*****************************************************************
08/01/06 **** RADIATION BULLETIN(RADBULL) **** VOL 14.181
*****************************************************************
RADBULL IS PRODUCED BY THE ABALONE ALLIANCE CLEARINGHOUSE
*****************************************************************
Send News Stories to news@energy-net.org with title on subject
line and first line of body
NUCLEAR POLICY
1 [NYTr] Iran blasts 'worthless' nuclear deadline
2 BBC NEWS: Analysis: Iran's nuclear fuel debate
3 BBC: Iran defiant on nuclear deadline
4 IRNA: Zarif reaffirms civilian nature of Iranian nuclear program
5 AFP: Japan welcomes 'firm' UN message to Iran
6 AFP: Iran irate over nuclear deadline
7 AFP: Atomic clock ticking for Iran after UN resolution -
8 IRNA: Chinese envoy: Negotiation only solution to Iran's N-case
9 IRNA: UNSC anti-Iran resolution breaks down the current nuclear talk
10 Guardian Unlimited: Nixon Considered Nukes in Viet War
11 The Herald: Nuclear option is bang-for-your-buck issue
NUCLEAR REACTORS
12 US: [NukeNet] Biggest Nuclear Utility (Exelon) in Economic Doldrums
13 US: [NukeNet] Hot Weather Shuts Down Michigan Reactor
14 US: [NukeNet] Nuclear plant faced possible meltdown
15 US: Platts: Exelon says study shows no active tritium leaks at plant
16 US: Platts: Three companies form partnership to build nuclear plants
17 US: NRC: Sunshine Act Federal Register Notice
18 US: Detroit Free Press: Nuclear power: Get on with it
19 Xinhua: Nation's power troubles may soon be solved
20 US: Quad-City Times: Study shows no tritium leak at Cordova plant
21 US: NRC: Request for a License To Import Radioactive Waste
22 US: NRC: Notice and Solicitation of Comments Concerning Proposed Act
23 Easy bourse: Nigeria To Build Nuclear Pwr Plant Within 12 Years - Pr
24 US: AU ABC: Browns fast-tracking won't speed up future plans - Compa
NUCLEAR SECURITY
25 [NYTr] Nuclear terror: science and lies
NUCLEAR SAFETY
26 [NukeNet] Israel uses Depleted Uranium on Lebanon
27 US: APP.COM: Testing at plant finds no leakage of isotope into area
28 Honolulu Advertiser: Cleanup halted on Stryker complex
29 US: NRC: Fact Sheet on Tritium, Radiation Protection Limits, and
NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE
30 US: [NYTr] ALP and uranium: a sorry history of selling out
31 The Herald: Urgent nuclear problem
32 The Herald: Digging deep on nuclear waste
33 reviewjournal.com: Reid notes connection between Yucca, 'Big Dig'
PEACE
US DEPT. OF ENERGY
34 Santa Fe New Mexican: LANL readies high-risk waste for relocation
35 Hanford News: Plan for waste under review
36 Tri-City Herald: Rocket milestone in sight for depot
37 Jackson Hole News: Feds resist cleanup of Idaho nuke labs
38 DOE: Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board Chairs
39 Knox News: Plant work puts pinch on protest site
40 Santa Fe New Mexican: Computer sale heightens LANL security concerns
*****************************************************************
*****************************************************************
FULL NEWS STORIES
*****************************************************************
*****************************************************************
1 [NYTr] Iran blasts 'worthless' nuclear deadline
Date: Tue, 1 Aug 2006 12:44:15 -0500 (CDT)
X-Sender-Host-Name: chumbly.math.missouri.edu
X-Spam-Class: HAM-VERY-WHITELIST
Via NY Transfer News Collective * All the News that Doesn't Fit
AFP - Aug 1, 2006
http://www.afp.com/english/news/stories/060801125921.tyy69wn3.html
Iran blasts 'worthless' nuclear deadline
TEHRAN (AFP) - Iran reacted angrily to a UN Security Council resolution
ordering it to freeze sensitive nuclear work by the end of the month,
one top official branding the text as "worthless".
UN Resolution 1696, adopted on Monday, warned the Islamic Republic that
it might face sanctions unless it halts uranium enrichment and other
work that could help build a nuclear bomb.
"While the Security Council does not dare to condemn the Qana massacre
(in south Lebanon) ... it feels alarmed by Iran's nuclear activities and
adopts a resolution that is worthless in the eyes of people," parliament
speaker Gholam-Ali Hadad-Adel was quoted as saying by the ISNA news
agency Tuesday.
The resolution was also decried as "destructive and totally unwarranted"
by Iran's UN ambassador.
"I would suggest to you that this approach will not lead to any
productive outcome. It can only exacerbate the situation," Javad Zarif
told the Security Council in New York.
"The Americans must be sure that Iran will not take part in a game which
it will lose," Kazem Jalali, spokesman for the Iranian parliament's
influential foreign affairs commission, was also quoted as saying by the
ISNA news agency.
"If there were to be a loser, it would be those who have shifted the
Iranian nuclear issue away from dialogue," he warned.
The Security Council gave Tehran an August 31 deadline to comply, and
said that International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) chief Mohammed
ElBaradei should then report back on what Iran has done to fall into line.
Iran insists it only wants to enrich uranium to make reactor fuel and
that this is a right enshrined by the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty
(NPT).
Demands for a suspension stem from widespread suspicions the country
wants the capacity to make weapons-grade uranium.
The resolution was pushed through after Iran ignored a previous but
non-binding deadline and failed to respond to an offer of incentives in
exchange for a moratorium.
But the text held off from an immediate threat of sanctions, which have
been opposed by Russia and China, and said any punitive action would
have to be the subject of further discussions.
Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Kislyak said the resolution was
"balanced and gives every opportunity for continuing the process of
negotiations", although he did warn that "the Security Council could
examine further steps to persuade Iran."
"Of course, no one is going to look at any use of force," he was quoted
by Interfax as saying.
But a state radio commentator said the resolution was merely fresh proof
that "Western countries want to prevent Iran from having an independent
nuclear energy programme."
"A powerful Iran which masters the latest technology is against their
interests," the commentator said, adding that "history has shown that
when the people have a goal and the government supports them, nothing
can hold them back."
An editorial in the ultra-hardline Siasat Rouz newspaper called on the
government to quit the NPT -- something officials have already
threatened to do if the pressure mounts.
"In preparing the final battle, we should at first attack US bases in
neighbouring countries and then clear the region of this infected
microbe," the paper said, while also calling on Iran to rally "friendly
governments and Muslim people ready to carry out suicide attacks".
"It shows the Security Council has sadly become an instrument in the
hands of the Americans," the hardline Jomhuri Eslami paper fumed. "Iran
will undoubtedly respond by suspending its adhesion to the NPT."
And the hardline Kayhan newspaper, whose firebrand editor is appointed
by supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, said the UN order "does not
carry the necessary weight."
"The objective... is to threaten Iran rather than take action," the
paper said.
The text represents a diplomatic victory for the United States, which
has long been pushing for tough action.
"The clock has begun to tick," said John Bolton, the US ambassador to
the United Nations. "The ball is now clearly in Iran's court. The choice
is up to them."
US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice also said she was "confident that
we have very good cooperation with Russia and China on this issue",
while asserting that the resolution "does not close the door to diplomacy".
"We remain committed to a negotiated solution," British Foreign
Secretary Margaret Beckett also declared.
*
================================================================
.NY Transfer News Collective * A Service of Blythe Systems
. Since 1985 - Information for the Rest of Us .
.339 Lafayette St., New York, NY 10012 http://www.blythe.org
.List Archives: https://olm.blythe-systems.com/pipermail/nytr/
.Subscribe: https://olm.blythe-systems.com/mailman/listinfo/nytr
================================================================
*****************************************************************
2 BBC NEWS: Analysis: Iran's nuclear fuel debate
Last Updated: Tuesday, 1 August 2006, 16:26 GMT 17:26 UK
By Roxana Saberi BBC News, Tehran
[Energy Minister Parviz Fattah]
Mr Fattah said Iran's oil could run out in 80 years
As the dispute over Iran's nuclear programme intensifies, so
does the debate over whether or not Iran really needs its own
nuclear fuel cycle.
Critics question why a country that ranks fifth in the world in
proven crude oil reserves and second in natural gas reserves
needs nuclear power.
But Iran says these resources are limited.
It says nuclear energy is an economical, alternative source of
electricity for its growing population.
"It's true that Iran has oil and gas, but so do other countries
that also want to acquire other kinds of energy," Iran's Energy
Minister Parviz Fattah said in an interview.
"Each day that we use our oil and gas, we're taking one step
toward their depletion."
Electricity shortages
Mr Fattah said at the rate Iran was extracting its fossil fuels,
its oil would run out in 80 years, and its gas would finish in
200 years.
Every megawatt of electricity made from nuclear energy saves us
10 million barrels of oil
Kamal Daneshyar, Parliamentary energy commission
Iran has said it plans to generate enough nuclear power in the
next two decades to supply 20% of its electricity needs.
Those needs will increase dramatically as the population grows,
according to Kamal Daneshyar, who heads the energy commission in
Iran's parliament.
Electricity shortages are already relatively common in Iran,
where electricity is heavily subsidised.
"In 20 years, Iran's population will increase from around 70
million to around 90 to 100 million," he said.
"We want to produce 20,000 megawatts a year of electricity from
nuclear energy by then."
"Every megawatt of electricity made from nuclear energy saves us
10 million barrels of oil," he added. "This oil can be used for
other purposes."
Economic sense?
Tehran-based energy expert Narsi Ghorban said that on the face
of it, this argument made economic sense.
"In theory, if Iran uses nuclear power stations to generate part
of its electricity, more gas would be made available for Iran's
gas-based industries and for injection into oil fields to
enhance recovery," said Mr Ghorban, the managing director of
NarKangan Gas to Liquid International Company.
[Isfahan nuclear power plant]
The [nuclear] technology they're trying to master is very
expensive and very difficult
Jon Wolfsthal, Center for Strategic and International Studies
"You could also sell your petroleum products to the world
market, instead of using them to create electricity.
"With the price of oil in Iran more than $60 (£32) a barrel, the
economic benefits of having a nuclear power station are in
principle obvious."
Jon Wolfsthal, a former U.S. energy department official, agrees
it is reasonable for Iran to build nuclear reactors to free up
oil for export, but adds that Iran's insistence on making its
own nuclear fuel to power the reactors is not.
"This makes absolutely no economic sense from Iran's point of
view," said Mr Wolfsthal, a non-proliferation fellow at the
Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington
D.C.
"It can obtain fresh fuel for the reactors very cheaply and very
reliably on the open market."
"The [nuclear] technology they're trying to master is very
expensive and very difficult so it doesn't make sense from an
economic point of view."
Independence
Analyst Joseph Cirincione also said it would be less costly for
Iran to import nuclear fuel than to make it.
"Forty countries have nuclear power reactors," said Mr
Cirincione, the senior vice-president for national security and
international policy at the Center for American Progress.
"Almost all import fuel from the five or six nations that make
and sell it. It doesn't make sense to make your own fuel unless
you have 20 or more reactors. Iran doesn't yet have one."
Iran's first nuclear reactor, which Russia is helping build in
Bushehr, is expected to go on line next year.
[Iranian petrochemical worker ]
If we preserve our oil and gas reserves, in 50 years other forms
of energy might be developed
Narsi Ghorban,
NarKangan Gas to Liquid International Company
Iranian MP Kamal Daneshyar said Tehran did not want to depend on
any other country for nuclear fuel to power its future reactors.
"Who would give us a guarantee that they will sell us nuclear
fuel?" he asked. "Would the UN guarantee it?"
"We don't trust the U.S.," he added. "And because we believe
that they and the Zionists [Israel] don't want us to progress,
we must build reactors ourselves, make fuel ourselves, and be
independent."
Many Western countries are worried Iran's nuclear activities are
a front for a nuclear weapons' programme - a charge Tehran
denies.
On Monday 31 July, the UN Security Council passed a resolution
giving Iran a month to suspend uranium enrichment or face the
threat of economic or diplomatic sanctions.
Mr Ghorban believes the economic benefits of nuclear power might
not be worth risking Iran's chance to attract much needed
capital and technology, and that Iran should hold off for now.
"At the moment we could develop Bushehr power station and stop
expanding more nuclear reactors," he said.
"We could concentrate on our oil and gas and wait for better and
safer technology to be developed.
"If we preserve our oil and gas reserves, in 50 years other
forms of energy might be developed."
*****************************************************************
3 BBC: Iran defiant on nuclear deadline
Last Updated: Tuesday, 1 August 2006
[President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad]
Iran says the motives behind its nuclear activities are peaceful
Iran has asserted its right to produce nuclear energy a day after
the United Nations passed a resolution demanding it suspend
uranium enrichment.
President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said he would not bow to "the
language of force and threats".
Speaking at a rally in the country's north, he said Iran had the
right to use nuclear technology to produce fuel.
The UN Security Council has given Iran until 31 August to stop
nuclear activities, or face possible sanctions.
"The Iranian people see taking advantage of technology to produce
nuclear fuel for peaceful purposes as their right," Mr
Ahmadinejad told a crowd in the town of Bojnurd.
"Those who think they can use the language of threats and force
against Iran are mistaken."
"If they don't realise that now, one day they will learn it the
hard way," he added.
Economic sanctions
The US and other nations have accused Iran of trying to develop
nuclear weapons, but Iran says its motives are peaceful.
UN resolution 1696 was passed by 14 votes to one on Monday, with
Qatar the lone dissenter.
It gives Iran until the end of August to suspend uranium
enrichment and open its nuclear programme to international
inspections.
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 said the Council would have to hold further
discussions on what steps to take should Iran fail to meet the
deadline.
Iran's ambassador to the UN, Javad Zarif, rejected the move,
saying the country's nuclear programme "poses no threat to
international peace and security".
*****************************************************************
4 IRNA: Zarif reaffirms civilian nature of Iranian nuclear program
New York, July 31, IRNA
Iran-Security Council-Zarif
Iranian permanent Ambassador to United Nations Mohammad Javad
Zarif on Monday reaffirmed civilian nature of Iranian nuclear
program and Iran's commitment to Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).
In his statement before the UN Security Council, he deplored
the big powers meddling in Iranian domestic affairs and making
the Security Council as a tool for their own political
objectives in the United Nations member states.
"This is not the first time that Iran's endeavors to stand on
its own feet and make technological advances have faced the
stiff resistance and concerted pressure of some powers
permanently represented in the Security Council. In fact,
contemporary Iran has been subject to numerous injustices and
prejudicial approaches by these powers.
"The Iranian people's struggle to nationalize their oil
industry was touted, in a draft resolution submitted on 12
October 1951 by the United Kingdom and supported by the United
States and France, as a threat to international peace and
security.
"That draft resolution preceded a coup d'etat, organized by the
US and the UK -- in a less veiled attempt to restore their
short-sighted interests. The coup, which was obviously no longer
disguisable in the language of the Charter or diplomatic
niceties, restored the brutal dictatorship. The people of Iran
did, nevertheless, succeed in nationalizing the oil industry,
thus pioneering a courageous movement in the developing world to
demand their inalienable right to exercise sovereignty over
their natural resources.
"More recently, Saddam Hussein's massive invasion of the
Islamic Republic of Iran on 22 September 1980 did not trouble
the same permanent members of the Security Council enough to
consider it a threat to international peace and security. Nor
did they even find it necessary to adopt any resolution for
seven long days after the aggression, hoping that their utter
miscalculation that Saddam could put an end to the Islamic
Republic in a week would be realized.
"Sounds familiar these days, doesn't it?
Nor did they deem fit to call for a withdrawal of the invading
forces for two long years, until, the Iranian people
single-handedly liberated their territory against all odds. Nor
was this Council allowed for several long years and in spite of
mounting evidence, to deal with the use of chemical weapons by
the former Iraqi dictator against Iranian civilians and military
personnel, because according to former DIA officials, "The
Pentagon was not so horrified by Iraq's use of gas? It was just
another way of killing people."
"Tens of thousands of Iranians still continue to suffer and die
from that carnage. And over the past several weeks, this august
body has been prevented from moving to stop the massive
aggression against the Palestinian and Lebanese people and the
resulting terrible humanitarian crisis. Nor is it given the
slightest chance of addressing the aggressor's nuclear arsenal
despite its compulsive propensity to engage in aggressions and
carnage.
"Likewise, the Security Council has been prevented from
reacting to the daily threats of resort to force against Iran,
even threats of using nuclear weapons, uttered at the highest
levels by the US, UK and the lawless Israeli regime in violation
of Article (24) of the Charter.
On the other hand, in the past few years, a few big powers have
spared no efforts in turning the Security Council into a tool
for attempting to prevent Iran from exercising its inalienable
right to nuclear technology for peaceful purposes, recognized
explicitly under the NPT.
"The intention to use the Council only as a tool for this or
even other more dangerous ends could not have been made clearer
than in the statement by the permanent representative of the
United States at AIPAC on March 5th this year:
"It is critical that we use the Council to help mobilize
international public opinion. Rest assured, though, we are not
relying on the Security Council as the only tool in our toolbox
to address this problem." Mr. President,
"The people and Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran are
determined to exercise their inalienable right to nuclear
technology for peaceful purposes and build on their own
scientific advances in developing various peaceful aspects of
this technology.
"At the same time, as the only victims of the use of weapons of
mass destruction in recent history, they reject the development
and use of all these inhuman weapons on ideological as well as
strategic grounds. The Leader of the Islamic Republic has issued
a public and categorical religious decree against the
development, production, stockpiling and use of nuclear weapons.
"Iran has also clearly and continuously stressed that nuclear
weapons have no place in its military doctrine.
"The President of the Islamic Republic of Iran, in his
statement before the General Assembly last September, also
underlined Iran's fundamental rejection of nuclear weapons, as
well as the need to strengthen and revitalize the
Non-Proliferation Treaty. He also stressed that "continued
interaction and legal and technical cooperation with the IAEA
will be the centerpiece of our nuclear policy."
"In order to dispel any doubt about its peaceful nuclear
program, Iran enabled the IAEA to carry out a series of
inspections that amounts to the most robust inspection of any
IAEA Member State.
It included more than 2000 inspector-days of scrutiny in the
past 3 years, the signing of the Additional Protocol on 18
December 2003 and implementing it immediately until 6 February
2006; the submission of more than 1000 pages of declaration in
accordance with the Additional Protocol, allowing over 53
instances of complementary access to different sites across the
country; and permitting inspectors to investigate baseless
allegations by taking the unprecedented step of providing
repeated access to military sites.
"Consequently, all reports by the IAEA since November 2003 have
been indicative of the peaceful nature of the Iranian nuclear
program.
"In November 2003 and in the wake of sensational media reports
on the so-called 18-years of concealment by Iran, the Agency
confirmed that "to date, there is no evidence that the
previously undeclared nuclear material and activities were
related to a nuclear weapons program."
"The same conclusion can be found in other IAEA reports, even
as recently as February 2006, which states that "As indicated to
the Board in November 2004, and again in September 2005, all the
declared nuclear material in Iran has been accounted for."
"The Agency reaffirmed once again in paragraph 53 of the same
report that it "has not seen any diversion of nuclear material
to nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices."
"Much has been made, including in today's proposed resolution,
of a statement by the IAEA that it is not yet in a position "to
conclude that there are no undeclared nuclear materials or
activities in Iran." "But the sponsors have conveniently ignored
the repeated acknowledgment by the Director-General of the IAEA
that "the process of drawing such a conclusion is a time
consuming process," "They also ignored the Addendum to the 2005
IAEA Safeguards Implementation Report, released in June 2006,
which indicates that 45 other countries are in the same category
as Iran, including 14 Europeans and several members of this
Council," Zarif said.
1416/2322/1416
*****************************************************************
5 AFP: Japan welcomes 'firm' UN message to Iran
Tue Aug 1, 12:34 AM ET
TOKYO (AFP) - Japan has welcomed the UN resolution demanding
Iran" /> Iranhalt controversial nuclear activities by August 31
and said its position was unaffected by its close trade ties with
the oil producer.
The Security Council resolution, which could lead to sanctions
if Tehran does not comply, "shows the firm message of the
international community on the Iranian nuclear issue," the
foreign ministry said in a statement.
"Japan regards it as a significant step to solving the Iranian
nuclear issue diplomatically," the ministry said.
It called on Iran to accept a European-led package of incentives
to give up its nuclear program, saying: "Japan strongly urges
Iran to return to the negotiation process."
Japan, a non-permanent member of the Security Council, voted
with 13 other nations in support of the resolution, with only
Qatar in opposition.
Japan is a close US ally but has also been a major investor in
Iran's energy sector, as Asia's largest economy is heavily
dependent on Middle Eastern oil.
In February 2004 Japan signed a deal estimated at two billion
dollars to develop Azadegan, the Islamic republic's largest
onshore oil field.
"The business project will not affect Japan's position towards
the nuclear issue," said Chief Cabinet Secretary Shinzo Abe, the
government spokesman and front-runner to be Japan's next
premier.
Asked how Japan would be affected if Iran's oil exports were
blocked, Industry Minister Toshihiro Nikai said, "It's not wise
to make a big deal out of a hypothesis."
Japan has faced US calls to drop the Azadegan project, while
Iran has warned that it could cancel the contract unless work
begins soon.
Copyright © 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The
*****************************************************************
6 AFP: Iran irate over nuclear deadline
by Stefan Smith Tue Aug 1, 5:01 AM ET
TEHRAN (AFP) - Iran" /> Iranreacted angrily to a UN Security
Council resolution ordering the Islamic to freeze sensitive
nuclear work by the end of the month.
UN Resolution 1696, which dangles the threat of sanctions unless
Iran halts uranium enrichment and other work that could help
build a nuclear bomb, was welcomed by the United States and its
allies but decried as "destructive and totally unwarranted" by
Iran's UN ambassador.
"I would suggest to you that this approach will not lead to any
productive outcome. It can only exacerbate the situation," Javad
Zarif told the Security Council.
"The Americans must be sure that Iran will not take part in a
game which it will lose," Kazem Jalali, spokesman for the
Iranian parliament's foreign affairs commission, was also quoted
as saying by the ISNA news agency.
"If there were to be a loser, it would be those who have shifted
the Iranian nuclear issue away from dialogue," he warned.
The Security Council gave Tehran an August 31 deadline to
comply, and said that International Atomic Energy Agency" />
International Atomic Energy Agency(IAEA) chief Mohammed
ElBaradei should then report back on what Iran has done to fall
into line.
But the text of the resolution held off from an immediate threat
of sanctions, which have been opposed by Russia and China, and
said any punitive action would have to be the subject of further
discussions.
A state radio commentator said the resolution was merely fresh
proof that "Western countries want to prevent Iran from having
an independent nuclear energy programme."
"A powerful Iran which masters the latest technology is against
their interests," the commentator said, adding that "history has
shown that when the people have a goal and the government
supports them, nothing can hold them back."
Iran insists it only wants to enrich uranium to make reactor
fuel and that this is a right enshrined by the nuclear
Non-Proliferation Treaty. Demands for a suspension stem from
widespread suspicions the country wants the capacity to make
weapons-grade uranium.
An editorial in the ultra-hardline Siasat Rouz newspaper called
on the government to quit the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty
(NPT) -- something officials have already threatened to do if
the pressure mounts.
"In preparing the final battle, we should at first attack US
bases in neighbouring countries and then clear the region of
this infected microbe," the paper said, while also calling on
Iran to rally "friendly governments and Muslim people ready to
carry out suicide attacks".
The hardline Jomhuri Eslami paper said the resolution was
"unacceptable", complaining that the United States was meanwhile
"preventing any move to bring a ceasefire" between Israel" />
Israeland Iran's Lebanese allies Hezbollah.
"It shows the Security Council has sadly become an instrument in
the hands of the Americans," the paper fumed. "Iran will
undoubtably respond by suspending its adhesion to the NPT."
The hardline Kayhan newspaper, whose firebrand editor is
appointed by supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, played down
the importance of the resolution.
"Experts believe that this resolution does not carry the
necessary weight and that the objective... is to threaten Iran
rather than take action," the paper said.
Senior government officials are expected to speak on the issue
later Tuesday.
On Monday, US State Department spokesman Sean McCormack told
reporters that Iran would head "down the road of further
isolation" if it failed to heed the Security Council call.
"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."
Copyright © 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The
*****************************************************************
7 AFP: Atomic clock ticking for Iran after UN resolution -
by Tim Witcher Tue Aug 1, 2:20 AM ET
UNITED NATIONS (AFP) - The UN Security Council order for Iran" />
Iranto suspend its nuclear activities set off a tense wait to see
how Tehran responds and whether UN unity remains strong if
sanctions need to be imposed.
"The clock has begun to tick," said John Bolton, the US
ambassador to the United Nations" /> United Nations, after
Resolution 1696 was passed on Monday, giving Iran until August 31
to halt sensitive nuclear work.
If International Atomic Energy Agency" /> International Atomic
Energy Agencydirector Mohammed ElBaradei then says that Iran has
flouted the order, the council can start debating economic and
political sanctions.
"The ball is now clearly in Iran's court. The choice is up to
them," added Bolton.
While Iran's UN representative angrily rebuffed the resolution
as "destructive and totally unwarranted", not all Security
Council members took this as an immediate rejection.
But the unity shown by the Security Council in setting the
August 31 deadline has given the United States hope that the
unofficial coalition will remain strong if a sanctions threat
has to be carried out.
Russia and China fought strongly to make sure there was no
mention of sanctions but after two weeks of talks gave their
backing to Resolution 1696 -- which says that punitive measures
could be taken under Article 41, Chapter 7 of the UN Charter.
"I am quite confident that if this continues and if August 31
there is not a positive answer, then we'll be able to come to
agreement on a next resolution under Article 41," said US
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice" /> Condoleezza Riceas she
welcomed the Security Council move.
"I'm also confident that we have very good cooperation with
Russia and China on this issue," she added.
"I think this is a record of moving steadily ahead and I'm quite
confident that when the time comes to the next step, we'll move
ahead again."
The Russian and Chinese envoys at the UN have acknowledged that
the next stage would be discussion of sanctions. But Vitaly
Churkin, Russia's ambassador, said "It is essential that any
future measures that could be required to implement the
resolution rule out the use of force."
China has pressed the case that the IAEA must be left to take
the lead role in handling the Iran nuclear dispute.
While there is growing anticipation that some kind of action is
now likely, diplomats said, Rice and the European trio --
Britain, France and Germany -- which has led negotiations with
Iran insist that a negotiated settlement is still possible.
"I want to be very clear that (the resolution) does not close
the door to diplomacy," said Rice.
"We remain committed to a negotiated solution," declared British
Foreign Secretary Margaret Beckett.
Europe has highlighted that an offer of international economic
and political incentives in return for an end to Iran's uranium
enrichment and other work seen hiding efforts to make a nuclear
bomb remains.
"We are deeply disappointed that Iran has given no indication
that it is ready to engage seriously on these proposals," added
Beckett.
"The proposals remain on the table, and I urge Iran to take the
positive path on offer."
But Iran has indicated that Resolution 1696 could increase its
determination to reject the package. It has previously said it
could not reply until August 22. Frustrated by the wait, the
IAEA referred the case to the Security Council last month.
Iran's UN ambassador, Javad Zarif, said: "The people and
government of the Islamic Republic are not seeking a
confrontation and have always been ready for sincere and
constructive talks on the basis of mutual respect and equality.
"But they have also been firm in the face of pressure, threats
and injustice," he said.
Zarif accused the United States and its European allies of
"imposing a destructive and totally unwarranted Security Council
resolution".
"I would suggest to you that this approach will not lead to any
productive outcome. It can only exacerbate the situation," he
told the council.
While disappointed, the Russian ambassador said Zarif's long
speech did not amount to a rejection.
But there was also a tough tone from Tehran. A prominent Iranian
MP, Alaeddin Borujerdi, head of the parliamentary national
security commission, warned that Iran could halt cooperation
with IAEA inspectors and even quit the nuclear Non-Proliferation
Treaty because of the resolution.
Copyright © 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The
*****************************************************************
8 IRNA: Chinese envoy: Negotiation only solution to Iran's N-case
United Nations, New York, Aug 1, IRNA
China-Security Council-Iran
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.
*****************************************************************
9 IRNA: UNSC anti-Iran resolution breaks down the current nuclear talks
Tehran, Aug 1, IRNA
Iran-MP-Security Council
A Majlis deputy on Tuesday said adoption of the anti-Iran
resolution by the UN Security Council virtually broke down the
current nuclear talks between Iran and the European Union (EU).
Member of Majlis Presiding Board Hamid-Reza Haji-Babaei told
IRNA the Security Council resolution broke down the current
process of negotiations between Iran and the EU while Iran had
promised to give a reply to the EU Package on August 22.
The proposed package of incentives was drawn up by the five
permanent UN Security Council members -- Britain, France, the
United States, China and Russia -- plus Germany (Group5+1) and
was handed over to Iran by the European Union foreign policy
chief Javier Solana on June 6.
"The resolution has no legal base and was passed just under
pressure of the United States, Britain and certain other
countries," he said.
He added, "It was just a political resolution and had no
positive point. The Security Council's resolution uses language
of threat.
"The language of threat cannot settle any problem about the
Islamic Republic of Iran. Tehran has repeatedly announced that
negotiations will be the only solution to resolve the nuclear
dispute."
Haji-Babaei, who is also a member of Majlis National Security
and Foreign Policy Commission, said, "The Security Council
weakened its position more than ever by adopting the arbitrary
resolution.
"The Security Council, which failed to strongly condemn Israeli
violence and barbaric killings of civilians in Lebanon and
Palestine, has focused on Iran's nuclear program under the
current critical situation in the Middle East and the oppressed
Lebanese people are under bombardment of the occupying regime of
Israel."
Asked about Majlis agenda with respect to the recent
resolution, he stated, "Majlis passed two decisions urging the
government to continue uranium enrichment and suspend all
voluntary activities in case of referral of Iranian nuclear case
to the Security Council.
"The government has put into force the two decisions." 2327/1416
*****************************************************************
10 Guardian Unlimited: Nixon Considered Nukes in Viet War
From the Associated Press
[UP]
Tuesday August 1, 2006 1:01 AM
WASHINGTON (AP) - President Nixon, in his first year in office
and eager to end an unpopular war that killed tens of thousands
of U.S. troops, considered using nuclear weapons against the
North Vietnamese, recently declassified documents show.
By mid-1969, Nixon and national security adviser Henry Kissinger
had settled on a strategy using international diplomacy with
threats of force against the communists ruling the north in an
attempt to get them to buckle, according to an analysis of the
papers by the National Security Archive. The private research
group is headquartered at George Washington University.
Kissinger and his staff began developing contingency military
plans under the code name of ``Duck Hook.'' He also created a
committee within the National Security Council to evaluate
secret plans prepared by Joint Chiefs of Staff in Washington and
military planners in Saigon.
A pair of declassified documents raised the question of nuclear
weapons use in connection with the military operation against
the north, which was fighting to reunite with the democratic
south, according to the archive.
The first is a Sept. 29, 1969, memo from two Kissinger aides -
Roger Morris and Anthony Lake - to Capt. Rembrandt Robinson, who
had a central role in preparing the Duck Hook plans. Robinson
had prepared a paper for the NSC committee outlining the Joint
Chiefs plans to attack North Vietnam.
But the archive says Morris and Lake, unhappy with the document,
asked Robinson to rework it to present ``clearly and fully all
the implications of the (Duck Hook) action, should the president
decide to do it.''
They said the president needed to decide in advance ``the
fateful question of how far we will go. He cannot, for example,
confront the issue of using tactical nuclear weapons in the
midst of the exercise. He must be prepared to play out whatever
string necessary in this case.''
The second document is an Oct. 2, 1969, memo from Kissinger to
Nixon, introducing an NSC staff report on the state of military
planning for Duck Hook. The report said the basic objective of
the operation would be to coerce Hanoi ``to negotiate a
compromise settlement through a series of military blows,''
which would walk the fine line between inflicting ``unacceptable
damage to their society'' and causing the ``total destruction of
the country or the regime.''
But Nixon abandoned Duck Hook shortly after Oct. 2. Both his
secretaries of Defense and State, Melvin Laird and William
Rogers, opposed the plan. Nixon apparently also began to doubt
whether he could sustain public support for the three- to
six-month period the plan might require. He also concluded that
his military threats against the North Vietnamese had no effect.
U.S. troops remained in the country throughout Nixon's first
term despite a gradual withdrawal of forces that he began in
1969. Nixon was re-elected in 1972 and secured a cease-fire
agreement the following year, but it was never implemented.
Two years later, in 1975, North Vietnamese forces overran the
South, reuniting the country under Communist rule.
^---
On the Net:
National Security Archive: http://www.nsarchive.org
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006
*****************************************************************
11 The Herald: Nuclear option is bang-for-your-buck issue
Web Issue 2584 August 01 2006
ALF YOUNG August 01 2006
Last week, the chief executive of Scottish &Southern Energy
told shareholders he and his colleagues are keeping an "active
watching brief" on the group's nuclear investment options. No
firm decision is likely before the end of the decade, Ian
Marchant warned. And if the group does decide to get involved,
it certainly won't be going it alone.
"We would not build one or operate (it) on our own," he told
shareholders. "But we could get involved in a consortium we've
got about three or four years to decide."
Marchant's words prompted one SSE customer to write to The
Herald warning that, if the UK's largest non-nuclear generator
did decide to go nuclear, she would be taking her business
elsewhere. There are plenty of customers who see SSE, with its
heritage in hydro-power and its current heavy investment in
renewables, as the green option when it comes to buying
electricity.
Of course, the group also generates electricity by burning coal
and gas. It recently announced plans to take a half-share in a
new £400m
gas-fired power station being built at Marchwood, near
Southampton. But if a broad portfolio of generating assets,
including a significant slice of fossil fuel generation, still
counts as green in the perverse sense that it ain't nuclear
our reader may have a point.
However, depending on how the nuclear cookie crumbles over the
next few years, she may find it extremely difficult to locate
any major supplier in the UK free of a nuclear connection.
Let's look a little more closely at what Marchant actually said
last week. SSE's chief executive said: "We could get involved in
a consortium".
Well, it's my understanding that that consortium idea has been
kicked around by all the major UK players for some time now. In
the first instance they all, including SSE, had discussions
about forming a consortium, not to work up plans to build
nuclear capacity, but to bid for control of the UK's established
nuclear generator, British Energy.
It didn't happen. Apparently because some of the main UK
players those with German and French parents were deferring
to HQ and playing a bigger strategic game. So, now the
government, in the shape of Trade and Industry Secretary
Alistair Darling, has decided it will "actively consider a sale
of part of its (£2.6bn) stake in British Energy via a capital
markets transaction."
But well before Darling made that commitment, the big boys in
the sector did, I am told, seriously consider whether they could
put a consortium together to take British Energy off the
government's hands. The logic is simple, if the British
government is set on a new generation of nuclear power stations,
but wants the market to build them, who would bet it isn't going
to happen?
And if it does and becomes part of the baseload supply of
electricity on these islands for decades to come, why not try to
get control of that supply chain by buying into the source of
existing nuclear capacity, British Energy? A consortium bid was
the best way to keep everyone engaged and spread any risk.
There may still be people around who think power companies take
principled positions on what kind of electricity generation they
are prepared to get involved in. There are certainly some which
like to play up their renewable credentials, because they know
that plays well with some sections of their customer base.
But the commercial reality lies elsewhere. The stark truth is
that utilities will invest in any form of generation, if the
numbers add up and the liabilities don't threaten to wreck their
corporate viability. In a market economy, all bets are on,
unless there's a compelling case why any particular option
should be taken off the table.
The major generators invested heavily in onshore wind power
because they sensed the strong government commitment to making
it happen and the big subsidies available for doing so promised
some very profitable business.
Within months of arriving at the helm of the largest UK onshore
wind generator, ScottishPower, chief executive Philip Bowman was
warning any move to sanction new a nuclear build should not muck
about with the renewables obligation, the subsidy system
underpinning investment in wind.
But in its response to the latest energy white paper,
ScottishPower has begun to hedge its bets. By 2015, it argues,
"if the economics are right … the replacement of old nuclear
plants should be considered." And behind the scenes it, too, was
apparently prepared to discuss a consortium bid for British
Energy.
The choice now isn't over which rival utilities in the UK
will/won't invest in nuclear. It's all about keeping your
strategic options open. Every power company will contemplate
adding a nuclear dimension to their portfolio, if the price is
right. The main risk for the independents, like ScottishPower
and Scottish &Southern Energy, is that their French and
German-owned rivals will try to squeeze them out of the action.
Copyright © Newsquest (Herald & Times) Limited. All Rights
Reserved
*****************************************************************
12 [NukeNet] Biggest Nuclear Utility (Exelon) in Economic Doldrums
Date: Tue, 01 Aug 2006 20:42:52 -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)
"On Monday, Fitch Ratings lowered ComEd (Exelon) to one notch above
junk status. 'The lower ratings reflect the unfavorable rate order
issued by the Illinois Commerce Commission and the increased business
risk that results from the ongoing regulatory uncertainty in
Illinois,' Fitch said."
http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/chi-0608010420aug01,1,133045.story?coll=chi-business-hed
Exelon woos, prods N.J. for merger OK
Deadline attached to $600 million offer
By Robert Manor
Tribune staff reporter
Published August 1, 2006
Exelon Corp.'s seemingly endless attempt to buy a New Jersey gas-and
electric-utility appears to be reaching a climax, with the
Chicago-based company offering consumers there $600 million in
concessions but demanding that regulators decide soon whether the
deal can go through.
"We must reach a preliminary agreement with the principal government
parties in the next week or so," Exelon Chief Executive John Rowe said Monday.
He said Exelon would grant customers of Public Service Enterprise
Group Inc. concessions worth $600 million, without giving much detail
about the offer, and added, "It is as far as we can go."
The merger with PSEG, valued at about $13 billion when it was
announced in late 2004, was supposed to have been completed by now.
But the New Jersey Board of Public Utilities, the last barrier to the
merger, has yet to decide whether it can proceed. A spokesman for the
board declined to comment.
The 20-months-long merger attempt is one of the few things not
running smoothly at Exelon, corporate parent of Commonwealth Edison.
The company said second-quarter net income rose to $644 million, or
95 cents a share, from $514 million, or 76 cents a share, for the
same period a year ago. Excluding certain items, Exelon made 85 cents
a share, beating estimates by 5 cents a share. Revenue rose 6
percent, to $3.7 billion.
Exelon, the nation's largest operator of nuclear reactors, is reaping
the benefit of it atomic fleet. The company is operating its plants
efficiently, at more than 99 percent capacity, which leads to cheap
electricity at a time when energy prices are high.
But the New Jersey deal is proving to be problematic. Rowe seemed to
say that if New Jersey isn't interested in Exelon, Exelon wasn't that
interested in New Jersey.
"We have to be wanted to be here," he said. "We know we can't badger
our way, we can't bluff our way in."
Morningstar equity analyst Mark Sadeghian said regulators are the
wild card in any utility merger, and delay is always a risk.
"They seem to be the last holdout," he said of New Jersey's utility
regulators. "It is a peril with one of these deals."
The merger has run into opposition among some consumer groups in New
Jersey, who fear that Exelon will have too much power in the state.
Exelon has not had the best of luck with regulators in recent days.
On Friday, the Illinois Commerce Commission gave ComEd a nominal
increase of $8.3 million in its delivery fees. The company had sought
$345.5 million.
Rowe has warned that if the state cripples ComEd, he will cut the
company loose from Exelon rather than lose money.
On Monday, Fitch Ratings lowered ComEd to one notch above junk status.
"The lower ratings reflect the unfavorable rate order issued by the
Illinois Commerce Commission and the increased business risk that
results from the ongoing regulatory uncertainty in Illinois," Fitch said.
Exelon stock shed 45 cents, to $57.90, on the New York Stock Exchange.
Also Monday, Exelon said it may be sued over radioactive wastewater
leaks at its Dresden and Byron nuclear reactors. The Illinois
Environmental Protection Agency in July indicated its intention to
sue over the Dresden leak, Exelon said in a regulatory filing.
The state agency also said it was considering referring the Byron
leak to the Illinois attorney general, the state's attorney for Ogle
County or the U.S. EPA for enforcement action, Exelon said.
----------
rmanor@tribune.com
Copyright © 2006, Chicago Tribune
_______________________________________________________________________
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
*****************************************************************
13 [NukeNet] Hot Weather Shuts Down Michigan Reactor
Date: Tue, 01 Aug 2006 15:10:15 -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)
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aNtzVaLCaNc8&refer=home
U.S. Heat Wave Heads to Northeast, May Break Records (Update2)
July 31, 2006 (Bloomberg)
[snip]
Northeast of Chicago, American Electric Power Co. shut down one of
two nuclear reactors in Bridgman, Michigan, yesterday after lake
water, used to cool the facility, pushed readings in the containment
building to 120 degrees, spokesman William Schalk said.
[snip]
Mike Ewall
Energy Justice Network
215-743-4884
catalyst@actionpa.org
http://www.energyjustice.net
_______________________________________________________________________
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
*****************************************************************
14 [NukeNet] Nuclear plant faced possible meltdown
Date: Tue, 01 Aug 2006 20:42:51 -0700
The same thing could happen here at Diablo - don't let anyone tell you
differently! In fact, it could be much, much worse. Molly
http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/view.php?StoryID=20060801-015350-6461r
Nuclear plant faced possible meltdown
FORSMARK, Sweden, Aug. 1 (UPI) -- Last week's shutdown of the Forsmark
nuclear power plant in Sweden, north of Stockholm, reportedly could have
resulted in a meltdown.
The emergency -- called by some the most dangerous international nuclear
incident since the destruction of the Russian Chernobyl plant 20 year ago
-- occurred when two of four generators shut down, officials said.
"It was pure luck that there was not a meltdown," nuclear expert and
former Forsmark director Lars-Olov Höglund told The Local. "Since the
electricity supply from the network didn't work as it should have, it
could have been a catastrophe."
He said without power, the temperature would have been too high after 30
minutes and within two hours there could have been a meltdown.
Ingvar Berglund, head of safety at Forsmark, disagreed. He told The Local
there wasn't a risk of a Chernobyl-like accident.
"We know exactly what happened and it was an incident that could have been
serious ... but that it could have been the most serious incident since
the nuclear power incident at Chernobyl is totally wrong," he said.
Forsmark went into operation in 1980 and now supplies one-sixth of
Sweden's electricity.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
"I just want you to know that, when we talk about war, we're really talking
about peace."
Bush, June 18, 2002
"War is Peace"
Big Brother in George Orwell's 1984
Molly Johnson
6290 Hawk Ridge Place
San Miguel, CA 93451
Cell: 805 296-0524
*****************************************************************
15 Platts: Exelon says study shows no active tritium leaks at plants
Washington (Platts)--31Jul2006
There are "no active leaks of tritium" at Exelon's 11 nuclear
plants, the company said July 31.
Aside from the "known historical releases" at Braidwood, there is
also "no detectable tritium beyond plant boundaries other than
from permitted discharges," the company said. Exelon's statement
cited "preliminary results of an environmental study of tritium,"
with final results are expected in six to eight weeks.
"No radioactive substances other than tritium and those that
occur naturally" were detected above background levels in any of
the more than 1,800 ground water samples assessed, Exelon said.
Copyright © 2006 - Platts, All Rights Reserved
[The McGraw-Hill Companies]
*****************************************************************
16 Platts: Three companies form partnership to build nuclear plants in US
Washington (Platts)--1Aug2006
Three companies on Tuesday said they had formed a partnership to
re-establish the manufacturing of commercial nuclear reactor
components in the US.
Constellation Energy, Areva and BWX Technologies announced
the alliance at a news conference in Washington.
Constellation and Areva had joined last year to form UniStar
Nuclear to deploy power reactors in the US. Under Tuesday's
announcement, BWXT is to manufacture components and equipment at
its facilities in Ohio and Indiana.
The work will include the fabrication of steam generators,
which have not been built in the US for more than a decade, at
BWXT facilities. While metal forging operations on steam
generators and some other components will continue to be done
overseas; the companies said they will look at moving that
capability to the US as the nuclear market grows.
Areva will be responsible for the nuclear engineering and
licensing. UniStar wants to license, build, and operate a
standardized fleet of advanced reactors known as Evolutionary
Power Reactors, based on a French design, in the US.
Areva and BWXT officials said that while nothing would
preclude them from providing replacement components and
fulfilling orders from other customers, a priority would be given
to UniStar orders. The agreement comes as several utilities
consider adding power reactors to their generating fleets, and
others are looking to replace reactor components.
For more news, request a free trial to Platts Nucleonics
Week at http://nucweek.platts.com or subscribe now at
http://www.platts.com/infostore/product_info.php?cPath=22_41&
products_id=67
Copyright © 2006 - Platts, All Rights Reserved [The McGraw-Hill
Companies]
*****************************************************************
17 NRC: Sunshine Act Federal Register Notice
FR Doc 06-6628
[Federal Register: August 1, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 147)]
[Notices] [Page 43528] From the Federal Register Online via GPO
Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr01au06-94]
Agency Holding the Meetings: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Date: Weeks of July 31, August 7, 14, 21, 28, September 4, 2006.
Place: Commissioners' Conference Room, 11555 Rockville Pike,
Rockville, Maryland.
Status: Public and closed.
Matters To Be Considered: Week of July 31, 2006 There are no
meetings scheduled for the Week of July 31, 2006.
Week of August 7, 2006--Tentative There are no meetings scheduled
for the Week of August 7, 2006.
Week of August 14, 2006--Tentative There are no meetings
scheduled for the Week of August 14, 2006.
Week of August 21, 2006--Tentative There are no meetings
scheduled for the Week of August 21, 2006.
Week of August 28, 2006--Tentative There are no meetings
scheduled for the Week of August 28, 2006.
Week of September 4, 2006--Tentative There are no meetings
scheduled for the Week of September 4, 2006.
The schedule for Commission meetings is subject to change on
short notice. To verify the status of meetings, call
(recording)--(301) 415- 1292. Contact person for more
information: Michelle Schroll, (301) 415- 1662.
The NRC Commission Meeting Schedule can be found on the Internet
at: http://www.nrc.gov/what-we-do/policy-making/schedule.html.
The NRC provides reasonable accommodation to individuals with
disabilities where appropriate. If you need a reasonable
accommodation to participate in these public meetings, or need
this meeting notice or the transcript or other information from
the public meetings in another format (e.g. braille, large
print), please notify the NRC's Disability Program Coordinator,
Deborah Chan, at 301-415-7041, TDD: 301-415-2100, or by e-mail at
DLC@nrc.gov. Determinations on requests for reasonable
accommodation will be made on a case-by-case basis.
This notice is distributed by mail to several hundred
subscribers; if you no longer wish to receive it or would like to
be added to the distribution, please contact the Office of the
Secretary, Washington, DC 20555 (301-415-1969). In addition,
distribution of this meeting notice over the Internet system is
available. If you are interested in receiving this Commission
meeting schedule electronically, please send an electronic
message to dkw@nrc.gov. Dated: July 27, 2006.
Sandy Joosten, Office of the Secretary.
[FR Doc. 06-6628 Filed 7-28-06; 9:47 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-M
*****************************************************************
18 Detroit Free Press: Nuclear power: Get on with it
A roundup of editorial opinion from Michigan newspapers
AP Michigan News
July 31, 2006
By The Associated Press ASSOCIATED PRESS
Michigan needs a new electric power plant, but there has to be
some energy coming out of Washington, too. Congress needs to
break its political stalemate over disposal of nuclear waste to
open the way for more power plant construction.
At the same time, federal lawmakers would be squaring themselves
with utility companies and millions of ratepayers who, through
their monthly electric bills, have been making mandatory
deposits of $750 million a year into the federal Nuclear Waste
Fund.
The payments, which amount to one-tenth of a cent per kilowatt
hour, are supposed to go toward construction and operation of a
waste dump. Instead, the fund -- now holding some $18 billion --
is mostly used to back up other federal programs.
The lack of a permanent dump for radioactive leftovers is the
cork in the nuclear power bottle, and has been for over two
decades. Without the storage site, the country has been left to
pile up 50,000 tons of nuclear waste at some 130 temporary sites
in 39 states.
Mostly, the sites are on the grounds of nuclear power plants,
including three along West Michigan's Lake Michigan shore. The
storage containers, made of concrete and steel, are safe, but
the plant sites weren't designed as waste storage locations.
Ratepayers shouldn't have to pay to stuff dollars into the
Nuclear Waste Fund while waste piles up in the temporary bins.
The situation dates to 1982 when Congress ordered construction
of a permanent burial place for nuclear wastes. In 1987,
lawmakers decided that the site would be Nevada's desolate Yucca
Mountain and stipulated that wastes should be going there by
1998.
But eight years beyond that date, not a pound of nuclear waste
has entered Yucca Mountain. Nevada opposition in the Senate,
supported by Michigan Sen. Debbie Stabenow, D-Lansing, and
lawsuits by anti-nuclear and environmental groups have stymied
progress.
Now the Senate is moving to set up regional waste centers to
last 25 years or until Yucca Mountain can be opened. The Senate
Appropriations Committee has approved such a plan. The idea
likely is a false hope, and an expensive one at that.
Further political blockades and drawn-out legal battles are
inevitable. Congress instead should focus on legislation needed
to push the Yucca Mountain project forward.
Michigan needs that movement. The state's existing power plants
aren't generating enough electricity to meet peak requirements.
Not for 17 years has a major power plant been built in the
state. A state Public Service Commission report this year
recommended that Michigan have at least one new electric power
plant on line by 2011. The plant almost certainly will be
coal-fired unless nuclear power can be freed up as an option.
That should happen. Nuclear power is a clean, safe and reliable
energy source. It also would serve to reduce dependence on
fossil fuels. Michigan's federal lawmakers should be pushing
nuclear power. This time, Sen. Stabenow should be among them. --
THE GRAND RAPIDS PRESS, July 21.
Copyright © 2006 Detroit Free Press Inc.
*****************************************************************
19 Xinhua: Nation's power troubles may soon be solved
www.chinaview.cn 2006-08-01 07:44:52
BEIJING, August 1 -- China is expected to see its power
shortages substantially eased beginning in the next half of this
year, a senior official with the China Electricity Council (CEC)
said yesterday.
"Power supply and demand will be balanced nationwide in the
next half of the year, although short-term power shortages will
still exist in a few regions," said CEC secretary-general Wang
Yonggan at a press conference in Beijing.
Power shortages only existed in four provinces in June,
compared with 25 at the beginning of 2005 and nine in January.
Wang said power shortages had been remarkably relieved in
the first six months of this year because more newly built large
power stations were put into use.
In the first half of this year, China saw a newly installed
power capacity of 32.41 million kilowatts, 11.1 per cent of
which is from hydro power stations and 88.48 per cent from
thermal power plants.
The nation generated 1.23 trillion kilowatt-hours of power
during the first six months of the year, a year-on-year increase
of 12 per cent, according to CEC.
Hydro power accounts for 13.76 per cent of energy generated,
thermal power 83.93 per cent and nuclear power 2.02 per cent.
In the first half of the year, China's total power
consumption reached 1.3 trillion kilowatt-hours, an increase of
12.89 per cent over the same period last year.
Wang estimated China's total power consumption in 2006 would
increase by 12 per cent over last year.
The biggest power deficit will be 8 million kilowatts during
the summer peak, which mainly appears in East China, North China
and part of South China, Wang said.
Wang said China invested 75 billion yuan (US$9.2 billion) on
construction and reformation of electricity networks in the
first six months, which had greatly improved the country's power
transport capacity.
Wang said the power industry must work to reduce energy
consumption per unit of GDP by 20 per cent, in accordance with
the 11th Five-Year Plan (2006-10).
Consequently, renewable and clean energies such as hydro
power and nuclear power would enjoy priority in the country's
long-term development strategy.
In the first six months, China's standard coal consumption
rate in power generation dropped to 362 grams per kilowatt-hour,
6 grams less than the same period last year.Enditem
(Source: China Daily)
Editor: Mu Xuequan
*****************************************************************
20 Quad-City Times: Study shows no tritium leak at Cordova plant
QCTimes.com -
By Jennifer DeWitt | Tuesday, August 01, 2006 | Comments(0)
With the exception of Exelon Nuclears Braidwood, Ill., nuclear
station, no active leaks of radioactive tritium have been
detected at any of the companys generating plants, an
environmental study shows.
The Chicago-based Exelon announced Monday that the studys
preliminary results indicate there is no detectable tritium
beyond the plant boundaries other than from permitted discharges
again except for at the Braidwood Generating Station. Exelon
owns 11 U.S. nuclear energy plants, including the Quad-Cities
Nuclear Station in Cordova, Ill.
The only Exelon station at which tritium is known to have
migrated off plant property is Braidwood where accidental
tritiated water spills have been widely reported. A
state-approved cleanup, announced in February, has begun at that
facility, the company said.
Federal regulators ordered inspections of all Illinois nuclear
power plants. Exelon responded Feb. 15 by launching
environmental studies at all its plants, which are located in
Illinois, Pennsylvania and New Jersey. The assessment is the
largest tritium study involving nuclear energy stations ever
undertaken in the United States.
The nuclear industry announced a similar voluntary program for
all commercial U.S. nuclear sites May 9.
In the Exelon assessment, some of the findings included:
No radioactive substances other than tritium and those that
occur naturally such as potassium-40 were detected above
background levels in any of the groundwater samples.
Low but detectable levels of tritium exist in groundwater
within site boundaries of most Exelon plants. All either
measured near background levels or were from past leaks or
spills and show no signs of moving offsite. These will be
monitored continuously.
One Exelon plant, Oyster Creek Generating Station in New
Jersey, showed no traces of tritium.
None of the tritium concentrations registered in the assessment
pose a health or safety hazard to workers or the public, Exelon
said.
Tritium is a weak radioactive isotope of hydrogen found
naturally in small concentrations in virtually all water. All
nuclear energy plants have higher concentrations of tritium in
their water because they produce tritium as a normal byproduct.
The substance is discharged into the environment under strict
federal guidelines. It eventually decays into helium, a natural
part of the earths atmosphere.
Studies have shown long-term exposure to tritium through
drinking or bathing can lead to cancer and birth defects.
For the past five months, more than 400 Exelon employees,
contractors and consultants including hydro-geologists,
engineers, chemists, environmental scientists and other
specialists have been evaluating the integrity of the
mechanical systems that handle tritium and other radioactive
substances. In addition to historical records, they have drilled
more than 500 test and monitoring wells in the ground and
analyzed test results from more than 1,800 water samples.
Independent laboratories have analyzed each water sample to
ensure accurate and confirmable results. Many of the samples are
split among state and federal regulators for further assurance.
The assessment is expected to cost more than $5 million, which
does not include the remediation work already underway at
Braidwood. Exelon said if any other cleanup is necessary, it
will develop a cleanup plan in coordination with the government
oversight agencies.
Bill Stoermer, the communication manager at the Cordova
facility, said the assessments preliminary findings are good
news and that operators do not expect any concerns to be
identified.
Any unplanned release of radioactive material is unacceptable,
and we have taken unprecedented measures to validate it doesnt
happen. We remain very committed to protecting our neighborhood,
the river, and the environment surrounding our facility,
Stoermer said.
The study will continue and final results are expected in six to
eight weeks. At that point, Exelon is expected to announce
specific results for all 11 Exelon locations.
Jennifer DeWitt can be contacted at (563) 383-2318 or
jdewitt@qctimes.com.
Exelon Corp.
Electric utility Exelon Corp. said Monday its second-quarter
profit grew 25 percent as revenue edged higher and the company
logged wider margins.
Net income increased to $644 million, or 95 cents per share,
from $514 million, or 76 cents per share, in the year-ago
quarter. Adjusted to exclude certain items, earnings were 85
cents per share versus 75 cents per share in the 2005 quarter.
Revenue rose to $3.7 billion from $3.48 billion a year earlier.
Analysts polled by Thomson Financial expected adjusted earnings
of 80 cents per share and revenue of $4.17 billion.
The company which is in the process of acquiring New Jerseys
Public Service Enterprise Group Inc. said it logged higher
margins on wholesale market sales and increased output from
Exelon Generations nuclear operation, as well as higher electric
rates at PECO Energy.
The Associated Press
*****************************************************************
21 NRC: Request for a License To Import Radioactive Waste
FR Doc E6-12369
[Federal Register: August 1, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 147)]
[Notices] [Page 43527-43528] From the Federal Register Online via
GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr01au06-92]
Pursuant to 10 CFR 110.70(C) ``Public notice of receipt of an
application,'' please take notice that the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission has received the following request for an import
license. Copies of the request are available electronically
through ADAMS and can be accessed through the Public Electronic
Reading Room (PERR) link http://www.nrc.gov/NRC/ADAMS/index.html
at the NRC Homepage. The application includes in its quantity and
activity level two barrels of contaminated rags, gloves, and
clothing which, in 2004, were inadvertently shipped from France
to AREVA NP without a specific NRC import license.
A request for a hearing or petition for leave to intervene may be
filed within 30 days after publication of this notice in the
Federal Register. Any request for hearing or petition for leave
to intervene shall be served by the requestor or petitioner upon
the applicant, the Office of the General Counsel, U.S. Nuclear
Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555; the Secretary, U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555; and the
Executive Secretary, U.S. Department of State, Washington, DC
20520.
The information concerning this import license application
follows.
NRC Import License Application
Name of applicant
Date of Description of material application Date
received ------------------------------------------ End use
Country of Application No. Docket No. Material type
Total quantity origin
-----------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------- AREVA NP Inc.,
May 1, 2006, May Class A radioactive Up to 457 kilograms
Waste generated France.
18, 2006, IW018, 11005628. waste in the form of dry
activated from of contaminants of materials
decontaminating compacted dry contaminated with and inspecting
activated waste-- various Dominion gloves, rags, and
radionuclides. Generation Surry clothing and Class Total
activity Power Station's C resins. level of
Class A Reactor Coolant waste not to Pump is to be
exceed .07 TBq. returned to AREVA. Up to 88 kilograms It
is to be sent of Class C resins to Energy with a total
Solutions
activity level not (Duratek) for to exceed 0.21 TBq. processing
and then to Barnwell, South Carolina for burial. If not sent to
Energy Solutions, the resin will be returned to the Surry Plant's
resin holding tank.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------
[[Page 43528]] For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Dated this 11th day of July 2006 at Rockville, Maryland.
Margaret M. Doane, Deputy Director, Office of International
Programs.
[FR Doc. E6-12369 Filed 7-31-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
*****************************************************************
22 NRC: Notice and Solicitation of Comments Concerning Proposed Action
FR Doc E6-12371
[Federal Register: August 1, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 147)]
[Notices] [Page 43528] From the Federal Register Online via GPO
Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr01au06-93]
To Decommission University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Nuclear Reactor Laboratory Notice is hereby given that the U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission) has received an
application from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
dated March 28, 2006, for a license amendment approving its
proposed decommissioning plan for the Nuclear Reactor Laboratory
(Facility License No. R-115) located in Urbana, Illinois.
In accordance with 10 CFR 20.1405, the Commission is providing
notice and soliciting comments from local and State governments
in the vicinity of the site and any Indian Nation or other
indigenous people that have treaty or statutory rights that could
be affected by the decommissioning. This notice and solicitation
of comments is published pursuant to 10 CFR 20.1405, which
provides for publication in the Federal Register and in a forum,
such as local newspapers, letters to State or local
organizations, or other appropriate forum, that is readily
accessible to individuals in the vicinity of the site.
Comments should be provided within 60 days of the date of this
notice to Alexander Adams, Jr., Senior Project Manager, U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Research and Test Reactors Branch,
MS O-12-G-15, Washington, DC 20555.
Further, in accordance with 10 CFR 50.82(b)(5), notice is also
provided to interested persons of the Commission's intent to
approve the plan by amendment, subject to such conditions and
limitations as it deems appropriate and necessary, if the plan
demonstrates that decommissioning will be performed in accordance
with the regulations and will not be inimical to the common
defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
A copy of the application (Accession Number ML060900623) is
available electronically for public inspection in the NRC Public
Document Room or from the Publicly Available Records component of
the NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System
(ADAMS).
ADAMS is accessible from the NRC Web site at (the Public
Electronic Reading Room)
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. Dated at Rockville,
Maryland, this 25th day of July 2006.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Brian E. Thomas, Branch Chief, Research and Test Reactors Branch,
Division of Policy and Rulemaking, Office of Nuclear Reactor
Regulation.
[FR Doc. E6-12371 Filed 7-31-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
*****************************************************************
23 Easy bourse: Nigeria To Build Nuclear Pwr Plant Within 12 Years - President
Tuesday August 1st, 2006 / 14h37
ABUJA, Nigeria (AP)--Nigeria's president has pledged his
oil-rich West African nation will build a nuclear power plant
within 12 years.
Despite being Africa's leading oil producer and the fifth
biggest supplier of crude to the U.S., most of Nigeria's 130
million people remain deeply impoverished. Blackouts are common
in major cities and few rural areas have steady access to
electricity.
"Today...marks day one in the timeline of our national nuclear
electricity program," President Olusegun Obasanjo said Monday in
the capital, Abuja, at the inauguration of the Board of the
Nigeria Atomic Energy Commission, a state nuclear advisory body.
Obasanjo said any nuclear capacity Nigeria develops would be
used for peaceful purposes. He asked the Justice Ministry to
draft legislation governing the use of nuclear technologies.
"We are unequivocally committed to the Nuclear Nonproliferation
Treaty," Obasanjo said.
According to the U.S.-government funded Energy Information
Administration, Nigeria's power plants are operating well below
capacity due to a combination of poor maintenance and low water
levels at hydropower stations.
Nigeria's energy consumption has more than doubled since 1980,
but only an estimated 40% of the population has access to
electricity.
Tuesday August 1st, 2006 / 14h37
sources : Dowjones Business News
Copyright © 2006 Easybourse - All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
24 AU ABC: Browns fast-tracking won't speed up future plans - Compass
ABC Northern Territory | Local News | Story
13:49 (ACST)Tuesday, 1 August 2006. 13:49 (AEST)Tuesday, 1
Compass Resources says federal fast-tracking of its Browns
oxide project near Batchelor in the Northern Territory will not
speed up applications for any future mining it has planned.
The Australian Conservation Foundation (ACF) have claimed that
major project status for the mixed ore body mine pointed to
federal interest in the company's future interest in a larger
uranium mine.
Compass Resources Rod Elvish says the company is interested in
mining uranium adjacent to the Rum Jungle site near Batchelor,
100 kilometres south of Darwin.
But he says that project is separate to the Browns oxide project
and will not be covered by this round of federal assistance.
"That will require a full environmental impact statement to be
taken so nothing will happen until unless that environmental
impact statement (EIS) is completed and that's down the track,"
he said.
Northern Territory Environment Centre (NTEC) spokesman Peter
Robertson says the fast-tracking of the Brown's oxide project is
linked to a future uranium mine.
"It's already been through an EIS process, the EPA
(Environmental Protection Authority) has recommended approval,
the Minister for the Environment has recommended approval so
it's already at the end of approvals anyway," he said.
"So why would the Commonwealth step in now with this flag-waving
stunt unless it's actually a precursor to the fast tracking of a
uranium mine?"
*****************************************************************
25 [NYTr] Nuclear terror: science and lies
Date: Wed, 2 Aug 2006 00:59:20 -0500 (CDT)
X-Sender-Host-Name: chumbly.math.missouri.edu
X-Spam-Class: HAM-VERY
Via NY Transfer News Collective * All the News that Doesn't Fit
Green Left Weekly - Aug 2, 2006 issue
http://www.greenleft.org.au/back/2006/677/677p24.htm
Nuclear terror: science and lies
by Greg Adamson
On August 6, 1945, an atomic bomb was dropped on the historic Japanese city
of Hiroshima. While this was a military triumph for the United States, for
scientists, including Albert Einstein, it was a tragedy.
A new weapon of immense power had been unleashed on the world, aided by
scientists under the misconception that Nazi Germany was about to develop a
nuclear weapon itself. The weak state of the Nazi program was partly due to
a secret pact by key German physicists. Scientists working on the US
program, however, were kept uninformed of the actual state of the Nazi
program.
In August 1939, in the approach to World War II, Albert Einstein signed a
letter to US President Franklin D. Roosevelt stating that through recent
work in nuclear physics "it may become possible to set up a nuclear chain
reaction in a large mass of uranium ... This new phenomenon would also lead
to the construction of ... extremely powerful bombs." The letter stated
that "Germany has actually stopped the sale of uranium from the
Czechoslovakian mines which she has taken over", and called for a
"watchfulness and, if necessary, quick action on the part of the [US]
Administration".
It was not the threat of Germany at war, but the threat of the German
regime having uncontested control of the atomic bomb that caused concern to
a number of nuclear physicists, including several refugees from Nazism. The
"Einstein letter" was organised by one such physicist, Leo Szilard, and
presented to Roosevelt on October 11, 1939. "I really only acted as a
letter-box. They brought me a letter all ready for signature and I simply
signed it", Einstein later explained to biographer Antonina Vallentin.
Szilard was afraid of Nazi Germany getting the atomic bomb, but hadn't been
able to convince the US government that the new weapon was practical. In
Brighter Than a Thousand Suns, published in 1959, Robert Jungk examines the
events surrounding the US nuclear program. He details the actual state of
nuclear weapons' development in Germany at that time and shows that
Hitler's forces were nowhere near developing the atomic bomb.
"Four factors must have combined to frustrate the construction of a German
atom-bomb. In the first place the absence of eminent physicists driven into
exile by Hitler now proved to be a severe handicap. Secondly, the poor
organisation by the National Socialists of research in the interests of war
and its inadequate recognition by their Government, and thirdly, the
technical difficulties of so complex a project, were further obstacles. But
above all, in the fourth place, the actual personal attitudes of the German
experts in atomic research who had remained at home counted against
success.
"Fortunately they did nothing to facilitate the construction of such a bomb
in the face of misunderstanding by the authorities and the insufficient
technical resources the latter provided. On the contrary, such physicists
were able successfully to divert the minds of the National Socialist
Service Departments from the idea of so inhuman a weapon."
Jungk describes how several groups that could have followed up the
possibility of developing nuclear weapons came not to. He states, "there
were at that time [at least 13] prominent German physicists who had agreed
that they must try to avoid working with Hitler's war-machine or to make
only a pretence of doing so. The names of German physicists unwilling to
supply Hitler with supplementary armaments were deposited, after the war
had begun, in Sweden -- with Professor Westgren -- and in Holland -- with
Professor Burgers. It was considered that an open `strike' of research
workers would be dangerous, as it would leave the field open for
unscrupulous and ambitious persons."
Einstein later stated that, "If I had known that the Germans would not
succeed in constructing the atom-bomb, I would never have moved a finger".
By 1941 reports were getting through to the US government that Hitler had
no advanced bomb project. These reports, which came from scientists fleeing
Europe, were not conveyed to the physicists working on the US bomb project,
who believed right up to the final defeat of the Nazi regime that Germany
might have been ahead of the US in developing nuclear weapons.
While the scientists were unaware of the weak state of the German nuclear
program, the US government knew the reality, including through reports of
German scientists' non-cooperation. The US program was the largest
engineering work undertaken to that time, and a strong Nazi program would
have had a similar requirement. (While Britain and Canada participated in
the US program, they were abruptly excluded at the end of the war.) At Oak
Ridge, Tennessee, the longest factory halls in the country were
constructed. At Hanford, in Washington State, it took 60,000 workers to
build one of the largest chemical works in the country. At Los Alamos, in
New Mexico, seven separate divisions worked on the final product. In total,
the bomb took 150,000 people to build.
The German regime was defeated before the first nuclear weapon was ready
for use. Nevertheless, the US bomb project maintained its frantic activity.
The bomb project organiser at the Los Alamos centre, General Leslie Groves,
continually urged, "We must not lose a single day".
The only possible target now was Japan, which could not possibly have been
developing nuclear weapons (although supporters of the US nuclear bombing
of Japan occasionally claim that there was a Japanese nuclear weapons
program). The explanation given for the bomb's use therefore became the
need to reduce US losses in the final invasion.
The use of nuclear weapons was now advocated on the grounds of expediency.
For scientists such as Einstein this wasn't valid, regardless of issues of
the war itself. An army at any time can argue for new weapons to defeat its
enemy, but once a fundamentally new weapon has been achieved, the threat to
the whole of humanity is permanently increased.
The expediency argument could be used today in relation to new
technologies, including biological weapons, robotics and nanotechnology.
The US could argue that to reduce its own casualties when fighting
"terrorist" opponents it should deploy biological weapons (which it hasn't
argued), or develop autonomous killing machines for use in battle
conditions (which it has announced plans for within the next decade). Each
such step makes the world a more dangerous place.
Szilard, who had earlier organised the letter to Roosevelt, now organised
another letter from Einstein to the President, warning of the threat that
the nearly completed bombs would pose. Szilard also organised a petition of
scientists working on the bomb project opposing its use, which gained 67
signatures before it was banned. Jungk quotes Szilard, explaining the
attitude of the scientists he was speaking for at this time: "During 1943
and part of 1944 our greatest worry was the possibility that Germany would
perfect an atomic-bomb before the invasion of Europe ... In 1945, when we
ceased worrying about what the Germans might do to us, we began to worry
about what the Government of the United States might do to other
countries."
The US was in a race against time to drop the bomb before the war ended.
>From mid-July 1945, the US forces were able to read coded Japanese military
information, including expressions of the view that Japan was beaten. At
the same time, the US Air Force could bomb just about any target it wanted.
Given these and other descriptions of the state of Japan's defences and the
attitude of Japan's rulers, there was no military reason for the US
government to bring into play a devastating new weapon.
The 1945 nuclear attacks on Japan resulted in the deaths of 250,000 people
and ongoing damage generations later. The two cities presented different
technical challenges: a flat coastal area and a rugged terrain. Two
different bomb designs were used; one based on uranium and the other on
plutonium. After a list of possible Japanese cities for nuclear bombing had
been drawn up, these cities were deliberately spared massive conventional
bombing so that the effect of a single atomic blast could be more
accurately assessed.
Einstein gave his view of the development of the first nuclear weapon in a
December 10, 1945 speech titled: "The war is won, but peace is not".
"We helped in creating this new weapon in order to prevent the enemies of
mankind from achieving it ahead of us, which, given the mentality of the
Nazis, would have meant inconceivable destruction and the enslavement of
the rest of the world. We delivered this weapon into the hands of the
American and the British people as trustees of the whole of mankind, as
fighters for peace and liberty. But so far we fail to see any guarantee of
peace, we do not see any guarantee of the freedoms that were promised to
the nations in the Atlantic Charter. The war is won, but the peace is not
..
"The world was promised freedom from fear, but in fact fear has increased
tremendously since the termination of the war. The world was promised
freedom from want, but large parts of the world are faced with starvation
while others are living in abundance."
[Greg Adamson is the author of We All Live on Three Mile Island, published
by Resistance Books. To order, visit .]
*
================================================================
.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
================================================================
*****************************************************************
26 [NukeNet] Israel uses Depleted Uranium on Lebanon
Date: Tue, 01 Aug 2006 15:10:19 -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)
Depleted Uranium Situation Worsens Requires Action
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0607/S00452.htm
Monday, 31 July 2006, 1:39 pm
Opinion: Dr. Doug Rokke Ph.D.
Depleted Uranium Situation Worsens Requiring Immediate Action By President
Bush, Prime Minister Blair, and Prime Minister Olmert
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0607/S00452.htm
Dr. Doug Rokke, PhD., 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
_______________________________________________________________________
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
*****************************************************************
27 APP.COM: Testing at plant finds no leakage of isotope into area ground water |
Asbury Park Press Online
Tuesday, August 1, 2006
FOUND AT OTHER REACTORS
LACEY — Tests for tritium in wells at the Oyster Creek nuclear
power plant showed no trace of the radioactive isotope that has
seeped into ground water around several other U.S. reactors,
according to plant and state scientists.
Initial results from tests conducted by Exelon Nuclear at Oyster
Creek and the company's 10 other plants showed no active leaks
of tritium, the company announced Monday.
At Oyster Creek, the state Department of Environmental
Protection checked 40 monitoring wells not tested by Exelon and
also found no evidence of tritium.
The plant's 103 test wells are all on plant property, a site
comprising hundreds of acres between the Garden State Parkway
and Route 9 along the Oyster Creek, the boundary between Lacey
and Ocean Township (Waretown). The wells were installed years
ago to monitor the ground water for radioactive contaminants.
Exelon said that it found low but detectable levels of tritium
in ground water within site boundaries of most other Exelon
plants, but that the presence does not pose a hazard to
drinking-water supplies.
Final results from Exelon, whose headquarters are in
Warrenville, Ill., are expected in September.
Exelon launched the $5 million testing program in February after
officials learned of leaks dating 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
ground water, but it is more concentrated in water used in
nuclear reactors.
Nicholas Clunn
Copyright © 2006 Asbury Park Press. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
28 Honolulu Advertiser: Cleanup halted on Stryker complex
Posted on: Tuesday, August 1, 2006
By William Cole Advertiser Military Writer
Cultural concerns are halting work on unexploded ordnance
cleanup at the site of a future Stryker brigade training range
at Schofield Barracks.
On July 22, an unexploded ordnance crew bulldozed across a
buffer protecting the Hale'au'au heiau, cultural monitors said.
"The debris was pushed only a few meters away from the slope
where the highly sensitive Hale'au'au heiau is located," Kamoa
Quitevis said in an e-mail sent to Army, state and federal
officials.
Cultural access had been allowed at set times, but because of
the limited access, the fencing breach occurred when no monitors
were present, and it was unclear if any surface or subsurface
cultural sites were impacted, Quitevis said.
Work at the site stopped last week after cultural monitors
raised concerns that they were being excluded from the process.
It's not the first setback for the planned Battle Area Complex
for Stryker vehicle driving and firing.
The Army in January said depleted uranium from 15 training
rounds used in the 1960s was found during a cleanup of
unexploded ordnance.
A month later, the Army said chemical weapons that included
chloropicrin, an asphyxiator used in World War I, were located
at the range.
Troy Griffin, a Schofield spokesman, yesterday said the
unexploded ordnance work was stopped "because of increasing
concerns by the cultural monitors."
"Until we can come up with answers to their concerns, we've
ceased operations out there," Griffin said. Because of the
danger posed by what's in the ground, the unexploded ordnance
crews determined that it was necessary to limit cultural
monitoring, he said.
According to the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, the
Army in 2004 agreed to work closely with Native Hawaiian
organizations and provide cultural monitors access and timely
notification of Stryker brigade projects.
On Mondays and Tuesdays, 45 minutes were allowed for monitoring,
beginning at 5:30 a.m.; 30 minutes during a lunch break for the
unexploded ordnance crew; and 45 minutes beginning at about 4:15
p.m.
In a July 25 letter, the advisory council said the "strong
criticism" by Hawaiian organizations over the way the 2004
agreement was being implemented was a growing concern, and
suggested projects were being carried out without safeguards to
ensure participation by the groups.
In an e-mail the day before, Lance M. Foster, director of Native
Rights, Land and Culture for the Office of Hawaiian Affairs
said, "I think we need to look at litigation at this point."
The group DMZ-Hawai'i/Aloha 'Aina yesterday called on the Army
to "cease and desist all Stryker brigade expansion activities."
The Army garrison commander met with Native Hawaiian
representatives last week to work toward an agreement, Griffin
said, adding, "We are absolutely wanting to listen to the
concerns, and we are listening."
Reach William Cole at wcole@honoluluadvertiser.com.
© COPYRIGHT 2006 The Honolulu Advertiser, a division of
Gannett Co. Inc.
*****************************************************************
29 NRC: Fact Sheet on Tritium, Radiation Protection Limits, and
Drinking Water Standards
Printable Version [PDF Icon] Background
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has recently
evaluated several instances of abnormal releases of liquid
tritium from several nuclear power plants, which resulted in
groundwater contamination. The NRC determined that although the
releases were unplanned, the levels of tritium were within
radiation protection limits and did not pose a threat to public
health and safety. Nonetheless, the NRC takes these
unanticipated and unmonitored releases very seriously, and is
currently reviewing these incidents to ensure that nuclear power
plant operators have taken appropriate action.
What is the NRC doing about the tritium leaks and spills at
nuclear power plants?
The NRC has revised its inspection procedures for nuclear power
plants to evaluate licensees' programs to inspect and assess the
equipment and structures that have the potential to leak. The
NRC has also placed additional emphasis on evaluating the
licensees' abilities to analyze for additional discharge
pathways, such as groundwater, as a result of a spill or leak.
The NRC has established a "lessons learned" task force to
address inadvertent, unmonitored liquid releases of
radioactivity from U.S. commercial nuclear power plants. This
task force will review previous incidents, identify lessons
learned from these events, and determine what, if any, changes
are needed in the agency's regulatory program. The task force's
findings are expected in the near future.
As with any industrial facility, a nuclear power plant may
deviate from normal operation with a spill or leak of liquid
material. However, the plant design and the NRC's inspection
program both provide reasonable assurance that safety limits
will be met even in abnormal situations.
This fact sheet provides a general overview of the health
effects of tritium and the technical bases for the regulatory
standards that the NRC uses to protect public health and safety,
as well as the drinking water standards established by the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Additional resources and
references related to tritium are listed at the end of this fact
sheet.
Tritium
Tritium is a naturally occurring radioactive form of hydrogen
that is produced in the atmosphere when cosmic rays collide with
air molecules. As a result, tritium is found in very small or
trace amounts in groundwater throughout the world. It is also a
byproduct of the production of electricity by nuclear power
plants.
Tritium is one of the weakest forms of radiation. The radiation
emitted from tritium is a low-energy beta particle that is
similar to an electron. Moreover, the tritium beta particle does
not travel very far in air and cannot penetrate the skin.
Tritium from Nuclear Power Plants
Several nuclear power plants have recently reported abnormal
releases of liquid tritium, which resulted in groundwater
contamination (see http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/operating/
ops-experience/grndwtr-contam-tritium.html).
All power plants (nuclear and otherwise) convert heat into
electricity using steam. Non-nuclear power plants burn coal or
oil to generate the heat to make steam. By contrast, nuclear
power plants generate the heat to make steam through the process
of atomic fission (atom splitting). Fission occurs when the
nucleus of a heavy atom, such as uranium or plutonium, splits in
two when struck by a neutron. This "fissioning" of the nucleus
produces energy in the form of heat, and releases two or three
new neutrons, which can then repeat the process to release even
more neutrons and more nuclear energy. The repetitive cycling
of this process is called a "chain reaction."
Most of the tritium produced in a reactor is as a byproduct of
the absorption of neutrons by a chemical known as boron. Boron
is a good absorber of neutrons, which nuclear reactors use to
help control the fission chain reaction. Toward that end, boron
either is added directly to the coolant water or is used in the
control rods to control the chain reaction. Tritium can also be
produced (to a lesser extent) from the fission process itself,
or when neutrons are absorbed by other chemicals (e.g., lithium
or heavy water) in the coolant water (NAS, 1996; UNSCEAR 1988).
Like normal hydrogen, tritium can bond with oxygen to form
water. When this happens, the resulting water (called "tritiated
water") is radioactive. Tritiated water (not to be confused with
heavy water) is chemically identical to normal water and the
tritium cannot be filtered out of the water.
Nuclear power plants routinely and safely release dilute
concentrations of tritiated water. These authorized releases are
closely monitored by the utility, reported to the NRC, and made
available to the public on the NRC's Web site at
http://www.reirs.com/effluent/.
How do people become exposed to tritium?
Tritium is almost always found as a liquid and primarily enters
the body when people eat or drink food or water containing
tritium or absorb it through their skin. People can also inhale
tritium as a gas in the air.
Once tritium enters the body, it disperses quickly and is
uniformly distributed throughout the soft tissues. Half of the
tritium is excreted within approximately 10 days after exposure.
Everyone is exposed to small amounts of tritium every day,
because it occurs naturally in the environment and the foods we
eat. Workers in Federal weapons facilities; medical, biomedical,
or university research facilities; or nuclear fuel cycle
facilities may receive increased exposures to tritium.
Is the radiation dose from tritium any different than the dose
from natural background radioactivity or medical administrations?
The type of radiation dose from tritium is the same as from any
other type of radiation, including natural background radiation
and medical administrations.
The tritium dose from nuclear power plants is much lower than
the exposures attributable to natural background radiation and
medical administrations.
Humans receive approximately 82% of their annual radiation dose
from natural background radiation, 15% from medical procedures
(e.g., x-rays), and 3% from consumer products. Doses from
tritium and nuclear power plant effluents are a negligible
contribution to the background radiation to which people are
normally exposed, and they account for less than 0.1% of the
total background dose (NCRP, 1987).
As an example, assume that a residential drinking water well
sample contains tritium at the level of 1,600 picocuries per
liter (a comparable tritium level was identified in a drinking
water well near the Braidwood Station nuclear facility). The
radiation dose from drinking water at this level for a full year
is characterized as follows (using EPA assumptions):
at least ten thousand times lower than the dose from a medical
procedure involving a full-body computed tomography (CT) scan
(e.g., 3,000 to 10,000 mrem from a CT scan vs. 0.3 mrem from
tritiated drinking water)
one thousand times lower than the dose from natural background
radiation (e.g., 300 mrem from natural background radiation vs.
0.3 mrem from tritiated water)
one hundred times lower than the dose from either dental x-rays
or natural radioactivity (potassium) in your body (e.g., 30 mrem
from potassium vs. 0.3 mrem from tritiated water)
ten times lower than a round-trip cross-country airplane flight
(e.g., 3 mrem from New York to Los Angeles and back vs. 0.3 mrem
from tritiated water)
ALARA (as low as reasonably achievable) is a radiation safety
principle for minimizing doses and releases of radioactive
material by using all reasonable methods. In principle, no dose
should be acceptable if it can be avoided or is without benefit.
[See Title 10, Section 20.1003, of the Code of Federal
Regulations (10 CFR 20.1003).]
What are the possible health risks from tritium radiation
exposure?
Along with other national and international regulatory agencies
responsible for radiation protection, the NRC assumes that any
exposure to radiation poses some health risk, and that risk
increases as exposure increases in a linear, no-threshold (LNT)
manner. The LNT assumption suggests that any increase in dose,
no matter how small, incrementally increases risk. Conversely,
lower levels of radiation proportionately decrease the risk,
such that very small radiation doses have very little risk. The
health risks include increased occurrence of cancer and genetic
abnormalities in future generations. Since it is assumed that
any exposure to radiation poses some health risk, it makes sense
to keep radiation doses as low as reasonably achievable (ALARA).
The NRC's radiation dose limits and ALARA requirements minimize
the health risk and ensure that no individual is
disproportionately exposed as a result of NRC-licensed
activities.
A millirem (mrem) is a term that scientists use to describe
how much radiation the body absorbs. For example, scientists
estimate that we receive a dose of 360 mrem every year from
natural (e.g., radon) and human-made (e.g., medical) radiation
sources.
The NRC's dose limits for radiation workers and the general
public are significantly lower than the levels of radiation
exposure that cause health effects in humans including a
developing embryo or fetus. Although high doses and high dose
rates may cause cancer in humans and genetic abnormalities in an
embryo or fetus, public health data have not established the
occurrence of these health risks following exposure to low doses
and low-dose rates below about 10,000 millirem (mrem).
For comparison, the NRC calculated a maximum annual dose of less
than 0.1 mrem to a member of the public from the recent
unintended tritium releases at the Braidwood Station. This is a
very low dose, which is not considered a risk to public health
and safety because it is well below the NRC's 500 mrem dose
limit for declared pregnant workers at nuclear facilities and
the 100 mrem annual dose limit for members of the general
public.
For additional comparison, a typical individual in the United
States receives an average annual radiation exposure of about
300 millirem from natural sources (NCRP, 1987). Radon gas
accounts for two-thirds of this exposure, while cosmic,
terrestrial, and internal radiation account for the remainder.
No adverse health effects have been discerned from doses arising
from these levels of natural radiation exposure.
In addition, human-made sources of radiation from medical,
commercial, and industrial activities contribute another 60 mrem
to our annual radiation exposure. Of these sources of exposure,
medical x-rays are among the greatest contribution, and
diagnostic medical procedures account for about 40 mrem each
year. In addition, consumer products (such as tobacco,
fertilizer, welding rods, gas mantles, luminous watch dials, and
smoke detectors) contribute another 10 mrem to our annual
radiation exposure. For more information on the health effects
of radiation, visit
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/bio-eff
ects-radiation.html (NRC, 2004).
Radiation Protection Limits
The NRC is continuously evaluating the latest radiation
protection recommendations from international and national
scientific bodies to ensure the adequacy of the standards the
agency uses. Among those standards, the NRC and EPA have
established three layers of radiation protection limits to
protect the public against potential health risks from exposure
to radioactive liquid discharges (effluents) from nuclear power
plant operations. The NRC has determined that doses to the
general public from the unintended release of tritium at nuclear
power plants are significantly below even the most stringent
layer of these protective limits and, therefore, does not pose a
risk to public health and safety.
Layer 1: 3 mrem per year ALARA objective Appendix I to 10 CFR
Part 50
The NRC requires that nuclear plant operators must keep
radiation doses from gas and liquid effluents as low as
reasonably achievable (ALARA) to people offsite. For liquid
effluent releases, such as diluted tritium, the ALARA annual
offsite dose objective is 3mrem to the whole body and 10 mrem to
any organ of a maximally exposed individual who lives in close
proximity to the plant boundary. This ALARA objective is 3% of
the annual public radiation dose limit of 100 mrem.
The NRC selected the 3 mrem and 10 mrem per year values because
they are a fraction of the natural background radiation dose, a
fraction of the annual public dose limit, and an attainable
objective that nuclear power plants could meet. Power plants
that meet these objectives are considered to be ALARA in
reducing exposures to the general public from nuclear power
plant effluents (AEC 1971, NRC 1975).
Nuclear power plant operators must monitor the authorized
releases (effluents) from their plants. If a given nuclear power
plant exceeds half of these radiation dose levels in a calendar
quarter, the plant operator is required to investigate the
cause(s), initiate appropriate corrective action(s), and report
the action(s) to the NRC within 30 days from the end of the
quarter.
Layer 2: 25 mrem per year standard 10 CFR 20.1301(e)
In 1979, EPA developed a radiation dose standard of 25 mrem to
the whole body, 75 mrem to the thyroid, and 25 mrem to any other
organ of an individual member of the public. The NRC
incorporated these EPA standards into its regulations in 1981,
and all nuclear power plants must now meet these requirements.
These standards are specific to facilities that are involved in
generating nuclear power (commonly called the "uranium fuel
cycle"), including where nuclear fuel is milled, manufactured,
and used in nuclear power reactors. EPA determined the basis of
the standards by comparing the cost-effectiveness of various
dose limits in reducing potential health risks from operation of
these types of facilities. EPA assumed the standards would be
able to be met for up to four fuel cycle facilities (e.g., four
reactors) at one location (EPA, 1976a). Notably, the NRC's ALARA
objectives are lower than these EPA standards (NRC, 1980).
Layer 3: 100 mrem per year limit 10 CFR 20.1301(a)(1)
The NRC's final layer of protection of public health and safety
is a dose limit of 100 mrem per year to individual members of
the public. This limit applies to everyone, including academic,
university, industrial, and medical facilities that use
radioactive material.
The NRC adopted the 100 mrem per year dose limit from the 1990
Recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological
Protection (ICRP). The ICRP is an organization of international
radiation scientists who provide recommendations regarding
radiation protection-related activities, including dose limits.
These dose limits are often implemented by governments worldwide
as legally enforceable regulations. The basis of the ICRP
recommendation of 100 mrem per year is that a lifetime of
exposure at this limit would result in a very small health risk
and is roughly equivalent to background radiation from natural
sources (excluding radon) (ICRP, 1991). Thus, the ICRP equated
100 mrem per year to the risk of riding public transportation
a risk the public generally accepts (ICRP, 1977). The U.S.
National Commission on Radiological Protection and Measurements
(NCRP) also recommends the dose limit of 100 mrem per year
(NCRP, 1993).
For liquid effluents, including tritiated water, any licensee
can demonstrate compliance with the 100 mrem per year dose
standard by not exceeding the concentration values specified in
Table 2 of Appendix B to 10 CFR Part 20. These concentration
values, if inhaled or ingested over the course of a year, would
produce a total effective dose of 50 mrem.
Drinking Water Standards
Under the authority of the Safe Drinking Water Act, EPA sets the
Federal legal limits for contaminants in drinking water. These
limits are called maximum contaminant levels, and water
suppliers must provide water that meets these standards. EPA's
drinking water standards do not apply to private drinking water
wells, such as those that may be impacted by tritium that is
inadvertently released from nuclear power plants. However, many
State authorities have adopted the EPA's drinking water
standards as legally enforceable groundwater protection
standards, and those standards are often used in assessing
laboratory test results of water from private wells. For more
information on drinking water and health, visit
http://www.epa.gov/safewater/dwh/index.html[exit icon] (EPA,
2006a).
Picocurie (pCi) is a term that scientists use to describe how
much radiation and, therefore, how much tritium, is in the
water. A pCi is a unit that can be directly measured by
laboratory tests.
In 1976, EPA established a dose-based drinking water standard of
4 mrem per year to avoid the undesirable future contamination of
public water supplies as a result of controllable human
activities. In so doing, EPA set a maximum contaminant level of
20,000 picocuries per liter (pCi/L) for tritium. This level is
assumed to yield a dose of 4 mrem per year. If other similar
radioactive materials are present in the drinking water, in
addition to tritium, the sum of the annual dose from all
radionuclides shall not exceed 4 mrem per year. Water treatment
plant operators use this drinking water standard, along with
monitoring requirements, to remain vigilant regarding the amount
of radioactivity in drinking water and provide a means to gauge
if the concentration of contaminants in finished drinking water
is increasing or decreasing over time. This standard was
expected to be exceeded only in extraordinary circumstances
(EPA, 1975; EPA, 1976b).
Since EPA developed the 1976 drinking water standard, scientists
have improved the calculation methods to equate concentrations
of tritium in drinking water (pCi/L) to radiation doses in
people (mrem). In 1991, EPA calculated a tritium concentration
to yield a 4 mrem per year dose as 60,900 pCi/L a threefold
increase from the maximum contaminant level of 20,000 pCi/L
established in 1976. However, EPA kept the 1976 value of 20,000
pCi/L for tritium in its latest regulations. For more
information on the basis and history of the Radionuclide Rule,
visit http://www.epa.gov/safewater/radionuc.html[exit icon]
(EPA, 2006b).
Additional Tritium Resources
+ U.S. NRC:
http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/operating/ops-experience/grndwtr-cont
am-tritium.html
+ U.S. EPA:
http://www.epa.gov/radiation/radionuclides/tritium.htm[exit
icon]
+ U.S. DOE (Argonne National Lab):
http://www.ead.anl.gov/pub/doc/tritium.pdf[PDF Icon] [exit icon]
+ California EPA:
http://www.oehha.ca.gov/water/phg/allphgs.html[exit icon]
(Scroll down and click on Tritium.)
nnn+ University of Idaho:
http://www.physics.isu.edu/radinf/tritium.htm[exit icon]
References
Atomic Energy Commission (U.S.) (AEC), "Licensing of Production
and Utilization Facilities," Federal Register, Vol. 36, No. 111,
pp. 1111311117, Washington, DC, June 9, 1971.
California Environmental Protection Agency, Office of
Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (CAL-EPA), "Public Health
Goal for Tritium in Drinking Water," available at
http://www.oehha.ca.gov/water/phg/pdf/PHGtritium030306.pdf[PDF
Icon] [exit icon] , April 27, 2006.
Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, "Protection of
Environment," Section 141.16, "Maximum Contaminant Levels for
Beta Particle and Photon Radioactivity from Man-Made Sources."
Environmental Protection Agency (U.S.), "Drinking Water and
Health: What you need to know," available at
http://www.epa.gov/safewater/dwh/index.html[exit icon] , June
23, 2006 (2006a).
EPA, "Radionuclides in Drinking Water," available at
http://www.epa.gov/safewater/radionuc.html[exit icon] , June 23,
2006 (2006b).
EPA, "40 CFR 190 Environmental Radiation Protection Requirements
for Normal Operations of Activities in the Uranium Fuel Cycle:
Final Environmental Statement, Volumes 1&2." November 1, 1976
(1976a).
EPA, "Drinking Water Regulations: Radionuclides." Federal
Register, Vol. 41, No. 133, pp. 2840228409, July 9, 1976
(1976b).
EPA, "Interim Primary Drinking Water Regulations: Proposed
Maximum Contaminant Levels for Radioactivity." Federal Register,
Vol. 40, No. 158, pp. 3432434328, August 14, 1975.
International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP). ICRP
Publication 26, "Recommendations of the International Commission
on Radiological Protection," 1977.
ICRP Publication 60, "Recommendations of the International
Commission on Radiological Protection," Ann. ICRP 21(13), 1991.
National Commission on Radiation Protection and Measurement
(NCRP). Report No. 116, "Limitation of Exposure to Ionizing
Radiation," March 31, 1993.
NCRP, Report No. 93, "Ionizing Radiation Exposure of the
Population of the United States," September 1987.
National Research Council, "Radiochemistry in Nuclear Power
Reactors," National Academies Press: Washington, DC, 1996.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission (U.S.), "Fact Sheet on Biological
Effects of Radiation" (2004, available at
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/bio-eff
ects-radiation.html, June 23, 2006.
NRC, NUREG-0543, "Methods for Demonstrating LWR Compliance with
the EPA Uranium Fuel Cycle Standard (40 CFR Part 190)," January
1980.
NRC Issuances: Opinions and Decisions of the NRC with Selected
Orders, "Docket No. RM-50-2: Numerical Guides for Design
Objectives and Limiting Conditions for Operation to Meet the
Criterion 'As Low As Practicable' for Radioactive Material In
Light-Water-Cooled Nuclear Power Reactor Effluents," April 30,
1975.
United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic
Radiation (UNSCEAR), "Sources, Effects, and Risks of Ionizing
Radiation, Annex B: Exposures from Nuclear Power Plant
Production," 1988.
National Commission on Radiation Protection and Measurement
(NCRP). Report No. 116, "Limitation of Exposure to Ionizing
Radiation," March 31, 1993.
NCRP, Report No. 93, "Ionizing Radiation Exposure of the
Population of the United States," September 1987.
National Research Council, "Radiochemistry in Nuclear Power
Reactors," National Academies Press: Washington, DC, 1996.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission (U.S.), "Fact Sheet on Biological
Effects of Radiation" (2004, available at
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/bio-eff
ects-radiation.html, June 23, 2006.
NRC, NUREG-0543, "Methods for Demonstrating LWR Compliance with
the EPA Uranium Fuel Cycle Standard (40 CFR Part 190)," January
1980.
NRC Issuances: Opinions and Decisions of the NRC with Selected
Orders, "Docket No. RM-50-2: Numerical Guides for Design
Objectives and Limiting Conditions for Operation to Meet the
Criterion 'As Low As Practicable' for Radioactive Material In
Light-Water-Cooled Nuclear Power Reactor Effluents," April 30,
1975.
United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic
Radiation (UNSCEAR), "Sources, Effects, and Risks of Ionizing
Radiation, Annex B: Exposures from Nuclear Power Plant
Production," 1988.
July, 2006
Last revised Monday, July 31, 2006
*****************************************************************
30 [NYTr] ALP and uranium: a sorry history of selling out
Date: Wed, 2 Aug 2006 00:59:24 -0500 (CDT)
X-Sender-Host-Name: chumbly.math.missouri.edu
X-Spam-Class: HAM-VERY
Via NY Transfer News Collective * All the News that Doesn't Fit
Green Left Weekly - Aug 2, 2006 issue
http://www.greenleft.org.au/back/2006/677/677p8b.htm
ALP and uranium: a sorry history of selling out
by Zoe Kenny
In a July 24 speech to the Sydney Institute, federal ALP leader Kim Beazley
threw his weight behind the pro-uranium wing in his party, which is itching
to scrap the party's "no new mines" policy at next year's Labor Party
national conference. The overturning of the policy would roll back one of
the last remaining gains of the anti-nuclear movement in Australia, which
was strongest in the 1970s and early `80s.
While current Labor Party policy is contradictory -- it opposes new uranium
mines but allows continued, and expanded, mining at existing sites -- it at
least stops short of supporting an open slather on uranium mining.
Australia has 40% of the world's low-cost uranium reserves. The current
push by big business, the federal government and some ALP state governments
to open new mines is held back only by the Labor's national "no new mines"
policy, which is binding on ALP state and territory governments. (However,
the South Australian Labor government recently jumped the gun on the next
ALP national conference by approving the new Honeymoon uranium mine.)
Environmentalists have condemned Beazley's announcement. A July 25
Greenpeace statement, for example, pointed out that, although nuclear power
is touted by some as a solution to global climate change, "even if nuclear
power output was doubled by 2050 it would still only reduce greenhouse gas
emissions by 5% -- less than one-tenth of the reductions needed to
stabilise atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases".
The ALP, said Greenpeace, "should be concentrating on tackling climate
change by encouraging Australia's budding renewables industry ... not
expanding an outdated nuclear industry which threatens global security and
is loaded with unresolvable issues, such dealing with waste".
Beazley's "uranium U-turn" is not surprising. The "no new mines" policy was
itself a product of an earlier, more spectacular, Labor backflip regarding
uranium mining and the nuclear fuel cycle.
A year after winning the 1983 federal election, Labor's parliamentary
caucus forced the dropping of party's principled position of outright
opposition to the mining, processing and export of uranium -- a policy
Labor had held for seven years and which was a major contributing factor to
its March 1983 election victory.
The ALP's previous principled position was replaced with the "three-mines"
policy, which allowed the continued operation of the Ranger, Nabarlek and
Olympic Dam uranium mines. However, it made a concession to the
vanti-nuclar movement by claiming that it would eventually end up phasing
out uranium mining -- as the three mines were depleted and closed down.
Then, following the Coalition parties' electoral victory in 1996. the ALP
replaced the "three mines" policy with its current"no-new-mines" policy.
This bars a future federal Labor government from revoking the mining
licence on any uranium mine approved by the current Coalition government.
The betrayal in 1984 showed clearly that the ALP parliamentary caucus was
ready to betray the interests of the movement it had claimed to represent
(as well as Labor's own rank and file, who strongly supported the
anti-uranium-mining position). It was ready to put the profits of big
business ahead of its own ranks and most voters' opposition to Australia's
involvement in the world nuclear industry.
Despite Beazley's new sell-out of Australian voters' wishes -- a May 2006
Newspoll showed that 66% of Australian voters and 78% of ALP voters oppose
any new uranium mines -- he is still trying to maintain a "greener" image
than PM John Howard.
Beazley reiterated his opposition to nuclear power and the establishment of
a uranium-enrichment plant in Australia. However, Howard has been able to
exploit the obvious contradiction in Beazley's position. In his July 17
speech to the Committee for Economic Development in Australia, Howard
argued that it is "hypocritical" to oppose a nuclear power industry while
selling yellowcake to other countries because "it says that while Australia
will not use uranium, we are very happy to sell it to other countries and
let them deal with the consequences".
Beazley also talked up how a future ALP government would impose a more
stringent safeguards regime to ensure that Australian uranium exports do
not end up in nuclear weapons. However, a July 25 Greenpeace media release
points out that "Australia's uranium exports to date, once irradiated in
nuclear power reactors, have produced around 80 tonnes of plutonium, enough
for
8000 nuclear weapons...
"While mining and exporting may bring Australia initial financial rewards,
safeguards are weak and it is almost impossible to prevent Australian
uranium being used to make nuclear weapons. Of the countries that have
'peaceful' nuclear facilities, one third are known to have used them to
make covert weapons."
Beazley has maintained that the ALP would not sell uranium to any country
that is not a signatory to the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, however
the pressure on the Australian government to supply India (a non-signatory
country) with uranium is sure to increase given that the US has already
signed a deal to provide India with nuclear power technology.
ALP environment spokesperson Anthony Albanese is openly opposed to the
scrapping of the existing policy and Western Australia Premier Alan
Carpenter has confirmed his opposition to any uranium mining in WA.
Carpenter was quoted in the July 25 Australian Financial Review as saying
that "we do not support uranium mining because we believe it will
inevitably lead to Western Australia becoming the dumping ground for the
world's nuclear waste".
Now is the time for all those opposed to the deadly nuclear fuel cycle to
join forces to build a strong anti-nuclear movement. The victory of the
movement against the proposed Jabiluka uranium mine in 2005 shows that we
can win. The commemoration of the US atom bombing of Hiroshima on August 6
is the most immediate opportunity to show our opposition to more uranium
mining.
*
================================================================
.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
================================================================
*****************************************************************
31 The Herald: Urgent nuclear problem
Web Issue 2584 August 01 2006
Editorial Comment August 01 2006
Nuclear waste is the detritus nobody wants in their backyard.
Like a persistent bad smell, only unimaginably worse in its
potential to kill, deform and pollute if not properly contained,
radioactive waste will not go away. Britain's nuclear programme
has already generated 470,000 cubic metres of waste, enough to
fill the Royal Albert Hall five times over: a sobering thought,
and not just for those with a ticket for the Proms. It is true
that only about 20% of that total exists at present as waste but
the other deadly debris from nuclear power generation and
military programmes will have to be dealt with, too.
Even then, that will not be the end of the matter. If the
government has its way, a new generation of nuclear power
stations could be built, offering a carbon-free alternative to
gas and coal-generated electricity to help address climate
change and reduce Britain's increasing dependence on imported
energy. That would mean storing up more secure containment
problems for the future. It is against this backdrop that the
Committee on Radioactive Waste Management published yesterday
its final report on dealing with the long-term management of the
by-products of nuclear energy.
For anyone familiar with the draft package of measures released
in April, the report contained no surprises. The underlying
message is the same but well worth repeating. As Professor
Gordon MacKerron, the committee chairman, put it, Britain has
been creating radioactive waste for 50 years without a clear
idea of what to do with it. Rightly, he hopes the report will
act as a wake-up call to Ministers to begin living up to their
responsibilities to future generations. Just how awesome are
these responsibilities is demonstrated by the fact that some of
the atoms that undergo radioactive decay in spent fuel rods
remain active for more than 100,000 years. Why worry when the
problem exists in a timeframe that is impossible to comprehend,
probably encompassing the passage of another ice age? But it is
in the here and now, and will loom ever larger if a new
generation of nuclear power stations is commissioned and we
continue to bury our heads, rather than the waste produced, in
the sand. The report says that, in the long term, disposal in
secure canisters deep below the ground in geologically stable
rock is the most suitable option. In addition, it argues for
robust interim storage measures as the process of identifying
and building the long-term disposal facility could take 40 years
or more.
A cost of £10bn has been put on the project. Significantly, the
recent energy review said the private sector should share the
waste disposal and decommissioning costs of the new stations. In
Finland, where the country's most dangerous nuclear waste is to
be buried 1600ft below ground, the Onkalo project is being
funded by a levy on the price of nuclear energy. If the planning
is right, the cost of a similar facility in this country need
not be a prohibitive barrier.
That would leave the small matter of finding a suitable site.
The committee says neither it nor the government should make
that decision. This is probably wise, given that public
resistance to the old approach of government dictating to rather
than consulting people about a site was decisive in plans for
deep disposal of nuclear waste being abandoned in the 1980s.
Instead, the committee says it should be left to communities to
volunteer, attracted by a range of infrastructure and other
incentives. Turkeys and voting for Christmas might be the phrase
that springs to mind, given the potential risks involved.
Sellafield in Cumbria, with more than 40 years as a nuclear
economy, is perhaps most likely to come forward. There is a long
way to go before that point is reached. But we need to start
grasping the nettle now.
Copyright © Newsquest (Herald & Times) Limited. All Rights
*****************************************************************
32 The Herald: Digging deep on nuclear waste
Web Issue 2584 August 01 2006
ROBBIE DINWOODIE and DAVID ROSS
Storing nuclear waste deep underground was recommended by
scientific experts yesterday, but technical answers remain
decades away and communities may have to be bribed to accept
such sites.
The Committee on Radioactive Waste Management (CORWM) came up
with a scientific argument, but its report did little to clarify
the political debate in Scotland, where the First Minister has
agreed not to build new nuclear power stations until the waste
problem is resolved.
A measure of the uncertainty that remains came in the
statement: "The committee agreed that deep disposal... is the
best available approach for long-term management of the waste in
terms of safety and security (the two issues of most importance
to the public).
"However, it believes that a robust programme of interim
storage is needed to safeguard the waste for 100 years or more,
in case of delay or failure in a repository programme."
The committee did not look at where hazardous nuclear material
could be disposed of, but 12 UK sites have already been named by
Nirex as having the right geology.
As well as Sandray and Fuday in the Western Isles and
Altnabreac in Caithness, two others are in potentially willing
existing nuclear communities.
Dounreay is said to have the right geology, as does the seabed
off Hunterston in Ayrshire.
As both have existing nuclear facilities, they might be expected
to welcome disposal sites.
But they will be up against the biggest nuclear community of
all Sellafield in Cumbria.
The former Windscale complex already has above-ground storage
and is said to have suitable geology for waste disposal under
nearby hills, making the location widely seen as front-runner as
the UK's main disposal site.
With five of the dozen potential UK sites identified for deep
storage being in Scotland, and an emerging political divide
between Holyrood and Westminster on the future of nuclear power,
yesterday's report was keenly anticipated.
Four of these five sites are in the Highlands and Islands.
Although the expert committee came down in favour of
underground storage, it accepted that secure interim storage was
needed to cover decades to come and in consequence all sides
of the debate claimed a degree of victory from the findings.
A spokesman for Jack McConnell said the report was a "key part
of the process" in making a decision about the future of nuclear
power, but did not amount to resolving the waste question.
Opposition politicians led by the Greens said the admission
that decades of research were needed to make deep storage work
made a compelling case against a new generation of nuclear power
stations.
The key political issue remains one word: "Unresolved".
It is at the heart of the the Holyrood partnership agreement,
and sums up the overall verdict of the experts yesterday which
will permit "wriggle room" in the run-up to next May's elections.
Yesterday Ross Finnie, the Liberal Democrat Environment
Minister, said the report would provide "a strong basis for
taking forward a programme to deal with higher level radioactive
wastes", but insisted: "We have no intention of forcing nuclear
waste on any community."
Mr Finnie stressed that ministers' aim was for local
communities to come forward and offer suitable sites for waste
disposal, and the report spoke of "benefit packages with local
authorities/communities as a means of securing facility siting".
The SNP's Holyrood leader, Nicola Sturgeon, said Mr McConnell
must now publicly state if he supported the building of new
nuclear power stations or not.
"He cannot hide from the Scottish public any longer."
Copyright © Newsquest (Herald & Times) Limited. All Rights
*****************************************************************
33 reviewjournal.com: Reid notes connection between Yucca, 'Big Dig'
Aug. 01, 2006
Bechtel Corp. involved in both projects, senator points out
WASHINGTON -- Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., opened a new line of
criticism against the Yucca Mountain program on Monday, noting
the nuclear waste project has been managed by the same company
with a role in the disastrous "Big Dig" tunnels in Boston.
Bechtel Corp., the largest engineering company in the United
States, is a partner with Science Applications International
Corp., in operating the Yucca program for the Department of
Energy in Nevada.
Along with partner Parsons Brinckerhoff, Bechtel also has served
as private sector manager on the $14.6 billion Boston highway
project, which has suffered big cost overruns as well as leaks
in tunnels below Boston Harbor.
On July 10, a three-ton concrete panel crashed from a tunnel
ceiling and killed a 39-year old motorist.
Reid, a longtime critic of the Yucca project, said Bechtel's
involvement in Massachusetts gave him further pause about the
Nevada site, where the firm is designing tunnels for the
underground storage of radioactive spent nuclear fuel, as well
as aboveground waste- handling plants.
"I personally feel some reservations about their performance
based on what we have learned about the Big Dig," Reid said of
Bechtel. "It's the same kind of thing, a big hole, the same kind
of deal."
"We are going to push back on this," Reid said. He did not say
what further action he might pursue. Aides said it was unlikely
he would call for Bechtel SAIC to be removed from the Yucca
project.
Within Bechtel, the Nevada and Massachusetts projects -- along
with hundreds of others that the firm manages -- share certain
corporate resources, including access to engineering and
construction experts and human resources personnel, company
spokesman Jason Bohne said.
Bohne, who is based in Las Vegas, said he was not aware of any
managers or key personnel who have worked on both Yucca Mountain
and the Big Dig projects.
"Each project is very unique," Bohne said. "There is not another
Big Dig out there. There is not another Yucca Mountain out
there."
Bohne said Bechtel is supporting investigations into the Boston
death.
Energy Department spokesman Allen Benson said the Yucca
repository is being designed to "the most stringent of quality
assurance standards as approved by the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission."
Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal, 1997 - 2006
*****************************************************************
34 Santa Fe New Mexican: LANL readies high-risk waste for relocation
Tue Aug 1, 2006 11:20 pm
By ASSOCIATED PRESS
LOS ALAMOS -- Los Alamos National Laboratory will repackage some
plutonium-contaminated material destined for the federal
government's radioactive-waste dump near Carlsbad.
The waste does not meet the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant's
"strict acceptance criteria," lab spokesman James Rickman said.
The lab said last week it was temporarily storing 300 to 400
drums of waste considered too radioactively hot to be repackaged
at Los Alamos' current facilities. The lab plans to upgrade its
repackaging facility this fall and is considering another
building to prepare drums for shipping, federal oversight
officials have said.
Los Alamos' Quick to WIPP program is two years behind schedule.
The program was designed to expedite shipment of 2,000 drums of
the lab's most radioactive lower-level waste in the wake of the
Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the East Coast and the 2000
Cerro Grande wildfire that burned through parts of the town of
Los Alamos.
Lab officials had hoped to finish sending high-risk waste to WIPP
by the end of this year, said Andy Phelps, associate director for
environmental programs. But he told a meeting of the Northern New
Mexico Citizens' Advisory Board last week: "I can't promise that
today."
Shipments began in March 1999 to WIPP, which stores
plutonium-contaminated waste from defense work 2,150 feet
underground in ancient salt beds. Los Alamos has sent more than
4,200 55-gallon drums, 1,300 of which were part of the Quick to
WIPP program, Rickman said.
The lab plans to remove its the entire legacy-waste inventory,
about 50,000 drums, by 2012, two years later than original
projections. Rickman said this fiscal year has seen a threefold
increase in shipments, indicating "we're getting back on track."
Most of the shipments have been lower-risk waste, however,
rather than the hotter drums under the Quick to WIPP program, he
said.
About 700 drums of contaminated clothing, tools, rags and other
waste still stored at Los Alamos are to be shipped under Quick
to WIPP, Rickman said.
The higher-risk drums of waste, along with thousands of drums of
less-radioactive waste, remain in temporary storage domes at the
lab's radioactive-waste site, Area G, until they are shipped.
Critics have questioned why the lab didn't focus on shipping the
higher-risk waste first.
"A lot of us have thought this was a bad idea from the
beginning, was a botched idea from the beginning, and is
continuing to be botched," said Don Hancock of the Southwest
Research and Information Center, an Albuquerque-based WIPP
watchdog group.
Los Alamos originally expected to finish Quick to WIPP at the
end of 2004. But the lab suspended shipments in October 2003
after federal officials discovered 98 drums had not been
properly certified for disposal in WIPP. A temporary shutdown of
lab operations beginning in July 2004 added to the delay.
Rickman said Los Alamos hopes to finish the program by the end
of next year.
"The most significant risk for a waste drum would be a breach or
leak that would result in contamination of humans or the
environment," Rickman said. "Removing the highest activity waste
in temporary storage at LANL significantly reduces this risk."
After the Cerro Grande fire, anti-nuclear activists called for a
more permanent storage bunker that could protect waste from fire
or other disasters. They say they were told the waste could be
shipped faster than a bunker could be built.
"So here we are, six years after the fire. Many of those drums
are still sitting up there," said Joni Arends of Concerned
Citizens for Nuclear Safety. "These drums present a high risk to
surrounding communities, and we've been very, very fortunate
through the drought that there hasn't been another fire."
©2006, Santa Fe New Mexican, all rights reserved. Opinions
*****************************************************************
35 Hanford News: Plan for waste under review
This story was 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. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
36 Tri-City Herald: Rocket milestone in sight for depot
Published Tuesday, August 1st, 2006
By Jeannine Koranda, Herald Oregon bureau
HERMISTON -- The Umatilla Chemical Depot expects by this weekend
to destroy its last sarin-filled rocket, a milestone in the
effort to eliminate the nation's deadly chemical arsenal.
Officials at the depot near Hermiston aren't quite ready to
celebrate, although Morrow County officials and representatives
of the Oregon Citizens Advisory Commission Chemical
Demilitarization group are pleased about the news.
"We're not done with rockets until we're done with rockets,"
said Don Barclay, depot site project manager.
In September 2004, workers began draining, cutting up and
burning the first of 91,000 M55 rockets -- the most of the
nation's eight chemical weapons storage sites -- filled with GB
sarin nerve agent.
Once the facility destroys the last rocket, workers for
Washington Group International -- which is contracted to run the
depot's incineration facility -- will spend about two months
changing equipment to dismantle and destroy 61,652 projectiles
filled with GB sarin.
The expected destruction of the last rocket follows the
elimination of all the depot's sarin-filled bombs, which
occurred in June.
But Doug Hamrick, project manager for Washington Group
International, isn't thinking about milestones. He said the
daily emphasis at the depot has been to "stay focused on what we
are doing today."
"The last rocket can cause us as much of a problem as any rocket
along the way," Hamrick said.
Robert Flournoy, who has been chairman of the Oregon Citizens
Advisory Commission Chemical Demilitarization for eight years,
said he'll be glad to see the last GB rocket destroyed.
"It's a real milestone," he said.
And Morrow County Commissioner John Wenholz is looking forward
to the day when there are no more chemical munitions left at the
depot. Officials predict the depot's entire stockpile to be
eliminated in about four years.
"It will be exciting to see the end of all these munitions
destroyed, which I believe includes mustard gas," Wenholz said.
Casey Beard, director of Morrow County Emergency Management,
cautioned that as long as there are chemical weapons at the
Umatilla site, there is a danger to the community. So emergency
responders in the area need to stay trained and ready, he said.
"An accident can happen as long as there are any chemical
weapons," Beard said.
Originally, Umatilla had 90 storage "igloo" bunkers that held
7.4 million pounds of deadly nerve and mustard agents. In
addition to the GB rockets, there are more than 14,000 filled
with the nerve agent VX.
The Army also has stashed land mines, spray tanks, bombs and
steel containers filled with VX and mustard blister agent at the
depot, which straddles Morrow and Umatilla counties.
Sue Oliver, spokeswoman for the Oregon Department of
Environmental Quality, Umatilla Chemical Demilitarization
Program, said little would change for agency once the rockets
are gone. The agency is working on renewing the incinerator's
storage and operation permit, which expires in February 2007.
"Of course we're pleased that the facility is getting near the
end of rockets. It is one less munition for us all to worry
about," she added.
After the last rocket is destroyed, workers will begin
destroying the depot's 14,246, 8-inch-wide projectiles. The
munitions weigh about 203 pounds and are filled with 141/2
pounds of deadly sarin nerve agent. The agent attacks the
central nervous system and can cause seizures and paralysis,
and, in the most extreme cases, death.
The process will use all three of the facility's incinerator
furnaces.
Hamrick said his workers have been getting hands-on lessons by
visiting other sites like Anniston, Ala., that are destroying
projectiles.
"Rockets, you just punch holes in and cut up," Hamrick said.
"Projectiles, you have to disassemble."
Barclay said he expects demolition of the 8-inch projectiles to
be completed in December or January. Then, the facility will
begin destroying 155 mm projectiles.
When all the 155mm projectiles are destroyed, the facility will
go through another changeover and convert to destroying
munitions filled with VX nerve agent.
© 2006 Tri-City Herald, Associated Press &Other Wire Services
*****************************************************************
37 Jackson Hole News: Feds resist cleanup of Idaho nuke labs
By Noah Brenner
August 1, 2006
The U.S. Department of Energy has filed a notice of
appeal of a federal judge’s ruling that the agency had to clean
up all nuclear waste at the Idaho National Lab, located 90 miles
west of Grand Teton National Park.
While the notice is not a formal appeal it generally means a
formal appeal will follow shortly. The notice follows a May
ruling, in which U.S. District Judge Edward Lodge rejected
arguments from DOE lawyers who claimed limits to the federal
government’s cleanup responsibilities.
The government contends that under a 1995 agreement with the
state of Idaho, cleanup responsibilities extend-ed only as far
as above-ground storage containers that were put there after
1970. The barrels contain rags, tools, gloves and soil
contaminated with radioactive material.
Lawyers for the state claimed that the federal government must
dig up and remove buried nuclear waste containers that were put
there before 1970 as well as cleaning up the above-ground
barrels.
“The words of the contract could not be clearer,” judge Lodge
stated in his 34-page decision. “In short, transuranic waste as
defined by the 1995 agreement must be removed from INL
regardless of where it is located at INL.”
According to the U.S. Atomic Regulatory Commission, transuranic
waste includes any artificially made, radioactive element that
has an atomic number higher than uranium on the periodic table.
This includes elements such as neptunium, plutonium and
americium.
In its notice, which was filed by the Department of Justice on
behalf of the DOE, government attorneys said an appeal would
argue that Lodge misinterpreted the original agreement.
The DOE created the 569,135-acre INL (formerly the Idaho
National Energy Lab) in 1949 as the National Reactor Testing
Station. With 52 nuclear reactors it was, for many years, the
largest concentration of reactors in the world, according to its
Web site.
Lodge’s ruling was the latest turn in Idaho’s 15-year legal
battle with the federal government over cleanup at the lab but
it is probably not the last. DOE officials have said that
digging up the containers could cause some of the radioactive
waste to explode when it comes in contact with oxygen.
Idaho officials oppose leaving the underground waste in place
because some studies have shown that the waste is seeping toward
an aquifer that feeds the Snake River, which provides the
majority of the state’s water.
© 2000-2006 Copyright Jackson Hole News&Guide | P.O. Box 7445 |
Jackson, Wyoming 83002 | 307-733-2047
*****************************************************************
38 DOE: Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board Chairs
FR Doc E6-12316
[Federal Register: August 1, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 147)]
[Notices] [Page 43479] From the Federal Register Online via GPO
Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr01au06-53]
Meeting AGENCY: Department of Energy.
ACTION: Notice of open meeting.
SUMMARY: This notice announces a meeting of the Environmental
Management Site-Specific Advisory Board (EM SSAB) Chairs. The
Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 86 Stat. 770)
requires that public notice of this meeting be announced in the
Federal Register.
DATES: Thursday, September 7, 2006, 8:15 a.m.-5 p.m., Friday,
September 8, 2006, 8:15 a.m.-12 p.m.
ADDRESSES: La Fonda Hotel, 100 E. San Franciso, Santa Fe, New
Mexico 87501, (505) 982-5511.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: E. Douglas Frost, Designated
Federal Officer, U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 Independence
Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585, (202) 586-5619.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Purpose of the Board: The purpose of
the EM SSAB is to make recommendations to DOE in the areas of
environmental restoration, waste management, and related
activities.
Tentative Agenda Thursday, September 7, 2006 8:15 a.m. Welcome
and Overview. 8:45 a.m. Update on Groundwater Monitoring and
Sampling Technology.
9:30 a.m. Round Robin: Groundwater Issues at Sites. 10:30 a.m.
Break. 10:45 a.m. Update on Waste Disposition. 12 p.m Public
Comment Period. 12:15 p.m. Lunch in Santa Fe Plaza. 1:15 p.m. EM
Update. 2:15 p.m. Break. 2:30 p.m. Round Robin: Top Three Site
Issues. 3:45 p.m. Break. 4 p.m. Chairs' Discussion. 4:45 p.m.
Public Comment Period. 5 p.m. Review. Friday, September 8, 2006
8:15 a.m. Opening. 8:30 a.m. Briefings by DOE/EM Staff. 9:15 a.m.
Chairs Working Session. 10:45 a.m. Break. 11 a.m. EM SSAB Issues
and Next Meeting. 11:30 a.m. Public Comment Period. 11:45 a.m.
Meeting Wrap-Up and Closing Remarks. 12 p.m. Adjourn. Public
Participation: The meeting is open to the public.
Written statements may be filed either before or after the
meeting with the Designated Federal Officer, E. Douglas Frost, at
the address above or by phone at (202) 586-5619. Individuals who
wish to make oral statements pertaining to agenda items should
also contact E.
Douglas Frost. Requests must be received five days prior to the
meeting and reasonable provision will be made to include the
presentation in the agenda. The Designated Federal Officer is
empowered to conduct the meeting in a fashion that will
facilitate the orderly conduct of business. Individuals wishing
to make public comment will be provided a maximum of five minutes
to present their comments.
Minutes: Minutes of this meeting will be available for public
review and copying at the U.S. Department of Energy Freedom of
Information Public Reading Room, 1E-190, Forrestal Building, 1000
Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585 between 9 a.m. and
4 p.m., Monday-Friday except Federal holidays. Minutes will also
be available by calling E. Douglas Frost at (202) 586-5619 and
will be posted at http://web.em.doe.gov/public/ssab/chairs.html.
Issued at Washington, DC on July 26, 2006.
Rachel M. Samuel, Deputy Advisory Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. E6-12316 Filed 7-31-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
*****************************************************************
39 Knox News: Plant work puts pinch on protest site
Demonstrators at Hiroshima Day rally will compete with
construction fences for space
By FRANK MUNGER, munger@knews.com
August 1, 2006
OAK RIDGE - Construction across the front of the Y-12 nuclear
weapons plant could put a squeeze on this weekend's Hiroshima Day
protest.
In recent years, the Oak Ridge Environmental Peace Alliance set
up camp in the open field along Scarboro Road near the entrance
to the government's warhead factory. The tents were a welcome
respite from the August sun, and protesters - sometimes numbering
in the hundreds - ate lunch, listened to music and speeches and
discussed the nuclear defense activities taking place in the
visible distance.
Fences now surround that staging area. Contractors are building a
new visitors center and support facilities for the Oak Ridge
plant, which enriched the uranium for the bomb dropped on
Hiroshima, Japan, on Aug. 6, 1945.
Ralph Hutchison, coordinator of the peace alliance, said the
group is working on an alternate plan, featuring a Saturday rally
and march to the plant's entrance. But he complained that federal
and city authorities have been mostly uncooperative.
"I think the Department of Energy has no interest in
accommodating our action, and they have behaved accordingly,"
Hutchison said Monday. He also said the local police department
resisted the group's requests for traffic control, including an
open lane for demonstrators to walk and carry signs, puppets and
other protest paraphernalia.
Steven Wyatt, a federal spokesman at Y-12, said there's only
enough room near the plant's entrance to "safely accommodate
about 20 people and maybe a few cars."
He added: "While we respect their right to protest, it is, after
all, their responsibility to find a location to hold a protest."
Wyatt said Y-12 officials met with the city several months ago to
discuss the impact of construction on future protests.
Whatever the obstacles, Hutchison said peace activists would show
up to remember the past and work for change. The ultimate goal is
to rid the planet of nuclear weapons.
The issues remain the same, but Hutchison said he thinks there's
a growing urgency because of developments in North Korea and
Iran. The United States no longer can build and maintain a
nuclear arsenal while asking or demanding that other nations do
without.
"I think there's a broadening public understanding that this
double standard does not work," he said.
In addition to Saturday's events, which will begin at Bissell
Park in Oak Ridge, the group is planning a "remembrance ceremony"
Sunday at the Y-12 entrance and a peace lantern ceremony Aug. 9
at Sequoyah Hills Park in Knoxville.
Plans also include an Aug. 9 event to protest U.S. corporate
involvement in government defense activities. Participants will
march from the Oak Ridge Federal Building to Bechtel National's
offices on Union Valley Road.
"Bechtel is the poster child for war-profiteering," Hutchison
said.
Senior writer Frank Munger may be reached at 865-342-6329.
Copyright 2006, Knoxville News Sentinel
*****************************************************************
40 Santa Fe New Mexican: Computer sale heightens LANL security concerns
Tue Aug 1, 2006 11:20 pm
By ANDY LENDERMAN |
Los Alamos National Laboratory employees auctioned off a surplus
computer last year without wiping lab documents off the laptop's
hard drive, government investigators said.
No classified information was on the computer, but the lab didn't
follow its own rules or U.S. Department of Energy rules, the
department's Office of Inspector General wrote in a report
released Monday.
"This resulted in the unauthorized release of a computer hard
drive containing laboratory documents on matters such as budget,
time and attendance, and unclassified procedures for transmitting
classified information," the inspector general's report reads.
The report said the handling of the documents on the hard drive,
which were from a lab-training facility, raise serious concerns
about security at the lab, where scientists manage the nation's
nuclear-weapons stockpile.
The lab has since developed new guidelines to "sanitize"
salvaged computers of information or to remove their hard drives
altogether, said an official with the National Nuclear Security
Administration, which oversees the lab.
"Since this particular incident, we have had no similar
occurrences," lab spokesman Steve Sandoval said.
Random inspections of the new program since last October have
shown the program is working, Michael C. Kane of the NNSA wrote
in a response to the report.
The report was made public the same month that Energy Secretary
Samuel Bodman reprimanded a senior official because 1,502
nuclear-weapons workers were not told for nearly
10 months that their Social Security numbers and other
information had been stolen by a computer hacker from a National
Nuclear Security Administration service center in Albuquerque.
"Recent events concerning the loss of personal information by
government agencies have highlighted the need to protect
sensitive information and take timely follow-up actions when
that information may have been compromised," Inspector General
Gregory Friedman wrote in a letter accompanying the report dated
July 26.
The report had three recommendations: First, that all surplus
computers are "sanitized," or wiped clean of all information;
that all hard drives are removed before the computers are sold;
and that the lab maintain an accurate inventory of its surplus
equipment. The report also said those recommendations are
applicable across the department.
The computer, an Apple MAC G4, was sold to an employee of KOB-TV
on Aug. 13, 2005, at an Albuquerque auction house. The
television station ran a report on Aug. 25. That spurred the
inspector general's report as well as a lab investigation.
The subcontractor that sold the surplus computer at the auction
had that authority taken away until new procedures were
established. Seven computers had already been sold and were not
available for inspection. The new owners were contacted, and
they said there were no hard drives.
An inspection of a sample of other computers at the auction
house found they did not have hard drives in them, according to
the report.
Los Alamos has a history of computer-related security problems,
including several instances in which computer disks containing
nuclear secrets went missing or were misplaced in recent years.
After a run of embarrassing financial and security lapses, the
Energy Department put the lab's management contract up for bid.
The lab had been run for more than 60 years by the University of
California. The new team, which took over in June, includes UC
and several corporate partners.
The Associated Press contributed to this report.
Contact Andy Lenderman at 995-3827 or
alenderman@sfnewmexican.com.
©2006, Santa Fe New Mexican, all rights reserved. Opinions
*****************************************************************
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:
*****************************************************************