comply with EPA's radioactive waste disposal regulations at 40
CFR part 191, Subparts B and C.
The final WIPP certification decision includes conditions
that (1) prohibit shipment of TRU waste for disposal at WIPP from
any site other than the Los Alamos National Laboratories (LANL)
until the EPA determines that the site has established and
executed a quality [[Page 43152]] assurance program, in
accordance with Sec. Sec. 194.22(a)(2)(i), 194.24(c)(3), and
194.24(c)(5) for waste characterization activities and
assumptions (Condition 2 of Appendix A to 40 CFR part 194); and
(2) (with the exception of specific, limited waste streams and
equipment at LANL) prohibit shipment of TRU waste for disposal at
WIPP (from LANL or any other site) until EPA has approved the
procedures developed to comply with the waste characterization
requirements of Sec. 194.22(c)(4) (Condition 3 of Appendix A to
40 CFR part 194). The EPA's approval process for waste generator
sites is described in Sec. 194.8.
In July 2004, EPA promulgated changes to the ``Criteria for
the Certification and Recertification of the Waste Isolation
Pilot Plant's Compliance with Disposal Regulations'' (69 FR
42571-42583, July 16, 2004). These changes went into effect
October 14, 2004, which modified the EPA approval of waste
characterization (``WC'') programs at DOE's TRU waste sites.
These revisions provide equivalent or improved oversight and
better prioritization of technical issues in EPA inspections to
evaluate WC activities at DOE WIPP waste generator sites, and
also offer more direct public input into the Agency's decisions
about what waste can be disposed of at WIPP. They do not modify
the technical approach that EPA has employed since the 1998 WIPP
Certification Decision.
Condition 3 of the WIPP Certification Decision requires that
EPA conduct independent inspections at DOE's waste
generator/storage sites of their TRU waste characterization
capabilities before approving their program and the waste for
disposal at the WIPP. The revised inspection and approval process
gives EPA greater (a) discretion in establishing technical
priorities, (b) ability to accommodate variation in the site's
waste characterization capabilities, and (c) flexibility in
scheduling site WC inspections. The Sec. 194.8 changes require
that EPA conduct a baseline inspection at every previously
approved TRU site (such as AMWTP/INL). EPA expects that within
two years after the effective date of October 2004 most of the
previously approved TRU sites (such as Hanford, Los Alamos CCP,
and Savannah River Site CCP) will undergo EPA baseline
inspections. Following these inspections, the Agency will issue a
new baseline compliance decision for these sites.
As part of the baseline inspection, EPA must evaluate each WC
process component (equipment, procedures, and personnel training/
experience) for its adequacy and appropriateness in
characterizing TRU waste destined for the disposal at WIPP.
During the inspection, the site demonstrates its capabilities to
characterize TRU waste(s) and its ability to comply with the
regulatory limits and tracking requirements under Sec. 194.24.
The baseline inspection can result in approval with
limitations/conditions or may require follow-up inspection(s)
before approval. The approval must specify what subsequent WC
program changes or expansion should be reported to EPA. The
Agency is required to assign Tier 1 (``TI'') and Tier 2 (``T2'')
to the reportable changes depending on their potential impact on
data quality. A T1 designation requires that the site must notify
EPA of proposed changes to the approved components of an
individual WC process (such as radioassay equipment or
personnel), and EPA must also approve the change before it can be
implemented. A WC element with a T2 designation allows the site
to implement changes to the approved components of individual WC
processes (such as visual examination procedures) but requires
EPA notification. The Agency may choose to inspect the site to
evaluate technical adequacy before approval. EPA inspections
conducted to evaluate T1 or T2 changes are follow-up inspections
under the authority of Sec. 194.24(h). In addition to the
follow-up inspections, if warranted, EPA may opt to conduct
continued compliance inspections at TRU waste sites with a
baseline approval under the authority of Sec. 194.24(h).
The revisions to the site inspection and approval process
outlined in Sec. 194.8 require EPA to issue a Federal Register
notice proposing the baseline compliance decision, docket the
inspection report for public review, and seek public comment on
the proposed decision for a period of 45 days. The report must
describe the WC processes EPA inspected at the site, as well as
their compliance with Sec. 194.24 requirements.
III. Proposed Baseline Compliance Decision
From March 27--March 31, 2006, EPA performed a baseline
inspection of TRU waste characterization activities of DOE's
AMWTP at INL (EPA Inspection No. EPA-AMWTP-03.06-8).
The purpose of EPA's inspection was to verify that AMWTP is
characterizing CH TRU retrievably-stored debris waste (S5000) and
solid waste (S3000), as well as CH TRU newly-generated debris
waste (S5000), from INL properly and in compliance with the
regulatory requirements at 40 CFR 194.24. During the inspection,
EPA also evaluated AMWTP's use of the WIPP Waste Information
System (``WWIS'') for tracking the contents of CH TRU waste
containers destined for disposal at WIPP. This tracking ensures
that the volume emplaced in the WIPP repository and
characteristics of the emplaced wastes conform to the
requirements of the WIPP LWA and the specific conditions of the
WIPP Certification Decision.
During the inspection, EPA evaluated the adequacy,
implementation, and effectiveness of AMWTP/INL's waste
characterization activities. The Agency's evaluation focused on
the individual components--equipment, procedures, and personnel
training/experience of the following waste characterization
processes: acceptable knowledge (``AK''), nondestructive assay
(``NDA''), visual examination techniques (``VET''), visual
examination/real-time radiography (``VE/RTR''), load management,
and the WWIS. The overall program adequacy and effectiveness of
AMWTP/INL was based on DOE-provided upper-tier documents.
EPA evaluated the waste characterization processes at
AMWTP/INL for specific CH TRU waste categories, as follows:
Acceptable knowledge (AK) and load management for CH
retrievably-stored and newly-generated TRU debris waste (S5000)
and retrievably-stored solids (S3000)
Visual examination technique (VET) for CH newly-generated
debris waste (S5000)
Visual examination (VE) as quality control (QC) check of
real-time radiography (RTR) and VE in lieu of RTR for CH
retrievably- stored TRU debris waste (S5000) and solids (S3000)
RTR for CH retrievably-stored TRU debris waste (S5000) and
solids (S3000)
Nondestructive assay (NDA) and the WIPP Waste Information
System (WWIS) for CH retrievably-stored and newly-generated TRU
debris waste (S5000) and retrievably-stored solids (S3000) for
Integrated Waste Assay System (IWAS) units Z-211-102 and -103,
and CH retrievably- stored and newly-generated TRU debris waste
(S5000) only for IWAS units Z-390-100 and -101
Debris waste that has been removed from standard waste boxes
and damaged 55-gallon drums, repackaged in 55-gallon drums for
supercompaction
Four NDA IWAS units were evaluated. IWAS units Z-211-102 and
-103 were evaluated for characterizing debris (S5000) and solid
(S3000) wastes. IWAS units Z-390-100 and 101 were [[Page 43153]]
evaluated for characterizing debris (S5000) only.
In addition to reviewing individual components (namely,
procedures, and equipment) of each of the WC processes (AK, NDA,
VET, VE/RTR, load management, and the WWIS), the Agency
interviewed and reviewed training records of personnel
responsible for compiling data, analyzing waste contents,
operating equipment, and preparing data for WWIS tracking. EPA
also required radioassay replicate analysis on selected
containers from the population of previously analyzed waste
containers on the same system or instrument for the two different
waste categories. The purpose of this replicate testing is to
provide EPA with an independent means to verify that the
radioassay equipment being assessed for approval can provide
consistent, reproducible results for the determination of the
quantity of 10 WIPP-tracked radionuclides (241Am, 137Cs, 238Pu,
239Pu, 240Pu, 242Pu, 90Sr, 233U, 234U, and 238U) as well as TRU
alpha concentration. The results of the replicate analysis help
EPA to determine whether:
The instrument produces results consistent with the reported
total measurement uncertainty (``TMU'') by comparing the sample
standard deviation for a number of replicate measurements taken
over several hours or days to the reported TMU.
The instrument provides reproducible results over longer
periods of time, such as weeks or months, by comparing the
results of the replicate measurement(s) to the original reported
values.
EPA's inspection team did not identify any findings or
concerns during the inspection, and determined that AMWTP/INL's
WC program activities were technically adequate. EPA is proposing
to approve the AMWTP--INL WC program in the configuration
observed during this inspection and described in this report and
in the checklists in Attachment A. This proposed approval
includes the following waste characterization activities:
(1) The AK and load management process for CH
retrievably-stored TRU debris and solids.
(2) Two NDA systems (IWAS units Z-211-102 and Z-211-103) for
assaying CH retrievably-stored or newly-generated debris and
solid wastes in both 55- and 85-gallon containers.
(3) Two NDA systems (IWAS units Z-390-100 and Z-390-101) for
assaying only CH retrievably-stored or newly-generated debris
wastes in 55-gallon containers.
(4) VE as a QC check of the RTR process for
retrievably-stored debris and solid wastes, including VE
performed in lieu of RTR.
(5) The VET process for newly-generated debris wastes.
(6) RTR for retrievably-stored S5000 debris and S4000 solid
wastes.
(7) The WWIS for the purpose of data transfer and tracking
waste contents of debris and solid wastes including 100-gallon
overpack containers.
As required by the new Sec. 194.8 revisions, EPA has
assigned specific requirements for reporting changes to an
approved waste characterization program. As seen from the table
below, Tier 1 changes require EPA approval prior to
implementation of the change and may require EPA inspection to
determine technical adequacy. Tier 2 changes may be implemented
prior to EPA approval; however, this type of change must be
reported to EPA quarterly. Any changes to WC activities from the
date of the baseline inspection must be reported to and, if
applicable, approved by EPA, according to the following table:
Table 1.--Proposed Tiering of TRU WC
Processes Implemented by AMWTP
[Based on March 28-30, 2006,Baseline Inspection]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AMWTP WC process specific
AMWTP WC process AMWTP general T2
WC process elements T1 changes specific T2 changes* changes*
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AK including Load Management..... Any new waste category...
Waste Stream Profile Changes to site
Changes to WWIS
Forms, including procedures requiring
algorithms specific to
updates or additions to approvals by the
load management.
waste stream(s) within Carlsbad Field Office
an approved waste (CBFO) and other
category (see Section changes as discussed in
8.1). Section 8.1 of this
Changes in load report.
management status of
approved waste
stream(s).
NDA.............................. New equipment or physical
Changes to software for Changes to site
modifications to
approved equipment (see procedures requiring
approved equipment.**
Section 8.2). CBFO approvals and
Changes to approved
Changes to operating other changes as
calibration range for
range(s) upon CBFO discussed in Section
approved equipment (see
approval. 8.2 of this report.
Section 8.2)..
RTR.............................. N/A......................
New equipment or changes Changes to site
to approved equipment. procedures requiring
CBFO approvals and
other changes as
discussed in Section
8.3 of this report.
VE and VET....................... Changes in vendor
Addition of new waste Changes to site
performing VE and/or VET.
category. procedures requiring
Addition of new CBFO approvals and
procedure or site other changes as
equipment identifier. discussed in Section
8.4 of this report.
WWIS............................. N/A...................... N/A..................... Changes to site
procedures requiring
CBFO approvals and
other changes as
discussed in Section
8.5 of this report.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------
* Upon receiving EPA approval, AMWTP will report all T2 changes
to EPA every three months.
** Modifications to approved equipment include all changes with
the potential to affect NDA data relative to
waste isolation, and exclude minor changes such as the
addition of safety-related equipment.
EPA will notify the public of its evaluation results for
proposed Tier 1 (T1) and Tier 2 (T2) changes on the EPA Web site
and by sending e-mails to the WIPP-NEWS list (see Section 2.0,
below, for a brief discussion of tiering).
[[Page 43154]]
All T1 changes that are submitted for approval before their
implementation will be evaluated by EPA and, upon approval, EPA
will post the evaluation results on the EPA Web site and the
WIPP-NEWS list, as described above. EPA will post T2 changes
approximately every three months beginning with the date of EPA's
approval of the TRU WC program implemented at AMWTP/INL. EPA
expects the first report of T2 changes at AMWTP/INL approximately
three months from the FR notice accompanying this report.
The scope of the AMWTP baseline is based on EPA's inspection
of the WC system of controls. EPA will not approve any changes to
the AMWTP program until after EPA issues the baseline approval.
AMWTP is currently approved to dispose of retrievably-stored and
newly-generated debris (S5000) and retrievably-stored solid
(S3000) wastes at the WIPP, and AMWTP is permitted to continue WC
and disposal in accordance with prior site approvals during the
period before EPA approves the final baseline. IV. Availability
of the Baseline Inspection Report for Public Comment
EPA has placed the report discussing the results of EPA's
inspection of AMWTP at INL in the public docket as described in
ADDRESSES. In accordance with 40 CFR 194.8, EPA is providing the
public 45 days to comment on these documents. The Agency requests
comments on the tiering designations and the proposed approval
decision. EPA will accept public comment on this notice and
supplemental information as described in Section 1.B. above. The
EPA will not make a determination of compliance before the 45-day
comment period ends. At the end of the public comment period, EPA
will evaluate all relevant public comment and revise the
inspection report as necessary. The Agency will then issue an
approval letter and the final inspection report, both of which
will be posted on the WIPP Web site. The letter of approval will
allow AMWTP to use the approved TRU waste characterization
processes to characterize waste at INL.
Information on the certification decision is filed in the
official EPA Air Docket, Docket No. A-93-02 and is available for
review in Washington, DC, and at the three EPA WIPP informational
docket locations in New Mexico (as listed in ADDRESSES). The
dockets in New Mexico contain only major items from the official
Air Docket in Washington, DC, plus those documents added to the
official Air Docket since the October 1992 enactment of the WIPP
LWA.
Dated: July 11, 2006. Barnes Johnson, Acting Director, Office
of Radiation and Indoor Air.
[FR Doc. E6-12215 Filed 7-28-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
*****************************************************************
43 Telegraph: Top scientists demand deep burial of radioactive waste
Tuesday 1 August 2006
[telegraph.co.uk]
(Filed: 31/07/2006)
Proposals to bury the UK's existing radioactive waste deep
underground need urgent action and should not be delayed by calls
for more scientific research, top scientists said today.
[Sellafield]
BNFL's Sellafield nuclear reprocessing plant in Cumbria, where
much of Britain's waste is stored
The statement from the Royal Society, the UK's national academy
of science, comes as the Committee on Radioactive Waste
Management (CoRWM), an independent committee appointed by the
Government, publishes its final recommendations today.
The Royal Society said the scientific community's consensus is
that geological disposal, or deep burial, is a "feasible and low
risk option."
The Royal Society said that CoRWM's recommendation for more
research into geological disposal was inconsistent with its
conclusion that this method of disposal is safe.
Sir David Wallace, vice-president of the Royal Society said: "It
is inevitable that a robust and flexible long-term management
strategy will require further research but this must not be used
as an excuse to delay the implementation of a disposal
programme, including the process of identifying suitable sites.
"It is important that we act with urgency because identifying
appropriate sites and then consulting on and building these deep
storage facilities will take decades. This time lag means a
long-term management strategy will require an interim storage
period, as recommended by CoRWM."
Sir David added: "The management of radioactive waste is a
national issue that will require a continuing need for an open
public dialogue. This should form a vital part of the long-term
management of radioactive waste as the process moves to
selecting sites and beyond."
© Copyright of Telegraph Group Limited 2006. | Terms &
*****************************************************************
44 AU ABC: Gillard refuses to comment on Beazley uranium backflip.
31/07/2006. ABC News Online
The federal Opposition's Health spokeswoman, Julia Gillard, has
again refused to be drawn on her views about Labor Leader Kim
Beazley's backflip on the party's "no new mines" policy.
Ms Gillard is in Alice Springs today, where anti-uranium
campaigners this morning repeated their vow to fight any plans
to open up the Territory to further uranium mining.
She says now is not the time or place for her to reveal whether
she agrees with her party's policy.
"I've said this is a debate within the Labor Party about the
future of our 'no new mines' policy," she said.
"It's a debate that will be had at national conference in April
2007 and I've said that any contribution I want to make in that
debate I will make at national conference in April 2007."
*****************************************************************
45 KVIA.com: WIPP says some Los Alamos waste must be repackaged
The El Paso News Leader -
LOS ALAMOS, N.M. Los Alamos National Laboratory is temporarily
storing 300 to 400 drums of plutonium-contaminated waste.
The waste must be repackaged before it can be sent to the Waste
Isolation Pilot Plant or WIPP -- where the waste is to be
permanently buried.
Lab spokesman James Rickman says the drums don't meet the
Carlsbad repository's strict criteria.
The lab had planned to complete its so-called "Quick to WIPP"
program by the end of the year.
The project is two years behind schedule.Rickman says that about
700 drums of plutonium-contaminated clothing, tools, rags and
other waste remain at the lab to be shipped under the Quick to
WIPP program.
The lab plans to upgrade its repackaging facility this fall.
Copyright 2006
Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be
published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
All content © Copyright 2002 - 2006 WorldNow and KVIA. All
Rights Reserved.
*****************************************************************
46 News & Star: Nuclear repository back on the agenda
Published on 31/07/2006
AN UNDERGROUND repository for nuclear waste is firmly back on the
agenda for Cumbria, following publication of an official report
today.
The government's committee on Radioactive Waste Management has
made proposals on how to deal with Britain’s estimated 470,000
cubic metres of nuclear waste.
It strongly favours a deep underground repository as the
long-term solution.
But only, the committee says, where local communities back the
idea.
In practice, that makes West Cumbria a strong candidate as the
only areas likely to welcome a waste repository are those already
dependent on the nuclear industry.
Professor Gordon MacKerron, chairman of the committee, said:
“The UK has been creating radioactive waste for 50 years
without any clear idea of what to do with it.
“We are confident that our recommendations provide the way
forward.
“It will, however, take a long time to put in place all the
component parts so now it’s time to get on with the job.”
The committee is also calling for changes to the way waste is
stored in the meantime, before a repository comes on stream.
At present, most is stored above ground at Sellafield and more
than 30 other locations.
The committee wants security stepped up, particularly against
terrorist attack.
It says the structures used for storing waste should be improved
so they last longer.
And it wants waste to be quickly immobilised into a form that
can be stored safely.
The committee’s findings come as no surprise.
They are in line with its draft conclusions published in April.
The idea of an underground repository was first put for ward by
the government’s Nirex inspectorate in the 1980s and 90s.
It eventually chose Sellafield as the preferred site, only for
the government to drop the plan in 1997.
Nirex’s proposals might have seen 82 caverns built immediately
to the south of Sellafield at a cost of ÂŁ2bn.
An alternative scheme would have created 26 larger caverns in
harder rocks near Calderbridge, serviced by a two-mile tunnel
from Sellafield, costing ÂŁ1.7bn.
*****************************************************************
47 times and star: Nuke dump back on the agenda
workington lake district
Published on 31/07/2006
AN UNDERGROUND repository for nuclear waste is firmly back on the
agenda for Cumbria, following publication of an official report
today.
The government's committee on Radioactive Waste Management has
made proposals on how to deal with Britain’s estimated 470,000
cubic metres of nuclear waste.
It strongly favours a deep underground repository as the
long-term solution.
But only, the committee says, where local communities back the
idea.
In practice, that makes West Cumbria a strong candidate as the
only areas likely to welcome a waste repository are those
already dependent on the nuclear industry. Professor Gordon
MacKerron, chairman of the committee, said: “The UK has been
creating radioactive waste for 50 years without any clear idea
of what to do with it.
“We are confident that our recommendations provide the way
forward.
“It will, however, take a long time to put in place all the
component parts so now it’s time to get on with the job.”
The committee is also calling for changes to the way waste is
stored in the meantime, before a repository comes on stream.
At present, most is stored above ground at Sellafield and more
than 30 other locations.
The committee wants security stepped up, particularly against
terrorist attack.
It says the structures used for storing waste should be improved
so they last longer.
And it wants waste to be quickly immobilised into a form that
can be stored safely.
The committee’s findings come as no surprise.
They are in line with its draft conclusions published in April.
The idea of an underground repository was first put forward by
the government’s Nirex inspectorate in the 1980s and 90s.
It eventually chose Sellafield as the preferred site, only for
the government to drop the plan in 1997.
Nirex’s proposals might have seen 82 caverns built immediately
to the south of Sellafield at a cost of ÂŁ2bn.
An alternative scheme would have created 26 larger caverns in
harder rocks near Calderbridge, serviced by a two-mile tunnel
from Sellafield, costing ÂŁ1.7bn.
What do you think about the idea of a nuclear dump in West
Cumbria? Tell us in our . Other stories from this
*****************************************************************
48 nature.com: Britain urged to store nuclear waste underground -
Expert panel warns that plans for disposal should begin without
delay.
Published online: 31 July 2006; | doi:10.1038/news060731-1
Jim Giles
Safe storage of nuclear waste can take decades to implement.
Click here to see Nature's previous roundup of different
countries' plans.© Getty
Britain should take steps to join the ranks of countries
planning to store nuclear waste deep underground, an advisory
committee has told the government. Because any such plan will
take decades to implement, the panel adds that politicians need
to act on the committee's recommendations immediately.
The backing for 'geological disposal' comes from the Committee
on Radioactive Waste Management, which has been considering
various storage options since 2003. The process has not always
been straightforward two panel members left after accusing the
committee of focusing on public opinion rather than science
but the findings, announced today, put Britain in line with
international thinking on how such storage issues should be
addressed.
Plans to create an underground storage facility are at an
advanced stage in other countries such as the United States,
where a site at Yucca Mountain in the Nevada desert has been
studied for almost 30 years. Geological disposal plans are also
under way in China, India and Finland, among others.
At Yucca Mountain, waste would be stored some 300 metres below
the surface, in multilayered metal canisters that are designed
to secure material safely for thousands of years. Several areas
of Britain, such as parts of Wales and the Lake District in
northern England, are considered geologically stable enough to
host similar stores.
Neil Chapman
University of Sheffield, UK
Get a move on
"The UK has been creating radioactive waste for 50 years without
any clear idea of what to do with it," says Gordon MacKerron,
committee chair and a science policy expert at the University of
Sussex, UK. "We are confident that our recommendations provide
the way forward."
But persuading local communities to host such a project could
pose a more tricky challenge than the technical difficulties of
waste disposal. A proposal to create a waste store at
Sellafield, an existing nuclear power plant, was thrown out by a
public enquiry in 1997. The committee says that a repeat will
only be avoided if benefits such as economic investment can be
used to persuade local people to partner with the government on
any storage plan.
MacKerron and other committee members warn that forging such a
partnership is likely to involve many years of discussion, but
that a robust interim storage solution is needed now. Most waste
from Britain's 33 nuclear power stations is currently stored at
the plants where it is produced. The safety of these facilities
should also be reviewed, the committee adds they need to be
safe for at least 100 years in case of delays to long-term
storage programmes such as geological disposal.
"It is good that they have recognized that this will be a long
process and that most of the key decisions will be made by
future generations," comments Neil Chapman, a geologist at the
University of Sheffield, UK. "What is needed now is the will to
get the process moving quickly."
©2006 Nature Publishing Group
*****************************************************************
49 Salt Lake Tribune: Fish on a ferry in contamination cleanup
Article Last Updated: 07/29/2006 02:09:31 AM MDT
By Lisa J. Church Special to the Tribune
MOAB - Sixteen million tons of contaminated soil and debris
are not the only things that have to be relocated in order for
the Energy Department to successfully reclaim the Atlas uranium
mill tailings site.
On Friday, specialists from the state Division of Natural
Resources began moving fish from a 50-year-old pond at the site
to a new pond constructed in a noncontaminated area nearby.
The fish - mostly carp and black bullhead - have likely lived
in the pond for years, and were probably deposited there as
water from the Colorado River was pumped into the pond, said Ed
Baker, environmental compliance lead worker for S.M. Stoller,
Corp., the site contractor.
Radioactive tailings have contaminated soil surrounding the
pond, but the water inside the pond does not appear to be
contaminated, Baker said.
As part of the Energy Department's plan to move the tailings
away from the banks of the Colorado River, all contaminated soil
found on the 400-acre property will be hauled to a permanent
disposal cell that will be constructed near Crescent Junction,
about 30 miles north.
Workers must drain the pond to remove the surrounding soil.
Because of the pond's age, wildlife experts were concerned that
it might contain endangered fish such as the humpback chub.
"We wanted to make sure there were no endangered fish in
there," said fish recovery specialist Darek Elverud. "It would
be unusual, but it's possible since the pond is connected to the
river."
Using electrified probes to temporarily stun the fish, Elverud
and Colleen Blaine pulled about 25 carp and five bullheads from
the pond on Friday before afternoon heat forced them to stop for
the day. The pair will return Tuesday to complete the job.
Through the process, known as "electrofishing," a pair of probes
is inserted into the water, creating a mild electric shock -
about 200 volts, or three amps - stunning the fish and causing
them to rise to the surface. Elverud and Blaine net the fish, and
place them in a five-gallon bucket for transfer to a new
location.
"It causes muscle contraction that makes them rise to the
surface and swim toward the boat," Elverud said. "That allows us
to capture the fish. If it's done right, it doesn't harm the
fish in any way."
Workers began filling the new pond, about 200 yards to the
south, with water, pumped from the Colorado River, on Wednesday
morning. By Friday, the pond held more than 1.5 million gallons
of murky river water that will now be new fish habitat. The new
pond will be maintained at a depth of about 9 feet, said Fred
Smith, project supervisor.
© Copyright 2006, The Salt Lake Tribune.
*****************************************************************
50 KnoxNews: OR security proposals still under review
Often-delayed announcement now expected in September
By FRANK MUNGER, munger@knews.com
July 31, 2006
OAK RIDGE - The government has again delayed the awarding of Oak
Ridge security contracts valued at more than $500 million.
Steven Wyatt, a spokesman at the Y-12 National Security Complex,
said federal officials are still evaluating the proposals
submitted by security companies vying for the contracts.
The contract announcement had been scheduled for February, but
then was delayed until May and then July. It's now expected
before the end of September.
"We have taken extra time to request additional information and
hold discussions with the bidders," Wyatt said. "It does take
time. It's important. We want to do the right thing."
There are two contracts, one for protective services at Y-12 and
a second for security at the U.S. Department of Energy's other
Oak Ridge facilities, but they will be awarded to a single
bidder.
Wackenhut currently holds the Oak Ridge security contracts, and
the company has confirmed that it submitted a proposal to retain
the leadership role. Federal officials have refused to release a
full list of bidders or specify how many bids were received.
"Currently, we are wrapping up our evaluation of the proposals,
and once this is completed we will submit a recommendation to the
source selection official (at DOE headquarters in Washington). We
hope to complete this within the next several weeks," Wyatt said.
Wackenhut's current contracts have been extended to allow for
delays in the contract competition.
Meanwhile, the awarding of an Oak Ridge contract for information
services - valued at about $125 million - apparently is near.
DOE spokesman John Shewairy said a revised report, containing a
recommended winner, was submitted to agency headquarters in
Washington for review.
"We are awaiting approval from D.C.," he said last week.
The information-services contract has been in process for nearly
two years.
Senior writer Frank Munger may be reached at 865-342-6329.
Copyright 2006, Knoxville News Sentinel Co.
*****************************************************************
51 DOE: Energy Department Awards $116 Million to Small Businesses
for Innovative Research
July 31, 2006
WASHINGTON, DC The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) has awarded
$116 million in grants to small businesses for innovative
research that will help meet the departments diverse energy,
environmental, science and national security missions. The
awards were made under the departments Small Business
Innovation Research (SBIR) and Small Business Technology
Transfer (STTR) programs.
High-technology small companies, many of whom started in
business as a result of SBIR and STTR awards, have become a
valuable resource for solving high risk, high technology
problems. Solving these problems will continue to be essential
to meeting the nations current and future energy challenges,
said Dr. Raymond L. Orbach, DOE Under Secretary for Science.
The research projects are in 49 technical topic areas ranging
from developing new sensors that monitor the electric
transmission grid and help reduce blackouts to developing
ground-penetrating radar in order to see contaminated
groundwater and help clean up pollution.
One hundred ninety-three companies in 33 states were selected to
receive a total of 291 Phase I grants worth up to $100,000 each
to explore the feasibility of their proposed innovation.
The department also selected 113 SBIR projects and 15 STTR
projects for Phase II awards to continue their research and
development effort. The SBIR Phase II awards average $719,000
each and the STTR awards average $750,000 each for a period of
up to two years.
The winning projects were selected from among 1,387 Phase I
grant applications and 253 SBIR/STTR Phase II grant
applications. This years Phase II winners were among the
successful Phase I winners in last fiscal years SBIR/STTR
competition.
The SBIR and STTR programs are U.S. government programs where
federal agencies with large research and development budgets set
aside a small fraction of their funding for competitions among
small businesses only. Small businesses that win awards in
these programs keep the rights to any technology developed and
are encouraged to commercialize the technology. The SBIR and
STTR programs are very similar, except in the STTR program the
small business must collaborate with a non-profit research
institution. The Office of Science administers the programs for
DOE.
The list of companies receiving grants and their research
projects may be found at www.science.doe.gov/sbir.
Media contact(s): Jeff Sherwood, (202) 586-5806 [ ]
U.S. Department of Energy | 1000 Independence Ave., SW |
Washington, DC 20585 1-800-dial-DOE | f/202-586-4403 | e/General
*****************************************************************
52 DOE: DOE Awards Contract for Management and Operation of Argonne
National Laboratory to the University of Chicago Argonne, LLC
July 31, 2006
WASHINGTON, DC The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) has awarded
a new $2.5 billion, five-year contract for management and
operation of Argonne National Laboratory (ANL) to the UChicago
Argonne, LLC, owned solely by the University of Chicago. The
new independent entity was supported in its proposal by the
University of Illinois at Urbana/Champaign, the University of
Illinois at Chicago, and Northwestern University, participating
with the LLC in making significant financial commitments to
support scientific activities at the laboratory.
Under the new contract, UChicago Argonne is also joined by
industrial partners, Jacobs Engineering Group Inc. and BWXT
Services Inc., who will play major management roles in business
operations and nuclear operations, respectively. Under the new
contract, these firms have also made commitments to contribute
services and other support to the laboratory.
The LLC and its partners have committed to providing $15.5
million over the term of the five-year contract, primarily to
support joint appointments and scientific institutes at the
laboratory. The universities will also participate as members
of a new Science Policy Council which will advise the laboratory
science leadership and report to a Board of Governors reporting
to the LLC. Jacobs and BWXT will also provide representatives
to the Board of Governors.
The UChicago Argonne, LLC proposal to DOE contained four major
management initiatives intended to retain and build scientific
talent at the laboratory, strengthen and improve safety
management, upgrade project management systems and capability,
and improve information technology to accelerate scientific
discovery, reduce business costs and improve internal
communications. The LLC also intends to achieve formal
certifications in quality and business management excellence.
This agreement contains provisions that will enhance the
science opportunities at Argonne while providing strong
management capability and commitments by the new contractor
team, said DOE Under Secretary for Science Raymond L. Orbach.
The new contract contains a number of provisions intended to
provide incentives for superior performance, including award
term provisions under which the department may recognize
superior performance through phased extensions of the contract
for up to a total of 20 years, if the contractor meets specific
performance levels established by DOE.
The initial contract term will be October 1, 2006, to September
2011. During the initial five-year term of the contract and the
first five years of any award term extensions, the LLC could
earn an annual fee of up to $5.3 million for superior
performance.
ANL funding for FY 2007, projected to be $508 million, is
provided by the Office of Science, other DOE programs, as well
as other government agencies and private industry.
Media contact(s): Gary Pitchford, (630) 252-2013 Jeff Sherwood,
(202) 586-5806 [ ]
U.S. Department of Energy | 1000 Independence Ave., SW |
Washington, DC 20585 1-800-dial-DOE | f/202-586-4403 | e/General
*****************************************************************
53 Tri-City Herald: Plan for waste under review
Published Monday, July 31st, 2006
By Annette Cary, Herald staff writer
Turn the lights off inside the small building at the end of
Hanford's B Plant and an eerie blue glow surrounds each of 1,936
tubes of highly radioactive strontium and cesium stored under a
protective shield of water.
The capsules, which are estimated to contain roughly a third of
the radioactivity in the waste at the Hanford nuclear
reservation, have been kept in pools inside the Waste
Encapsulation and Storage Facility for up to three decades.
At one point, the Department of Energy planned to have the
capsules moved to dry storage by the end of September. But with
more pressing cleanup priorities for Hanford money, that's been
delayed.
DOE's Inspector General's Office is reviewing plans for
disposing of the capsules. And DOE must meet a legal deadline in
June 2007 to assess the viability of disposing of them without
major treatment at Yucca Mountain, Nev., the national repository
for high-level radioactive waste.
The cesium and strontium were once part of waste stored in
Hanford's 177 underground tanks. After Hanford reactors
irradiated nuclear fuel, the fuel rods were chemically processed
to remove plutonium for the nation's nuclear weapons program.
The radioactive and hazardous chemicals left when the plutonium
was removed have been stored in underground tanks since plutonium
production began during World War II.
Starting in 1968, the cesium and strontium, which produce heat,
were removed from the waste to keep temperatures lower in the
tanks with less liquid. The Waste Encapsulation and Storage
Facility, or WESF, was added to the end of B Plant to store the
cesium and strontium in 1974.
At WESF it was packed into 22-inch-long stainless steel capsules
and stored under 17 feet of water, which removes heat and
provides shielding from their potentially deadly radiation.
Now the 53 million gallons of radioactive waste in the tanks
contain about 190 million curies of radioactivity, and the
capsules contain about 120 million curies.
In the late 1970s and the early 1980s, hundreds of the capsules
were leased to companies that used their radiation for processes
that had a range of benefits, from strengthened wood to
sterilized medical supplies.
But the capsules, surrounded by two layers of steel, were
designed to be cooled underwater. The metal was damaged when
they were taken in and out of the water for irradiation
processes.
In 1990, one of them sprang a microscopic leak, forcing closure
and cleanup of an irradiation plant in Georgia. The capsules
were recalled and returned to Hanford in water-filled shipping
casks in an effort that took years because of safety concerns.
In the late 1990s, former contractor Fluor Daniel Hanford and
DOE checked to see if there was any potential business use for
the capsules as interest in commercial irradiation, including
irradiating food, increased. The cesium would have been
converted and shipped in a different form, perhaps as pellets.
But the cesium could not compete economically with cobalt 60 as
a radiation source. Cobalt 60 is produced in nuclear reactors by
irradiating a nonradioactive form of the metal.
In the late 1990s, DOE planned to vitrify the cesium and
strontium or turn it into a stable glass form for disposal at
Yucca Mountain.
But in more recent years, plans have shifted to repackaging the
cesium and strontium and sending it to Yucca Mountain without
being glassified. The radioactivity will decay to background
levels in a little less than 300 years.
DOE still would like to remove the capsules from the pool and
put them into dry storage. In 2003, DOE was talking of starting
removal of the capsules in 2005 and having the project completed
this fall.
But other Hanford work took priority, including efforts to ship
transuranic waste -- typically debris contaminated with
plutonium -- to a permanent repository in the New Mexico desert.
Dry storage would cost less than storage in the pools, said Matt
McCormick, DOE assistant manager in Richland for central Hanford
projects.
In addition, there's the risk that the pools could eventually
leak contaminated water into the soil below.
That's not an immediate risk, McCormick said. The pools are
maintained and inspected regularly and no containers have been
breached to release cesium or strontium into the water, he said.
© 2006 Tri-City Herald, Associated Press &Other Wire Services
*****************************************************************
54 KCBJ: Feds will meet about nuclear agency at Bannister complex -
Kansas City Business Journal:
Federal government officials will meet on Wednesday in Kansas
City with Lurita Doan, the 's administrator, to discuss the 's
future at the .
Mike Brincks in the GSA's Kansas City regional headquarters said
the NNSA expects its need for space in Kansas City will drop by
about 2 million square feet, to 1.1 million square feet, by
2012.
The agency hasn't decided whether it will stay at the complex on
Bannister Road in south Kansas City, Brincks said, No deadline
has been set for a decision, he said.
The complex contains about 5 million square feet of buildings.
Other tenant agencies are scaling back to become more efficient,
Brincks said.
In October, the will vacate nearly 500,000 square feet in the
complex for its new regional processing center across from .
Also leaving the complex will be the .
NARA's regional archives will move to midtown Kansas City in
2007. Brincks said the lease will be awarded by Nov. 1.
© 2006 American City Business Journals, Inc. and its licensors.
*****************************************************************
55 DOE: Office of Science; Climate Change Science Program Product
FR Doc E6-12209
[Federal Register: July 31, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 146)]
[Notices] [Page 43139] From the Federal Register Online via GPO
Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr31jy06-49]
Development Advisory Committee AGENCY: Department of Energy.
ACTION: Notice of Open Meeting.
SUMMARY: This notice announces a meeting of the Climate Change
Science Program Product Development Advisory Committee. Federal
Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 86 Stat. 770) requires
that public notice of these meetings be announced in the Federal
Register.
DATES: Thursday, August 17, 2006, 10 a.m. to 5 p.m.; Friday,
August 18, 2006, 9 a.m. to 12:30 p.m.
ADDRESSES: American Geophysical Union, 2000 Florida Avenue, NW.,
Washington, DC 20009.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Anjuli S. Bamzai
(301-903-0294; anjuli.bamzai@science.doe.gov) Designated Federal
Officer, Climate Change Science Program Product Development
Advisory Committee, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Science,
Office of Biological and Environmental Research, Climate Change
Research Division, SC-23.3/ Germantown Building, 1000
Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585-1290. The most
current information concerning this meeting can be found on the
Web site: http://www.science.doe.gov/ober/cpdac/announcement.html
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Purpose of the Meeting: To draft
specific Climate Change Science Program (CCSP) Synthesis and
Assessment Products at the request of the Department of Energy,
in accordance with the CCSP Guidelines for Producing the CCSP
Synthesis and Assessment Products related to climate models,
scenarios of greenhouse gas emissions and concentrations, and
development and application of integrated scenarios of greenhouse
gas emissions.
Tentative Agenda Thursday, August 17, and Friday, August 18,
2006: Comments from the Office of Science.
Discussion of outline of report on climate models.
Discussion of report on updated scenarios of greenhouse gas
emissions and concentrations.
Discussion of report on state-of-the-art review of the
development and application of integrated scenarios of greenhouse
gas emissions.
Public comment (10 minute rule).
Public Participation: The day and a half meeting is open to the
public. If you would like to file a written statement with the
Committee, you may do so either before or after the meeting. If
you would like to make oral statements regarding any of the items
on the agenda, you should contact Anjuli Bamzai at the address or
telephone number listed above. You must make your request for an
oral statement at least five business days before the meeting.
Reasonable provisions will be made to include the scheduled oral
statements on the agenda. The Chairperson of the Committee will
conduct the meeting to facilitate the orderly conduct of
business. Public comment will follow the 10- minute rule.
Minutes: The minutes of this meeting will be available for public
review and copying within 30 days at the Freedom of Information
Public Reading Room, IE-190, Forrestal Building, 1000
Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 4
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
Issued in Washington, DC, on July 26, 2006.
Rachel M. Samuel, Deputy Advisory Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. E6-12209 Filed 7-28-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
*****************************************************************
56 Paducah Sun: Union-Carbide-retirees-await-help-from-court-Congress -
Matt Sanders
Paducah, Kentucky
No remedy to pensioners' complaint is imminent, crowd is told.
The Paducah Sun July 30, 2006 Sunday
Jul. 30--The executive committee of retired Paducah area nuclear
workers will meet soon to discuss two options to boost their
pensions proposed Saturday by U.S. Rep. Ed Whitfield.
About 100 retirees, mostly from when Union Carbide operated the
Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant, attended the meeting, which was
a follow-up to a group discussion with Whitfield in February.
The key issue in both meetings was the retirees' argument that
$100 million should be added to the nearly $580 million in their
pension account allocated to USEC Inc. in 1999 when federal law
privatized the nuclear plant. Most of the retirees left long
before then and wanted their pensions to remain with the
Department of Energy because they worked for DOE contractors
Union Carbide and/or Lockheed Martin. There are roughly 780
retirees and 233 surviving spouses.
One option, which Whitfield admitted would "have a minute chance
of passing" Congress, would be for him to draft legislation to
direct DOE to transfer a proportionate share of the original
surplus funds to USEC.
"I'm going to be direct with you: I'm going to have a lot of
difficulty directing the federal government to allocate money to
a private pension," Whitfield said. "I'm not afraid to go to
battle -- that's what introducing some legislation is about. But
I'm not aware of Congress transferring any funds to a private
company. And, there obviously will be considerable opposition
from the Tennessee delegation."
The nearly $580 million covers retirees from the plants in
Paducah and Piketon, Ohio, while about $3 billion stayed in the
Oak Ridge, Tenn., retirees' fund with DOE. Oak Ridge retirees
have received several cost-of-living raises, the latest in 2001,
but those from the Paducah and Piketon plants have not.
The second option, Whitfield said, would be to draft legislation
to amend the privatization act to establish a specific statute
of limitations on separation of the pensions, which could help
the retirees' legal efforts to secure the $100 million.
"To establish legislation for a narrowly defined statute could
allow the court to hear the merits of the surplus funds,"
Whitfield said.
The retirees sued in U.S. District Court in 2004, but before it
was discussed, the lawsuit was dismissed on arguments that the
filing deadline was missed by one month, based on when the
pension fund was separated. Retiree attorney Rick Walter said
pension funds were transferred on more than one date and argued
in court that the deadline had not passed. The dismissal is
being challenged in the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals in
Cincinnati.
"We've been looking for a decision for the last 30 to 45 days,"
Walter said. "I feel good about the case. One judge I think was
siding with us, and one judge probably was not. That leaves the
third as a possible swing vote, but I could not read him, and
there is no telling how they will rule."
Retiree Harry Colbert, who organized the meetings with Whitfield
and was one of 10 retirees to file the lawsuit, liked the idea
of legislation to direct the pension transfer, but acknowledged
it had little chance of passing.
The executive panel has not picked a date to review the options,
Colbert said.
R.C. Ward, who worked at the plant from 1951-84, said it may be
best to await the appellate ruling. "This is up in the air right
now. One option is no good, even (Whitfield) admitted that."
Walter urged the retirees to ask Whitfield to create the bill to
establish a clear statute of limitations. He also said that if
the lawsuit dismissal is overturned, the case can be argued in
U.S. District Court, eliminating the need of legislation from
Whitfield.
"The congressman gave us some options, and the committee must
determine what is the best response for retirees and tell that
to Mr. Whitfield," Walter said.
Distributed by Knight/Ridder Tribune News Service
*****************************************************************
57 Dayton Daily News: Bids sought to finish Mound cleanup
New work came after claim that job was done
By Timothy R. Gaffney
Staff Writer
The Energy Department is seeking bids to clean up the last two
contaminated parcels of the former Mound nuclear weapons plant
in Miamisburg. Tools
The cleanup involves the removal of a variety of buried wastes,
including 2,500 empty, crushed drums contaminated with
radioactive thorium, sand contaminated with radioactive polonium
and a mix of other wastes contaminated with radioactive isotopes
and non-radioactive chemicals.
In June, the Energy Department's Ohio Field Office and cleanup
contractor CH2M Hill declared they had shipped the last
truckload of radioactive contaminants from the 305-acre site.
On Monday, a spokeswoman for the agency's Cincinnati office said
the June shipment was only the last truckload by that
contractor.
The new work remains because the Energy Department didn't
include it in the current cleanup contract. It had decided the
wastes could remain safely buried, and the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency had agreed.
Local officials opposed the plan, and U.S. Representatives David
Hobson, R-Springfield, and Mike Turner, R-Centerville, got
Congress to earmark $30 million to finish the job.
A local group is converting the site to commercial use as the
Mound Advanced Technology Center.
The Energy Department's office of inspector general criticized
the Mound cleanup project in March, saying it was more than a
year behind schedule and $476 million over original estimates.
The cleanup work will be done under a task order to be issued to
a small business from a pool of previously qualified companies.
Details of the new cleanup project are online at
http://www.emcbc.doe.gov/Mound_OU1.
Contact this reporter at (937) 225-2390 or
tgaffney@DaytonDailyNews.com.
Copyright ©2006 Cox Ohio Publishing, Dayton, Ohio, USA. All
rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
NOTE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107 this
material is distributed without profit or payment to those who
have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for
non-profit research and educational purposes only. For more
information go to:
*****************************************************************