***************************************************************** 08/17/07 **** RADIATION BULLETIN(RADBULL) **** VOL 15.193 ***************************************************************** 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 BBC NEWS: Russian air patrols 'a show of might' 2 Guardian Unlimited: Russia Orders Long-Range Bomber Patrols NUCLEAR REACTORS 3 IPS-English INDIA: Political Fallout of Indo-US N-Deal Turns 4 The Hindu: Govt. deplores George's remarks against PM on nuke deal 5 TheStar.com: Reactivated Bruce reactor out of service 6 People's Daily Online: Tianwan nuclear power station put into full o 7 BBC NEWS: Japanese nuclear damage 'limited' 8 RIA Novosti: Russia to export 1,000 MW to Lithuania pending NPP repa 9 POST Newspapers Online: Letters: Why nuke plants can't be safe 10 US: Rutland Herald Online: Yankee workers threaten walkout 11 US: Brattleboro Reformer: VY, union reach deal; workers vote Aug. 21 12 THERECORD.COM: Bruce nuclear unit taken offline for second time 13 Reuters: Japan atom plant may need 1 year to restart - IAEA 14 UPI: Chernobyl fallout hurt Swedish infants 15 Telegraph: BE seeks two nuclear partners - 16 US: NRC: News Release: NRC Releases Most of Yankee Nuclear Power Sta 17 edie news centre: Bank donates money for Chernobyl Projects 18 US: DD: Browns Ferry cuts output; river too warm: 1 reactor taken of 19 News & Star: Nuclear review pressure 20 The Hindu: UPA-Left standoff continues NUCLEAR SECURITY 21 IAEA: Vietnam Hosts Seminar on Nuclear Safeguards NUCLEAR SAFETY 22 US: Las Vegas SUN: Former Test Site workers get local screening site 23 US: NRC: NRC Proposes $3,250 Civil Penalty for Chambersburg, Pa., Fi 24 US: NRC: Notice of Availability of Final Environmental Assessment an NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE 25 AU ABC: Waste not, want not - 26 E&ETV: Nuclear Waste: Nevada's Bob Loux calls DOE "virtually incompe 27 The American: A Second Crisis in Radioactive Waste 28 US: Daily News Journal: County wants dump moratorium extended 29 US: Daily News Journal: Committee hears experts about radioactive du 30 US: Tennessean: State urged to include public in dump decisions - 31 US: AFP: Indian uranium deal as good as NPT: Australia - 32 US: Las Cruces Sun-News: Waste drum erroneously placed in WIPP being 33 US: Decatur Daily: Browns Ferry sends radioactive canister to Valley 34 The Inverness Courier: High nuclear ideals that crumbled 35 barrow in furness: Public will not see fall of four Calder towers 36 News & Star: No nuclear dump job losses pledges bidder 37 US: Buffalo News: West Valley cleanup project to reduce staff by abo 38 Taipei Times: Potential nuclear waste sites to be revealed in list PEACE US DEPT. OF ENERGY 39 Tri-City Herald: Hanford documentary to be shown in Spokane 40 Tri-City Herald: Fire burns to the fence of Hanford's 200 West Area 41 Tri-City Herald: DOE works on high-level probe of radioactive spill 42 Tri-City Herald: Waste burning to resume at Umatilla Chemical Depot 43 Tri-City Herald: Hanford fire chars 72,000 acres (w/video & photos) 44 LocalNews8.com: Brush Fire Burning Near The INL ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** FULL NEWS STORIES ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** 1 BBC NEWS: Russian air patrols 'a show of might' Last Updated: Friday, 17 August 2007, 17:38 GMT 18:38 UK By Jonathan Marcus BBC diplomatic correspondent Russia is modernising with new avionics and improved weaponry It was one of the great military shadow-plays of the Cold War era. Nuclear-armed bombers based in Russia's Kola Peninsula regularly flew patrols that took them close to Nato airspace. Nato jets would be scrambled to intercept. Often the opposing aircrews would wave at each other and the Soviet bombers would return home. In the wake of the collapse of the Soviet Union, Russian military activities of this kind dwindled. It was not just the bomber patrols. The Russian navy reined in its operations far from its home ports. But now all this is changing. President Vladimir Putin's announcement of the resumption of bomber patrols seems to have been previewed by recent Russian air force activity. Image-building Last month, two Tupolev 95 aircraft - "Bears" according to their Nato code-name - strayed south from their routine patrol pattern off the Norwegian coast and headed towards Scotland. The Tu-95 is an old Cold War stalwart Two RAF Tornado fighters were sent up to meet them. This month, two similar Russian aircraft flew thousands of miles across the Pacific towards the major US military base of Guam where an air and naval exercise was under way. The Russians have also been making noises about re-establishing a naval presence in the Mediterranean, probably utilising Syrian ports. Russia and China have just held highly visible military exercises along with troops from four Central Asian states and President Putin has warned of Russia's need to modernise its nuclear arsenal in the face of the Bush administration's plans to deploy limited anti-missile defences. So what is going on? Well it is not quite a Cold War mark II. But it is part of a new, more muscular Russian foreign policy; a result of a growing perception in Moscow that Russia's interests have been ignored for too long. Domestic political factors are at play too. It is all about image-building; something that must be set against the enigma of Vladimir Putin's political future once his presidential term expires. International player Russia's armed forces are also badly in need of modernisation. The aircraft involved in these long-range patrols, the ageing Tupolevs, date back to the 1950s. Russia staked its claim to the Arctic by planting a flag on the seabed As a key element of Russia's nuclear forces they are being modernised with new avionics and improved weaponry. Russia's military is slowly recovering after more than a decade of neglect. Nonetheless, Russia can project only a shadow of the Soviet Union's military might. That is one good reason why this is not a reprise of the Cold War. And while money from oil and gas will help to pay for new equipment it looks as though Moscow's nuclear forces will continue to receive preferential treatment in terms of funding. Above all else the resumption of long-range bomber patrols must be seen as largely diplomatic symbolism; part of a new Russian military strategy of heightened visibility. You could add in Russia's recent planting of an underwater flag in the Arctic. * BBC Copyright Notice ***************************************************************** 2 Guardian Unlimited: Russia Orders Long-Range Bomber Patrols From the Associated Press Friday August 17, 2007 4:31 PM By VLADIMIR ISACHENKOV Associated Press Writer MOSCOW (AP) - President Vladimir Putin said Friday that he had ordered the military to resume regular long-range flights of strategic bombers, a show of Russia's resurgent military power which comes amid a chill in relations with the United States. Speaking after Russian and Chinese forces completed major war games exercises for the first time on Russian turf, Putin said a halt in long-range bombers' flights after the Soviet collapse had affected Russia's security as other nations had continued such missions - an oblique reference to the United States. ``I have made a decision to resume regular flights of Russian strategic aviation,'' Putin said in televised remarks. ``We proceed from the assumption that our partners will view the resumption of flights of Russia's strategic aviation with understanding.'' In Washington, a State Department spokesman said the U.S. was not troubled by the Russian decision. ``We certainly are not in the kind of posture we were with what used to be the Soviet Union,'' said the spokesman, Sean McCormack. ``It's a different era. If Russia feels as though they want to take some of these old aircraft out of mothballs and get them flying again, that's their decision.'' The Russian-Chinese war games, which took place near the Ural Mountain city of Chelyabinsk, coincided with Russian air force maneuvers involving strategic bombers which ranged far over the Atlantic, Pacific and Arctic oceans. Putin said that 20 Russian bombers were involved in the exercise. ``Starting today, such tours of duty would be conducted regularly and on the strategic scale,'' Putin said. ``Our pilots have been grounded for too long, they are happy to start a new life.'' Soviet bombers routinely flew such missions to areas from which nuclear-tipped cruise missiles could be launched at the United States, but stopped in the post-Soviet economic meltdown. ``Starting in 1992, the Russian Federation unilaterally suspended strategic aviation flights to remote areas,'' Putin said. ``Regrettably, other nations haven't followed our example. That has created certain problems for Russia's security.'' Booming oil prices have allowed Russia to sharply increase its military spending. In recent years, Russia's bombers have resumed flights to areas off Norway and Iceland, as well as Russia's northeast corner, across the Bering Strait from Alaska several years ago. However, such missions have been rare, and Putin's statement signals that they would become more frequent. The announcement comes amid a growing chill in the U.S.-Russian relations, strained over Washington's criticism of Russia's democracy record, Moscow's strong criticism of U.S. missile defense plans and differences over global crises. ``This is a significant change of posture of Russian strategic forces,'' Alexander Pikayev, a senior military analyst with the Moscow-based Institute for World Economy and International Relations, told The Associated Press. ``It's a response to the relocation of NATO forces closer to Russia's western border.'' Earlier this month, a pair of Russian Tu-95 strategic bombers approached the Pacific Island of Guam - home to a major U.S. military base - for the first time since the Cold War. Last month, two similar bombers briefly entered British air space but turned back after British fighter jets intercepted them. Norwegian F-16s were also scrambled when the Tu-95s headed south along the Norwegian coast in international air space. Russian Air Force spokesman Col. Alexander Drobyshevsky said that Friday's exercise involved Tu-160, Tu-95 and Tu-22M bombers, tanker aircraft and air radars. NATO jets were scrambled to escort the Russian aircraft over the oceans, he said, according to the ITAR-Tass news agency. As of the beginning of this year, Russia had 79 strategic bombers, according to data exchanged with the United States under the START I arms control treaty. At the peak of the Cold War, the Soviet long-range bomber fleet numbered several hundred. Guardian Unlimited © Guardian News and Media Limited 2007 ***************************************************************** 3 IPS-English INDIA: Political Fallout of Indo-US N-Deal Turns Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2007 15:17:31 -0700 INDIA: Political Fallout of Indo-US N-Deal Turns Severe Praful Bidwai NEW DELHI, Aug 17 (IPS) - The United States-India nuclear cooperation agreement, tabled in India's Parliament on Monday, has precipitated the worst-ever political crisis for the Prime Minister Manmohan Singh's United Progressive Alliance (UPS) government since it was formed a little over three years ago. Although the existence of the ‘left-of-centre' UPA government is not immediately threatened, it has clearly lost the support of the communist parties on this defining foreign and security policy issue. Support from the 59 members of parliament of the Left parties, led by the Communist Party of India (Marxist), has been critically necessary for the survival of the UPA, which lacks a majority of its own in the 543-strong Lower House of Parliament. This means the UPA will remain isolated on a major issue pertaining to India's external relations and her strategic posture, with a strong bearing on her energy options. The alliance will become politically vulnerable and might find itself in an impasse in the coming months. Singh, who has staked a lot on the nuclear deal, faces an unpleasant choice. A majority of India's legislators oppose it for a variety of reasons. If he tries to bring them on board by addressing their concerns, he will have to go slow on the deal's implementation. Here, he risks losing a narrow window of opportunity for the agreement's ratification by the U.S. Congress by the end of 2007, before it goes into election mode. Alternatively, he can quickly ready the deal for U.S. ratification after getting it approved by the 45-nation Nuclear Suppliers' Group (NSG) and by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). But that will deprive it of domestic legitimacy and broad-based support. Ironically, Singh brought this crisis upon himself. On Aug. 11, two days before the text of the ”123 agreement” (so called because it will amend Section 123 of the U.S. Atomic Energy Act, 1954 to lift prohibitions on nuclear cooperation with India) was laid in Parliament, the Kolkata-based ”Telegraph” newspaper carried an interview with him. In the interview, Singh staunchly defended the deal, attacked its critics, and dared the Left to withdraw support to the UPA. He said: ”I told them that it is not possible to renegotiate the deal. It is an honourable deal, the Cabinet has approved itŕif they want to withdraw support, so be itŕ.” He also said: ”They are our colleagues and we have to work with them. But they also have to learn to work with us.” He chided the Left for not having ”thought” things ”through” on the nuclear agreement and the welcome accorded to it by nuclear scientists and experts. This brought a sharp rebuff from CPM general secretary Prakash Karat, who said the UPA was running the government with the Left's support; it should decide whether ”it wants to run this government”. Karat also sarcastically remarked that Singh is ”very sensitive about his government's relations with the U.S., but this (the deal) is a matter of serious national import.” ”After Singh so openly challenged the Left, and made disparaging remarks against it, Karat had no choice but to join issue with him,” says Anuradha Chenoy, a social scientist with Jawaharlal Nehru University in Delhi, and a keen observer of Left politics. Chenoy added that it could not have been ‘'an accident that Singh chose to grant the interview to a Kolkata-based paper, rather than a national daily published from New Delhi''. Kolkata is the capital of CPM-ruled West Bengal state which has gained a reputation for being extremely market friendly. Singh, said Chenoy, wanted to reach out to the West Bengal leadership of the CPM, which is considered more ”pragmatic” than the central leadership. ‘'Singh has a good equation with Chief Minister Buddhadeb Bhatttacharjee, whose ‘free-market' policies he often praises.” However, it is unlikely that Singh's stratagem of playing off differences within the CPM will produce a major shift in the party's stand on the deal. India's communist parties tend to close ranks when attacked. Bhattacharjee might be sympathetic to right-wing economic policies, but has a different stand on foreign policy issues. He has recently made strong statements criticising the nuclear deal for its pro-U.S. strategic dimension. On Monday, the Left parties reiterated their opposition to the deal by walking out when Singh finished reading his statement on it in the Lower House of Parliament amidst relentless slogan-shouting by regional party and right-wing MPs. When it became clear that the Left would not cow down and dilute its opposition, the Prime Minister sought a breakfast meeting with Karat on Tuesday, to which Karat agreed after much persuasion. Singh also talked to Bhatttacharjee, whom he is likely to meet on Friday. ”Going by past experience, the Left parties are unlikely to change their stand against the deal,” argues Achin Vanaik, a political scientist at Delhi University. ”They usually act in unison. And it is known that the Left parties other than the CPM are even more critical of the UPA's policies and would like the Left to reconsider supporting it unconditionally. The Communist Party of India (CPI), for instance, advocates issue-based support.” Vanaik explained that more will be known after political bureaux of the CPM and CPI meetthis weekend. ''We'll soon know whether they dilute or maintain/harden their stand. Their biggest constraint is that they cannot risk toppling the UPA government because that would help the Hindu-chauvinist and jingoistic Bharatiya Janata Party. But they can continue to oppose the nuclear deal without formally voting against the government and thus risking the possible return of the BJP.'' At stake here is the Left's distinct ideological-political identity. In the three states (including Kerala and Tripura) in which it rules, but especially in West Bengal, its economic policies are not markedly different from the UPA's. This has produced some discontent among Left cadres. If the Left parties lose their image as staunch opponents of U.S. ”imperialism”, they risk serious erosion of core support and loyalty. Both the CPs are scheduled to hold party congresses early next year, where their leaders will face the scrutiny of the rank-and-file.” Unlike the Right and centrist parties, which focus primarily on asymmetries in the ”123 agreement” in the rights and obligations of India and the United States, and some of whom (not the BJP) oppose close relations with Washington, the Left concentrates its criticism on the deal as part of a U.S.-India ”strategic partnership” or India's strategic embrace of the U.S. The Left too speaks of asymmetries at some length and is worried that the U.S. can terminate the agreement arbitrarily, while India must accept safeguards (inspections) on some of its nuclear facilities in perpetuity. The Left at least refers to the impact of ”123” on India's advocacy of universal nuclear disarmament, which the UPA promised to return to in 2004. The Left also mildly questions the relevance of nuclear power, which the deal promotes, to India's long-term energy security. ”These are strong suits which the Left would do well to develop,” says Vanaik. ”This will help it demarcate itself sharply from others. In particular, it should emphasise that the nuclear deal will increase India's capacity to make nuclear weapons; and this cannot give us more security. On the contrary, it will fuel a nuclear arms race not just with Pakistan but also with China.” The International Panel on Fissile Materials, a group of independent scientists, estimates that the nuclear deal will allow India to produce and stockpile enough plutonium for more than 300 Nagasaki-type bombs every year. This can be done through reprocessing fuel in unsafeguarded power reactors, diverting domestic uranium from civilian to military uses, and continuing/expanding fissile material production in unsafeguarded civilian and military facilities. Meanwhile, the political fate of the nuclear deal remains unclear. How the UPA handles the issue will determine its longevity. ***** + Nuclear Ambitions - The World's Deadly Arsenal (http://www.ipsnews.net/new_focus/nuclear/index.asp) + DISARMAMENT: US-India Nuke Deal May Spark Asian Arms Race (http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=38744) + POLITICS: Doomsday Clock Ticking Faster - in Asia (http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=36245) (END/IPS/AP/NA/IP/NU/EN/NR/PB/RDR/07) = 08170804 ORP006 NNNN ***************************************************************** 4 The Hindu: Govt. deplores George's remarks against PM on nuke deal Friday, August 17, 2007 : 1835 Hrs New Delhi, Aug. 17 (PTI): The Government today condemned the remarks of former Defence Minister George Fernandes against Prime Minister Manmohan Singh in the context of the Indo-US nuke deal and said it expected the Opposition NDA to also do so. "It was an unfortunate, uncivilised and unparliamentary comment made by the NDA Convenor. The statement encourages those kind of elements who create security hazards," Parliamentary Affairs Minister P R Dasmunsi told reporters. While commenting on the Indo-US nuclear deal, Fernandes reportedly said that the Prime Minister has "betrayed the nation by continuous bluffing... and if it were China, they would have settled it with one bullet in his head". Asked about BJP leader Sushma Swaraj's comment that NDA would not condemn Fernandes' remarks, Dasmunsi said this only exposes the hollowness of NDA. "It proves that there is no distinction between those who like to kill people and those who express such views". Copyright © 2007, The Hindu. Republication or redissemination of the ***************************************************************** 5 TheStar.com: Reactivated Bruce reactor out of service Toronto Star | Star P.M. Aug 17, 2007 04:30 AM TIVERTON, Ont.–A unit at the Bruce nuclear power plant that was only recently returned to service after a two-week outage was taken down again yesterday and will likely stay that way for about 10 days. Engineers were still trying to find out exactly what the issue was with the system that carries hot water at Unit 6, but there were no environmental or safety issues, a spokesperson said. "It's early right now; they're still looking into it," said Steve Cannon. The affected system moves water heated by the nuclear reactor and transfers it to boilers where it is converted into steam. The steam then drives the generating turbines that produce electricity. Toronto Star | | | | | | © Copyright Toronto Star 1996-2007 | ***************************************************************** 6 People's Daily Online: Tianwan nuclear power station put into full operation 16:32, August 17, 2007 At 00:15, August 16, the No.2 generating unit of the Tianwan nuclear power station near the eastern city of Lianyungang in Jiangsu province was put into commercial operation, marking the full commercial operation of the whole station. Being the largest economic and technological cooperation between China and Russia, Tianwan boasts the largest single-unit capacity among nuclear stations in China. The station saw its construction start on October 20, 1999, first batch of fuel filled on March 24, 2007, reactor reach critical point on May 1 and grid connection on May 14. The No.1 generating unit, after being put into commercial operation on May 17, has been running safely and steadily for 91 days. By August 16, the station has generated 5.463 billion kilowatt hour, with 4.953 billion kilowatt hour put on the grid. By People's Daily Online Copyright by People's Daily Online, All Rights Reserved ***************************************************************** 7 BBC NEWS: Japanese nuclear damage 'limited' Last Updated: Friday, 17 August 2007, 20:42 GMT 21:42 UK By Bethany Bell BBC News, Vienna IAEA inspectors said their work was still in its early stages United Nations experts say earthquake damage to the world's largest nuclear power plant, in Japan, appears to be limited and less than expected. The Kashiwazaki-Kariwa station was hit by a 6.8-magnitude quake on 16 July, that killed at least 10 people. There was found to have been a radioactive leak and it was shut down. The IAEA report says although the earthquake was significantly larger than the nuclear plant had been designed to handle, the power station had behaved in a safe manner, both during and after the quake. It says those reactors which had been operating at full power had successfully shut down automatically. But the report said the investigation was still in its early stages. It said in-depth examinations still needed to be performed in key parts of the plant, such as the reactor vessels and the fuel elements. And the report warned there could be hidden damage which may affect the long-term operation of the power station. * BBC Copyright Notice ***************************************************************** 8 RIA Novosti: Russia to export 1,000 MW to Lithuania pending NPP repair -1 15:04 | 17/ 08/ 2007 MOSCOW, August 17 (RIA Novosti) - Russia will supply up to 1,000 megawatts of electricity to Lithuania while the Ignalina nuclear power plant is being repaired, electricity monopoly Unified Energy System (UES) said Friday. European Union member Lithuania is to shut down the second reactor of its Ignalina NPP by late 2009, in line with EU nuclear safety requirements, and to build a new plant of about the same capacity of 3,600 MW by 2015, a project expected to cost $3-4 billion. "Lithuania has requested that Russia deliver electricity while routine repairs are carried out at the Ignalina nuclear power plant," said Margarita Nagoga, a spokeswoman for UES. She also said that "should Lithuania stop the NPP in wintertime, Russia would have been unable to export electricity." In this regard, she stressed the importance of building the second power unit at Russia's Kaliningrad Thermoelectric Power Plant. Under pressure from European countries, Lithuania decommissioned the Ignalina NPP's first power-generating unit in 2004. The decision made the Lithuanian energy sector more dependent on Russian natural gas supplies. The country could have run the NPP much longer, with the first and second units being operational until 2008 and 2032, respectively. The Ignalina NPP is similar to the one in Chernobyl, Ukraine, the scene of the world's worst nuclear accident in 1986. RIA Novosti ***************************************************************** 9 POST Newspapers Online: Letters: Why nuke plants can't be safe Perth, Western Australia August 18, 2007 Julie Bishop, Minister for Science and Education, supports the idea of building nuclear power plants across Australia, but there are two serious impediments to her proposal. First, she may not be the minister for anything after the coming federal election. Second, any notion that the modern nuclear power plant is totally safe has been damaged by the now known unsafe condition of Japan's biggest nuclear power plant. This plant containing several nuclear reactors was badly damaged by a recent earthquake off the west coast of Japan. The private owners were very reluctant to talk about what happened, but were forced to reveal the leaking of contaminated water into the ocean, the expulsion of radioactive gases from above the power plant and the breaking open of on-site drums of nuclear waste. The Japanese prime minister forced the plant's owners to submit to an inspection by the International Atomic Energy Authority, which has not yet revealed the extent of damage suffered, but has stated that the plant will be closed indefinitely. Tony Sawell Doonan Road, Nedlands Do you have something to say? Write to us and we may publish your letter next week. Copyright © 1999 - 2006 Post Newspapers Pty Ltd. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 10 Rutland Herald Online: Yankee workers threaten walkout August 17, 2007 The Associated Press VERNON — About 230 workers at the Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant could go on strike if a new contract with the plant's owners can't be reached by midnight Sunday. Representatives from plant owner Entergy Nuclear and negotiators for the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers are trying to reach an agreement on wages, health benefits and pension plans. If a strike is called, Entergy will run the plant using supervisors or employees from other plants, said Neil Sheehan, a spokesman for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Sheehan said strikes at nuclear plants were rare. "Most of these contract negotiations are settled before it comes to a walkout," Sheehan said. "Typically, what happens is both sides converge not long before the contract expires." But Entergy is required to have a strike contingency plan in place, Sheehan said. Ed Anthes, of Nuclear Free Vermont, said residents should be concerned about who will run the plant if a strike does occur. "These will be replacement workers who are working long hours at unfamiliar jobs at an unfamiliar reactor," Anthes said. "The crisp thinking and decision-making needed in an emergency might be lacking." © 2007 Rutland Herald ***************************************************************** 11 Brattleboro Reformer: VY, union reach deal; workers vote Aug. 21 By BOB AUDETTE, Reformer Staff Friday, August 17 BRATTLEBORO -- Union members who work at Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant should be getting copies of a tentative labor contract -- agreed to by Entergy and representatives from the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers -- sometime today or tomorrow. The 230 members of the union who keep the power plant up and running will have the weekend to go over the document. On Monday, they will have a chance to ask questions of union representatives and company officials during an informational meeting. The next day, Aug. 21, they will have a chance to cast their votes on whether the contract should be accepted. "We are delighted to have reached a tentative agreement with the bargaining unit and will eagerly await the vote by union members," said Larry Smith, spokesman for Vermont Yankee. Until the vote, the current contract, which was due to expire Sunday night, will be extended until midnight Tuesday. It is expected that the vote count will be known sometime after 6 p.m. Though details of the agreement are confidential until the union membership has a chance to review it, IBEW representative George Clain said "the union would not have walked away from the table, bringing this package to the membership, if we didn't believe what was negotiated is beneficial to them and if we didn't believe it was a fair agreement." The goal of the union was to not only protect current wages and benefits, he said, but to also build a relationship with management at the plant and with Entergy corporation, said Clain. "We went to the table with a goal to partner with the company," said Clain, adding union members are invested in the success of the power plant and think of their employment at Vermont Yankee as more than a 9-5 job. Though some issues have yet to be ironed out, said Clain, they won't stand in the way of the contract. "What we did was build a firm foundation on which to build upon going forward," he said. The agreement was reached at 6 p.m. Thursday night. "The company worked just as hard as the union," said Clain. "We went into this with the deepest respect for our work force," said Smith. "Our intent all along has been to bargain in good faith." Prior to releasing the final document to the members, said Clain, union officials were "doing a double check on all the language no what's been agreed upon across the table." Bob Audette can be reached at raudette@reformer.com or 802-254-2311, ext. 273. ***************************************************************** 12 THERECORD.COM: Bruce nuclear unit taken offline for second time TIVERTON A unit at the Bruce nuclear power plant that only recently returned to service after an unplanned two-week outage was taken down again yesterday. It was not immediately clear why the 822-megawatt Unit 6 at Bruce B was taken out of service but a plant spokesperson said the unit required maintenance. "It was taken offline this afternoon and they're performing some maintenance on the heat-transport system,'' Catherine Davidson said. © 160 King Street East, Kitchener, Ontario, Canada, N2G 4E5 519-894-2231 ***************************************************************** 13 Reuters: Japan atom plant may need 1 year to restart - IAEA Fri Aug 17, 2007 4:55PM EDT By Mark Heinrich and Karin Strohecker VIENNA (Reuters) - The world's biggest nuclear plant performed safely during and after an earthquake in Japan but it may take more than a year to restart power production, U.N. inspectors said on Friday. "It will take at least months, maybe a year or more. I would be surprised if it was less than a year," said Philippe Jamet, a senior International Atomic Energy Agency official. Janet, who headed an IAEA team that examined the plant, said in-depth inspections of the Kashiwazaki-Kariwa reactor vessel and fuel elements had yet to be done. If damage was discovered there, bringing the plant back on line could take even longer, he said. The plant leaked low amounts of radiation -- below the maximum permitted under safety rules -- when a 6.8 magnitude quake struck on July 16, exceeding the worst seismic impact that the plant had been designed to withstand, according to a 39-page report issued at IAEA headquarters in Vienna. "The installation behaved in a safe manner during and after the earthquake. In particular, the automatic shutdown performed successfully," the report said. The plant will remain closed indefinitely for safety checks and the Japanese government has ordered other nuclear plant operators to undertake strict safety checks. While safety-related systems and components of the plant, run by Tokyo Electric Power Co. (TEPCO), seemed to be in surprisingly good condition, other key components had yet to be checked thoroughly, Jamet said. "Another consideration is the possibility that long-term operation of components could be affected by hidden damage from this event," the report by his six-strong team said. LONGER-TERM WEAKNESS? Such components, in effect, could function well under normal conditions but not necessarily during a future accident, or safely over the longer term. Non-safety related systems and components sustained serious damage from factors such as soil deformation and oil leakages, said the report. "A re-evaluation of the seismic safety the Kashiwazika Kariwa nuclear power plant needs to be done with account taken of the lessons learned from the... earthquake and using updated criteria and methods." Jamet said radioactive releases into the air and sea from the stricken plant were "extremely small" and the health and environmental impact was "practically negligible". He also praised the cooperation and transparency of Japanese officials dealing with his mission on August 6-10. Japan's nuclear industry has been tarnished by cover-ups of accidents and fudged safety records. About one third of Japan's electricity grid is supplied by nuclear power, which has been central in Japanese efforts to combat global warming. Japan initially told the IAEA it did not need help after the quake. Later, it said it would allow inspectors into the plant after local authorities expressed concern that talk of the plant's problems would damage tourism and fisheries. ***************************************************************** 14 UPI: Chernobyl fallout hurt Swedish infants United Press International - NewsTrack - Top News - Published: Aug. 17, 2007 at 12:24 AM STOCKHOLM, Sweden, Aug. 17 (UPI) -- Swedish children born in the months following the 1986 Chernobyl disaster suffered mental impairment from the radioactive fallout, a study found. The report by researchers from Stockholm University and New York’s Columbia University found that children born in the eight municipalities experiencing the highest levels of radiation were 3.6 percent less likely than others to qualify for high school, The Local said Thursday. The researchers said it appears prenatal exposure to radiation levels previously considered safe was actually damaging to cognitive ability. The journal Chemistry World said the report is expected to be published as a U.S. National Bureau of Economic Research working paper. © Copyright 2007 United Press International. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be reproduced, redistributed, or manipulated in any form. ***************************************************************** 15 Telegraph: BE seeks two nuclear partners - By Katherine Griffiths, City Correspondent Last Updated: 2:43am BST 17/08/2007 British Energy is set to form two partnerships by the end of the year to build new nuclear power stations in the UK. Local communities around places such as Sizewell in Suffolk are also pro-nuclear Bill Coley, British Energy's chief executive, said there had been "a great deal of interest" from companies wanting to form a consortium to build the new nuclear power stations. The company, which had to be bailed out by the Government in 2002 because of low electricity prices, has seen its fortunes dramatically change. It is very likely that a new generation of nuclear power stations to replace Britain's ageing fleet will be situated on British Energy sites because they have previously received planning permission. Local communities around places such as Sizewell in Suffolk are also pro-nuclear because of the local jobs the power stations have created in the past - providing a smoother ride to planning applications for building the new power stations. The initial view is to build two reactors. Those interested in forming the partnerships include utilities and companies that consume large amounts of energy. advertisement Builders of reactors, known in the nuclear construction industry as vendors, may either join the consortiums or simply supply their designs. British Energy is currently reviewing which sites to pick for the new power stations. "We are carrying out a very detailed review of our sites," Mr Coley said. Sizewell and Hinkley Point in Somerset are considered the likely sites for new reactors. The power generator is also evaluating the different reactor designs, taking into account issues such as "weight and size of the biggest components and how many places can the fuel be bought from", Mr Coley said. Utilities that have expressed a keen interest in being involved in the building of new nuclear power stations in the UK include France's EdF, Germany's E.ON, which owns Powergen, and RWE, which operates the npower brand. Reactor makers that have put their designs forward for consideration by regulators, led by the Health and Safety Executive, are Areva of France, Westinghouse, which was sold by the British Government to Japan's Toshiba last year, General Electric and Canada's AECL. British Energy yesterday reported a 12pc drop in underlying profits to Ł253m in the three months to July 1 because of continued problems at two plants. The fall in output was largely caused by shutdowns at power stations at Hinkley Point and Hunterston in Ayrshire. The shutdown was announced in October 2006, after cracks were found in boiler tubes. British Energy's shares fell 36.25p, or 8pc, to 417.75p. In May the two stations were given the go-ahead to restart by the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate. However, they have returned to service subject to temperature restrictions. The two stations are operating at 60pc of capacity, and are planned to be returned to 70pc operation over the coming year. British Energy's board will decide by March whether to invest in extending the life of the two power stations. If they are not extended, Hinkley and Hunterston will close in 2011. © Copyright of Telegraph Media Group Limited 2007. ***************************************************************** 16 NRC: News Release: NRC Releases Most of Yankee Nuclear Power Station Site for Unrestricted Public Use 2007-105 - U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Office of Public Affairs Telephone: 301/415-8200 Washington, DC 20555-0001 E-mail: opa@nrc.gov www.nrc.gov The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has released a majority of the Yankee Nuclear Power Station site near Rowe, Mass., for unrestricted public use. This action completes the decommissioning of the former nuclear power station portion of the site. The land, approximately 30 acres, is below NRC safety requirements that allow a maximum radiation dose of 25 millirem per year from residual contamination. (The average person in the United States receives about 300 millirem from background radiation each year.) Release of this land for unrestricted use poses no threat to public health and safety. Yankee’s license still applies to the site’s dry cask storage facility, where the spent nuclear fuel from the plant’s 30 years of operation is safely stored, plus a small parcel of land surrounding this facility. The total land remaining under license is approximately five acres. The licensee, Yankee Atomic Electric Co., remains responsible for the security and protection of this land and the dry cask storage facility, and is required to maintain $100 million in nuclear liability insurance coverage for the facility. Yankee Nuclear Power Station began commercial operations in 1961, and ceased production Oct. 1, 1991. Yankee Atomic Electric Co. initiated decommissioning shortly thereafter. Dismantlement and decommissioning were completed in July 2007. NRC surveys verified that cleanup met the 25 millirem per year requirement. The NRC’s Safety Evaluation Report of Yankee’s amendment request will be available in the agency’s online documents database, ADAMS, at this address: http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams/web-based.html NRC news releases are available through a free list server subscription at the following Web address: http://www.nrc.gov/public-involve/listserver.html. The NRC Home Page at www.nrc.gov also offers a Subscribe to News link in the News & Information menu. E-mail notifications are sent to subscribers when news releases are posted to NRC's Web Site. August 17, 2007 ***************************************************************** 17 edie news centre: Bank donates money for Chernobyl Projects (17 August 2007) The European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) has signed grant agreements worth over 360 million Euros funding two major projects at the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant (ChNPP). The first agreement covers the design and construction of a new enclosure to surround reactor 4 and a "shelter", quickly assembled after the 1986 accident, at the site of the power plan, says the EBRD. Twenty-one years ago, in April 1986, reactor number 4 at Chernobyl exploded, sending radiation across a large region of what is now the Ukraine, Belarus, and Russia. According to most reports, 40 radionucleotides were released into the environment. The second agreement will allow ChNPP to sign a contract for the completion of an interim storage for spent fuel from units 1, 2 and 3 at Chernobyl. Plans for the construction are said to be 190 metres wide and 200 metres long, with a completion date of 2015. The steel structure will weigh 18,000 tons and will have a half-cylinder shape. The construction will be undertaken by the Shelter Implementation Plan, which is financed by the Chernobyl Shelter Fund. The EBRD is managing this fund to which a host of countries including the United Kingdom, United States, Belgium, Canada, and the bulk of countries from the European Community have made donations. Once finished, the New Safe Confinement will contain the radioactive inventory of the "shelter", prevent the intrusion of water and snow and provide equipment for the eventual deconstruction of the destroyed reactor and the "shelter", the EBRD says. Since 1997, at the request of the G7 and the European Union, the EBRD has been managing international assistance programmes in Chernobyl, delivered through the Chernobyl Shelter Fund and the Nuclear Safety Account respectively, to mitigate the consequences of the 1986 accident. Both programmes have been developed and carried out in close cooperation with the authorities of Ukraine. Dana Gornitzki Source: edie newsroom © Faversham House Group Ltd 2007. edie news articles may be copied or forwarded for individual use only. No other reproduction or distribution is permitted without prior written consent. ***************************************************************** 18 DD: Browns Ferry cuts output; river too warm: 1 reactor taken offline, 2 slowed down Decatur Daily FRIDAY, AUGUST 17, 2007 By Eric Fleischauer eric@decaturdaily.com · 340-2435 and Seth Burkett The same heat that is triggering historic energy demand in the Tennessee Valley forced TVA to cut power production at Browns Ferry Nuclear Power Plant. At about 5 p.m. Thursday, TVA officials decided to manually shut down Unit 2 to reduce the temperature of water discharged from the plant, Browns Ferry spokesman Jason Huffine said. Units 1 and 3 continued operating at about 70 percent power, Huffine said. Browns Ferry sucks water from the Tennessee River into the plant, circulates it to reduce heat in the plant, cools it to 90 degrees or below in the cooling towers and discharges it into the river. Federal regulations prohibit the plant from discharging water that exceeds 90 degrees into the Tennessee River. High temperatures of the river water taken into the plant, however, have increased the temperature of the discharged water, Huffine said. To keep the discharge water temperature at or below 90 degrees, TVA had to reduce power production. "The last 24-hour average I saw was right at 90 degrees. That's why we took it off," Huffine said of water temperatures taken downstream of the plant. The 24-hour average upstream was 90.4 degrees, he said. "These temperatures are just record-setting, and we're having to take what Mother Nature is dishing out. We've never reached this 90-degree threshold," Huffine said. "To our knowledge, this has never been an issue," he said. "We haven't dropped a unit for this before." TVA had reduced output on Units 1 and 3 by 15 percent earlier Thursday. Unit 2 had been running at 73 percent before shutdown. It was already at reduced power because TVA is repairing a pump. "This pump takes the water from the river," Huffine said. "It has to do with the condensers. The condensers turn the steam back into water before it goes back to the river." Huffine said the pump malfunction does not raise safety issues for the public. Unit 2 won't return to power until maintenance is complete, he said. "Right now we don't really have a set schedule when we're going to put that unit back online. When we drop a unit, we don't put it back online until we've looked at everything," he said. The shutdown shouldn't affect TVA's ability to meet the high demand for power, Huffine said. TVA broke records for peak demand last week. High temperatures Thursday made it likely it would break the record again. "The TVA system is pretty robust and we feel confident we'll be able to continue to meet those demands," Huffine said. THE DECATUR DAILY 201 1st Ave. SE P.O. Box 2213 Decatur, Ala. 35609 (256) 353-4612 webmaster@decaturdaily.com www.decaturdaily.com ***************************************************************** 19 News & Star: Nuclear review pressure Published on 17/08/2007 By Anika Bourley Parliamentary Correspondent A SENIOR Conservative is expected today to call for more nuclear power plants to be built – putting further pressure on party leader David Cameron to concede it is vital for the security of Britain. John Redwood is expected to make the call as he unveils his economic policy review, a package drawn up by a policy review group set up by Mr Cameron and headed by Mr Redwood. But the idea of more nuclear power plants could spark a row with his leader amid growing pressure in the party for a U-turn. It would seem to clash with Mr Cameron’s opinion and repeated dismissal of nuclear power as “a last resort”. Copeland MP Jamie Reed has repeatedly called for Mr Cameron to accept the benefits of nuclear power after repeated offers have a meeting with him. He said: “I welcome this report and am saddened it is not official policy. “I hope David Cameron has the courage to admit he is wrong on nuclear and I hope now that he will put the national interest above the perceived embarrassment he may have to undertake dealing with a U-turn.” Many backbench Tory MPs say that they are in favour of nuclear power and Quentin Davies, who defected from the party to Labour, cited Mr Cameron’s view as one of the reasons he chose to leave. Last month, speaking exclusively to the News and Star, Mr Cameron appeared to soften his approach and twice refused to say it was a “last resort” as previously stated. Instead he said the industry would be able to respond to a level playing field along with green energy forms which are all on the brink of significant breakthrough. And Prime Minister Gordon Brown has warned the country would be reliant on foreign energy sources if it did not consider replacing the 16 power stations due to be decommissioned across the country over the next 20 years. nw evening mail | cumberland news | times and star | whitehaven news ***************************************************************** 20 The Hindu: UPA-Left standoff continues Saturday, Aug 18, 2007 New Delhi Bureau Honeymoon may be over but marriage can go on: Karat NEW DELHI: The strain on ties between the United Progressive Alliance (UPA) Government and the Left parties on the nuclear deal with the United States continued on Friday, though the Communist Party of India (Marxist) general secretary, Prakash Karat, was reported to have said that the “honeymoon may be over but the marriage can go on.” Senior leaders of the CPI and the CPI(M) were closeted in discussions and the Congress also took stock of the developments at a meeting of its “core group” at the residence of Prime Minister Manmohan Singh. Later in the evening, Dr. Singh hosted a dinner for West Bengal Chief Minister Buddhadeb Bhattacharjee, who is here to attend the CPI(M) Polit Bureau meeting. Even as the Polit Bureau began a two-day meeting to evolve a strategy to take on the Government on the nuclear deal, the CPI’s national secretariat too held a session to review its ties with the UPA Government. The tension in the Left-UPA relations was visible in the Lok Sabha during an impromptu discussion after Speaker Somnath Chatterjee rejected a debate under Rule 184 that entails voting. External Affairs Minister Pranab Mukherjee said India was not bound by the Hyde Act as it was only advisory in nature. Reacting to the Leader of the Opposition, L.K.Advani’s charge that the Government was “misleading” the House by saying that India was not bound by the Act, Mr. Mukherjee said he quoted only the U.S. President, George Bush, verbatim. Mr. Mukherjee said these points were reflected in the joint statement of July 2005 and March 2006. “Let the House discuss it and it will be known who is right and who is wrong.” Earlier, Mr. Advani said he was happier to see the UPA remaining in power and making more blunders that would further alienate it from its allies, as seen in the nuclear deal issue. He said that it was for the first time that a statement made by the Prime Minister was “misleading” and an international pact signed by him had involved him in a privilege motion. Accepting the Speaker’s ruling for a discussion under Rule 193, Mr. Advani said Parliament should enact legislation that would provide for ratification by the House before any treaty was signed. Copyright © 2007, The Hindu. ***************************************************************** 21 IAEA: Vietnam Hosts Seminar on Nuclear Safeguards Staff Report 17 August 2007 On 10 August 2007, Vietnam became the 114th country to sign an additional protocol to its safeguards agreement with the IAEA. Signing for Vietnam is Ambassador Nguyen Truong Giang. Dr. Werner Burkart, IAEA Deputy Director General for Nuclear Applications, signed for the Agency. (Photo Credit: D. Calma/IAEA) Vietnam continues strides to strengthen its framework for nuclear safeguards. Next week it hosts a high-level national seminar on the "additional protocol", an agreement the government recently concluded with the IAEA. The two-day seminar opens 22 August in Hanoi with the support of the IAEA, Japan, and Australia. Sessions aim to sensitize Vietnam's responsible officials at agencies and ministries about the role of IAEA safeguards for Vietnam, a country that is considering adding nuclear power to its energy mix down the line. Earlier this month, on 10 August 2007, Vietnam became the 114th country to sign an additional protocol, a legal instrument introduced 10 years ago in order to strengthen the effectiveness and improve the efficiency of the safeguards system as a contribution to global nuclear non-proliferation objectives. Additional protocols, once in force, provide the IAEA with important supplementary verification tools, in particular to verify the absence of undeclared nuclear material or activitites in a State, which should be reported to the IAEA. Today, most States with safeguards agreements have additional protocols in force and more than 80% of all States with declared nuclear material under safeguards have signed additional protocols. In addition to Vietnam, the IAEA has supported similar national seminars in Algeria, Colombia, Malaysia, Mexico, Philippines and Thailand, within the framework of an action plan to promote the conclusion of safeguards agreements and additional protocols. Last May, representatives of some 15 States attended a high level interregional meeting on the IAEA safeguards system intended for States that do not yet have any safeguards agreements with the IAEA. Background: Next week's seminar will be held at the Hilton Hanoi Opera Hotel. Members of the Press are invited to join a reception at 19.00 on Wednesday 22 August at the Ly thai to club. In late 2006, IAEA Director General ElBaradei visited Vietnam and met government officials responsible for nuclear development. The country's nuclear regulatory authority is the Vietnam Agency for Radiation and Nuclear Safety and Control (VARANSAC), which is under the Ministry of Science and Technology. In fields of nuclear science and technology, the IAEA supports Vietnam through its technical cooperation and research programmes. Support covers, for example, energy studies and planning, industrial nuclear applications, radioactive waste management, nuclear legislation and regulation, nuclear medicine and radiotherapy, and nuclear applications to improve food production. Regarding cancer care and treatment, Vietnam is targeted for support through the IAEA-backed global initiative called PACT. See Story Resources for more information. Copyright ©, International Atomic Energy Agency, P.O. Box 100, Wagramer Strasse 5, A-1400 Vienna, Austria Telephone (+431) 2600-0; Facsimilie (+431) 2600-7; E-mail: ***************************************************************** 22 Las Vegas SUN: Former Test Site workers get local screening sites August 17, 2007 Las Vegas Sun Eight health clinics have been contracted in Southern Nevada to provided free screening tests to former Nevada Test Site workers, the Energy Department said Thursday. M. Janet Normandy, a division director in the department's health, safety and security office, said the new, privately operated nationwide screening program is designed to serve workers at facilities close to their homes. The screening program replaced an 11-year-old program that had been run by research universities, including the University of Nevada Medical School. It tested workers who were at risk for lung cancer because of exposure to silica dust, beryllium or asbestos. The Energy Department declined to release the names of the local clinics that have been contracted for the new program, saying it was policy to not release such information to protect patient confidentiality. Normandy said workers who think they were exposed to radiation or chemicals should call toll-free (866) 812-6703 for appointments. All contents copyright 2005 Las Vegas SUN, Inc. ***************************************************************** 23 NRC: NRC Proposes $3,250 Civil Penalty for Chambersburg, Pa., Firm Over Temporary Loss of Nuclear Gauge News Release - Region I - 2007-043 - U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Office of Public Affairs, Region I 475 Allendale Road, King of Prussia, Pa. 19406 www.nrc.gov CONTACT: Diane Screnci (610) 337-5330 Neil A. Sheehan (610) 337-5331 E-mail: opa1@nrc.gov The Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff is proposing a $3,250 fine for a firm based in Chambersburg (Franklin County), Pa., based on a violation of agency requirements involving inadequate control and security of a portable nuclear gauge. The gauge contains radioactive material and is used for such industrial purposes as measuring the density of soil at construction sites. On May 7, 2007, Valley Quarries, Inc., reported to the NRC that late on May 6 or early on May 7, a nuclear gauge was stolen from an unattended, company-owned pickup truck parked in the driveway of an employee’s residence. At the time, the device was in a locked transportation case inside the vehicle’s cab. Pennsylvania State Police reported on May 23, 2007 that the gauge had been recovered in a field just off a highway in Fayettesville, Pa. The transportation case’s lock had been removed when the gauge was found, but the handle used to move the radioactive sources inside the device was still locked and the sources remained in the shielded position. In response to the theft of the gauge, the NRC conducted an inspection on May 10, 2007 at Valley Quarries’ Chambersburg office and at a field location near Gettysburg, Pa. The inspection, which was performed to review the circumstances surrounding the event, led to the NRC citing a violation by the company. Specifically, the violation stems from a failure to use at least two physical controls to ensure that a nuclear gauge cannot be removed without authorization during periods when such a device is not under the direct control and surveillance of company personnel. “Although there were no health and safety consequences to the public, the NRC considered that the gauge was in an unrestricted area for a period of 16 days, and that there was a potential for radiation exposure to members of the public if the source had been removed from its shielded position,” NRC Region I Deputy Administrator Marc Dapas wrote to the company regarding the enforcement action. “There was also the potential for contamination if someone had tried to tamper with the sealed source.” Valley Quarries declined the opportunity to participate in an NRC Predecisional Enforcement Conference, which allows companies to provide the agency with additional information prior to reaching a decision on potential enforcement actions. However, the company has notified the NRC of actions it has taken to prevent a recurrence, including staff training on gauge security requirements, the purchase of chains and locks to meet gauge transportation/security requirements, and inspections to ensure gauges are being properly stored. NRC news releases are available through a free list server subscription at the following Web address: http://www.nrc.gov/public-involve/listserver.html. The NRC Home Page at www.nrc.gov also offers a Subscribe to News link in the News & Information menu. E-mail notifications are sent to subscribers when news releases are posted to NRC's Web Site. August 17, 2007 ***************************************************************** 24 NRC: Notice of Availability of Final Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact for Proposed Pa'ina Hawaii, LLC Irradiator in Honolulu, HI FR Doc E7-16255 [Federal Register: August 17, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 159)] [Notices] [Page 46249-46251] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr17au07-90] NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION [Docket No. 030-36974] AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission. [[Page 46250]] ACTION: Notice of Availability and Finding of No Significant Impact. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is issuing a final Environmental Assessment (EA) for the Pa'ina Hawaii, LLC (Pa'ina or the applicant) license application, dated June 23, 2005, which requested authorization to use sealed radioactive sources in an underwater irradiator for the production and research irradiation of food, cosmetic, and pharmaceutical products. The final EA is being issued as part of the NRC's decision-making process on whether to issue a license to Pa'ina, pursuant to Title 10 of the U.S. Code of Federal Regulations Part 36, ``Licenses and Radiation Safety Requirements for Irradiators.'' The proposed irradiator would be located immediately adjacent to Honolulu International Airport on Palekona Street near Lagoon Drive. The irradiator would primarily be used for phytosanitary treatment of fresh fruit and vegetables bound for the mainland from the Hawaiian Islands and similar products being imported to the Hawaiian Islands as well as irradiation of cosmetics and pharmaceutical products. The irradiator would also be used by the applicant to conduct research and development projects, and irradiate a wide range of other materials as specifically approved by the NRC on a case-by-case basis. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Patricia Swain, Environmental Project Manager, Environmental and Performance Assessment Branch, Division of Waste Management and Environmental Protection, Mail Stop T8-F5, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001. Telephone: (301) 415-5405; e-mail: pbs2@nrc.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Introduction On June 27, 2005, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) received a license application from Pa'ina Hawaii, LLC, that, if approved, would authorize the use of sealed radioactive sources in an underwater irradiator for the production and research irradiation of food, cosmetic, and pharmaceutical products. The proposed irradiator would be located immediately adjacent to Honolulu International Airport on Palekona Street near Lagoon Drive. The irradiator would primarily be used for phytosanitary treatment of fresh fruit and vegetables bound for the mainland from the Hawaiian Islands and similar products being imported to the Hawaiian Islands as well as irradiation of cosmetics and pharmaceutical products. The irradiator would also be used by the applicant to conduct research and development projects, and irradiate a wide range of other materials as specifically approved by the NRC on a case-by-case basis. The NRC has completed its evaluation of the proposed irradiator against the requirements found in the NRC's regulations at Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 51, ``Environmental Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions,'' (i.e., 10 CFR Part 51). Typically, the licensing of irradiators is categorically excluded from detailed environmental review as described in the NRC regulations at 10 CFR 51.22(c)(14)(vii). However, the NRC staff entered into a settlement agreement with Concerned Citizens of Honolulu, the interveners in the adjudicatory hearing to be held on the license application. The settlement agreement included a provision for the NRC staff to prepare a draft EA and hold a public comment meeting in Honolulu, Hawaii prior to making a final decision. The NRC staff published a notice in the Federal Register requesting public review and comment on the draft Environmental Assessment on December 28, 2006 (71 FR 78231) and established February 8, 2007 as the deadline to submit comments. Approximately 47 individual comment documents (i.e., letters, facsimiles, and e-mails) were received by the NRC. Also, 221 identical e-mails were submitted by various individuals. In addition, oral comments were received from 43 individuals at the public meeting conducted by NRC in Honolulu on February 1, 2007. The staff also issued a supplemental appendix to the Draft EA on June 8, 2007 (72 FR 31866) which presented the staff's consideration of terrorist acts on the proposed facility. The staff established July 9, 2007 as the deadline for submitting public comments on Appendix B and received comments from six individuals. The NRC staff reviewed each comment letter and the transcript of the public meeting. Comments relating to similar issues and topics were grouped. The final EA includes an appendix which presents summaries of comments, along with the NRC staff's corresponding responses. When comments have resulted in a modification to the draft EA, those changes are noted in the staff's response. In cases for which the comments did not warrant a detailed response, the NRC staff provided an explanation as to why no further response is necessary. In all cases, the NRC staff sought to respond to all comments received during the public comment period. II. EA Summary The purpose of the license request (i.e., the proposed action) is to authorize Pa'ina Hawaii to use sealed radioactive sources in a pool irradiator to be located adjacent to the Honolulu International Airport, Honolulu, Hawaii. Pa'ina's license request was previously noticed in the Federal Register on August 2, 2005 (70 FR 44396) with a notice of an opportunity to request a hearing. The staff has completed its final EA in support of its review of the license application. The staff considered impacts to such areas as public and occupational health, transportation of the sources, socioeconomics, ecology, water quality, and the effects of aviation accidents and natural phenomena. During routine operations the dose rate at the surface of the irradiator pool is expected to be well below 1 millirem/hour. Considering the location of personnel and operational practices of the irradiator, it is unlikely that an employee could receive more than the occupational dose limit which is 5,000 millirem/year. The expected dose rates outside the building are expected to be indistinguishable from naturally occurring background radiation, therefore it is unlikely that a member of the public could receive more than public dose limit which is 100 millirem/year. For the shipment of the radioactive sources, the maximum dose is also expected to be very small: 0.04 mrem/year. The staff also considered alternative treatments such as fumigation with methyl bromide and heat treatments. The staff completed consultations under section 7 of the Endangered Species Act and section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. In addition the staff provided interested members of the public, the applicant, and State officials with an opportunity to comment on the draft EA. The final EA includes two new sections. The first section deals with the NRC's consideration of terrorist activities and the second section discusses public comments on the draft EA and provides the NRC's corresponding response. The complete final EA is available on the NRC's Web site: http://www.nrc.gov/materials.html by selecting ``Pa'ina Irradiator'' in the Quick Links box. Copies are also available by contacting Patricia Swain as noted above. [[Page 46251]] III. Finding of No Significant Impact The NRC staff has prepared this final EA in support of the proposed action to issue a license to Pa'ina Hawaii for the possession and use of sealed radioactive sources in an underwater irradiator for the production and research irradiation of food, cosmetic, and pharmaceutical products. On the basis of this EA, NRC has concluded that there are no significant environmental impacts and the license application does not warrant the preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement. Accordingly, it has been determined that a Finding of No Significant Impact is appropriate. IV. Further Information Documents related to this action, including the application for amendment and supporting documentation, are available electronically at the NRC's Electronic Reading Room at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. From this site, you can access the NRC's Agencywide Document Access and Management System (ADAMS), which provides text and image files of NRC's public documents. The ADAMS accession numbers for the documents related to this notice are: Pa'ina License Application, ML052060372; NRC final Environmental Assessment, ML071150121. If you do not have access to ADAMS or if there are problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS, contact the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR) Reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by e-mail to pdr@nrc.gov. These documents may also be viewed electronically on the public computers located at the NRC's PDR, O1-F21, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 20852. The PDR reproduction contractor will copy documents for a fee. Dated at Rockville, Maryland this 10th day of August, 2007. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Patricia Swain, Acting Chief, Environmental Review Branch, Division of Waste Management and Environmental Protection, Office of Federal and State Materials and Environmental Management Programs. [FR Doc. E7-16255 Filed 8-16-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P ***************************************************************** 25 AU ABC: Waste not, want not - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) By Tom Quirk Updated August 17, 2007 11:50:00 The mining of uranium and the disposal of spent fuel are the largest components of the costs in the uranium fuel cycle. (File photo) (ABC TV) * Opinion: Too much haste to waste The disposal of long-lived radioactive waste within Australia could be one of the single biggest contributions we can make to the safety of our region, and even the world. Domestically, Australia produces about 45 cubic metres - three truckloads - per year of low and intermediate level radioactive wastes. Much of this material is produced in the research reactor at Lucas Heights, then used at hospitals, industrial sites and laboratories around the country. There are about 3,700 cubic metres of low-level waste stored at over a hundred sites around Australia. Over half of the material is lightly-contaminated soil from CSIRO mineral processing research. In addition there are about 500 cubic metres of long-lived intermediate level waste. But having dispersed storage is not considered a suitable long-term strategy for the safe storage of waste. So the Federal Government has proposed a consolidation to a single repository site. The plan is for a disposal area about 100 metres square within a two square kilometres area. Low-level and short-lived intermediate level wastes would be disposed of in a shallow, engineered repository designed to contain the material and allow it to decay safely to background levels. Intermediate-level wastes with lifetimes of greater than 30 years would be stored above ground in a facility designed to hold them secure for an extended period and to shield their radiation until a geological repository is eventually established, or alternative arrangements made. Contrary to popular belief, this proposal is not about the ultimate disposal of high-level radioactive waste from the spent fuel of reactors. The high level wastes produced by nuclear power stations are not yet a concern. If we are lucky we might have two operating nuclear power stations within 20 years. But we would not then be worrying about waste from them for another 50 years. Even so, it may be with cheap coal and carbon dioxide burial - what we grandly call geosequestration - that we find conventional power plants are the better buy. Currently, the concern is about the disposal of industrial waste, an area where governments have had great difficulties in finding acceptable solutions. Earthquakes So what is the fuss about? There is a worry about instability caused by earthquakes. Helen Caldicott in ABC News Opinion on Monday expressed concern that the Federal Government's preferred site for a waste dump experienced recently a quake measuring 2.5 on the Richter scale. However, an earthquake of this magnitude is classified as detectable but generally not felt. There are about 1,000 earthquakes of this intensity each day all over the earth. It might not even cause a ripple in your café latte. Enrichment and reprocessing may provide further business opportunities. In this area, Australian scientists have made major technical contributions. But firms require access to large amounts of capital to pursue their development. None of our major mining or energy companies has expressed, at least recently, any desire to enter these markets. The mining of uranium and the disposal of spent fuel are the largest components of the costs in the uranium fuel cycle. Australia could benefit from providing both services. Indeed, there could be significant regional demand. Thailand, China and India might find an Australian waste storage facility extremely attractive. Countries that are genuinely earthquake prone, as Japan and Indonesia are, would no doubt welcome an opportunity even more. Australia provides its reputation, its technical expertise and its high-quality infrastructure for all manner of services to Asia-Pacific region. We should not be blind to the potential of a waste storage facility. Tom Quirk is a member of the board of the Institute of Public Affairs and chairman of Virax Holdings Ltd, a biotechnology company. He is a nuclear physicist by original training. Tags: international-aid-and-trade, environment, mining, nuclear-issues, nuclear-energy, uranium-mining, australia owen: 17 Aug 2007 3:20:50pm We don't actually have any expertise in the area of long term waste N disposal. Its just sitting in drums at the ANSTO facility. No part of the nuclear cycle is safe. Read about how ERAs Ranger mine "Environment Australia (an agency of the Government of Australia) have documented over 200 environmental incidents since 1979." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ranger_mine There have been numerous accidents at all stages of the processing and reprocessing. An industry that isn't even 100 years old has waste that is toxic for hundreds of thousands to millions of years old. How old is the oldest civilisation? Were humans are also not that good with this stuff. To much room for error and laziness. To many Homers and profiteers. Its human nature. "March 6, 2006 -- Nuclear Fuel Services Erwin Plant in Tennessee USA had a spill of 35 liters of highly enriched uranium solution which nearly entered a shaft which would have induced criticality. This spill only became public through the efforts of Congress though it entailed a seven month shutdown and a required public hearing on the licensing of the plant. The hearing was held but not attended owing to secrecy about the meeting." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_civilian_nuclear_accidents Forget earthquakes. As long as humans are involved. The only thing green about this stuff is the colour it glows when you turn out the lights. No amount of compensation is worth leaving this toxic mess for future generations. PS, I don't have a Jap car, I drive a German VW T4 turbo diesel van (ex ambulance) that I run on biodiesel purchased at Volume Plus. Its carbon neutral. Choices people, we have them. Reply Agree (0) Alert moderator Sand: 17 Aug 2007 3:01:50pm Will the Federal Government hold a plebicite asking whether or not people want a nuclear dump- or a nuclear power station- near their home? If not, why not? Reply Agree (0) Alert moderator - souwester: 17 Aug 2007 6:20:47pm unless you live in rmeote NT a nuclear waste facility is unlikely to be near your home. the real question is would like a coal fired powerstation or even a wind farm next to your house??? Reply Agree (0) Alert moderator Iryany: 17 Aug 2007 1:34:09pm Take the business incentives out of most major decisions and what will have left? Greeny rhetoric maybe, but not the interest of the AIPA! One of the greatest problems here for the nuclear industry is that it is not clean, nor green, nor renewable. With a massive increase in demand for the lovely yellow cake to run power stations, comes a commensurate decease in the longevity of the fuel source. What do we have, say 70 years at best based on generous projections? And then once again we are faced with the same dilemma as today. Now ask the same question of renewables and what is the answer? When will waves cease to roll onto the shore? When will the wind (regionally) stop blowing? When will the sun (regionally) stop shining? When will geothermal hot-rocks cease to glow? When will crops (as biomass) stop growing? (ok, maybe under increased CO2 they will suffer in some places... but that does highlight just another large centralised power source's problems with not capturing it's waste streams). While there is massive profits (for the lucky few) in centralised power generation, all centralised systems are inefficient by their nature. Firstly, up to 12 per cent loss in heat and friction through transmission alone! Secondly, they fail to promote power efficiency as this reduces power consumption therefore undermining the need for their existence (and alas the profit stream). They are also far too rigid in structure to allow for innovation. And, of course, giant transmission lines to distribute power is not as ugly as wind turbines right? I vote for decentralised systems, one where there is a mix of different and mutually reinforcing local solutions. I also vote for greatly improved efficiencies in power use (perhaps waste reduction is a better term). Through efficiency gains and through decentralised power generation, the notion of centralised power generation becomes almost comical ok, maybe not to the obvious few who staunchly purport its necessity. As I said at the beginning, leave the business out of such decisions and instead think in terms of the science of sustainability and what that must mean for future directions (and the stock market dividend is not the future). Rest easy sustainability plaintiffs, renewables will get the nod from the general population of Australia and be the number one economic driver within ten years. Reply Agree (0) Alert moderator Barcaldine: 17 Aug 2007 1:32:05pm We are oh so happy to drive around in our Japanese vehicles and use countless products made using nuclear energy but hold up our hands in horror at the idea of taking any responsibility for the waste products. This does not make us very good world citizens; in fact, we've joined the NIMBY's. Reply Agree (0) Alert moderator * R G Hay: 17 Aug 2007 12:49:26pm Like climate change and GHG emissions reduction, storing long-life nuclear waste is a world problem. If radio-active material gets into the world's atmospheric/oceanic/eco/systems it will affect everybody. So there needs to be a UN agency, like the IPCC, to investigate and find where the safest storage sites are, and get international agreement to use and fund the use of these sites. It is not a matter of some corporation making a quick quid, then going bellyup the next time the house of cards which is the international finance system collapses. Until the large quantites of waste already in existence - and even more the larger quantites that will come to exist as nations choose the nuclear path to GHG reduction - are safely stored long-term, we are all living on the edge of the volcano. Radio-active isotopes don't respect national borders, as the relatively small release at Chenobyl demonstrated. If one of the sites is in Ausrlaia, which is quite likely, given the geological stability of parts of the country, then we need to behave like good world citizens. But survival, not profit, should be our motive. Reply Agree (0) Alert moderator S.Elmes: 17 Aug 2007 11:34:44am If India or Thailand or anyone else wants Nuclear capability, they should bury their waste in their own backyards. It's always the same argument, "Profit" for some big company. It was the same in the 50's when Menzies allowed the Pom's to detonate their Nukes in this country, instead of their own, without hardly consulting anybody else on the matter before giving them the go ahead. When are we going to wake up and say no to these ideas. John Howard has just done the same thing, not asking the Australian people for their view on the sale of Uranium to India. The minerals in the ground belong to all of us and we should be heard when it comes to the sale of dangerous products to "Iffy" countries. Australia is unique, a beautifull, largely untouched country, one of the last left on earth, we don't want their poison here, and we should look past the financial aspects for once, and think of the future health of our children, and health of this country. No safeguards are infallible as has been proven in the past. Reply Agree (0) Alert moderator GLR: 17 Aug 2007 11:31:14am A significant factor in the economics of nuclear power is the cost of waste disposal. Right now nobody knows just how high that cost is because, with the exception of a couple of European countries, nobody has actually got a long term, single site waste repository even close to up and running on a commercial basis. The world's nuclear waste is stored by governments in many 'temporary' sites around the world. Much of the cost for these sites is buried in those governments' budget papers and carried by their taxpayers. In effect the nuclear industry's waste disposal is subsidised by government. If Australia agrees to 'store' nuclear waste on a commercial basis it would undoubtedly be on a fixed-price-contact basis, if the cost is more than we think then we - or the company contracting to provide storage - would have to meet that extra cost. One of two things would happen; either the company would raise its prices to future customers or it would go bust and the Australian government would have to take over its operations and pay the extra cost of storage. If the cost of storage rises then customers would look for cheaper storage and other, potentially unsafe, storage facilities would open. In theory you could 'store' nuclear waste anywhere you have a lot of open space; equatorial Africa, Siberia, Northern India, The Andes, Nepal etc. There are plenty of places where poor people might not kick up too much of a fuss. And if you think this would never happen, I suggest you google the topic of toxic waste disposal because it has been done before with just about any type of waste you can think of. If a country wants to use nuclear energy then it should have to factor in the total cost of waste disposal - preferably without government subsidies - and then be prepared to bear that cost in its entirety. So should we if we go down the nuclear path (something I can't see the point of in Australia). We should not risk subsidising the world's nuclear industry or indirectly encouraging dangerous 'cut price' storage operations in other parts of the world. In short I think turning Australia into the world's nuclear waste dump is a really stupid idea. Reply Agree (0) Alert moderator David Lewis: 17 Aug 2007 11:26:12am We mine it and profit from it. So we should store it! Reply Agree (0) Alert moderator J Blackburn: 17 Aug 2007 9:53:18am I agree. This is a significant opportunity. Reply Agree (0) Alert moderator ***************************************************************** 26 E&ETV: Nuclear Waste: Nevada's Bob Loux calls DOE "virtually incompetent" regarding Yucca Mountain (OnPoint, 09/13/2006) OnPoint Transcript: 09/13/2006 About this video With the House and Senate both addressing the issue of a nuclear waste repository, the Department of Energy is facing major opposition from the state of Nevada regarding Yucca Mountain. During today's OnPoint Bob Loux, director of the Nevada Nuclear Waste Projects Office talks about why Nevada will not, under any circumstances, accept a repository. Loux also discusses the safety issues and health risks associated with a nuclear repository. watch video email video Transcript Mary O'Driscoll: Welcome to OnPoint. I'm Mary O'Driscoll. Our guest today is Bob Loux, director of the Nevada Nuclear Waste Projects Office. Welcome to the show Bob. Bob Loux: Thank you Mary. It's good to be here. Mary O'Driscoll: Good. You represent the state of Nevada in the debate over the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository, which of course the state of Nevada opposes and has opposed for many years. A lot of people would like to see this 20 year long debate though, they'd like to see it, this fight, just kind of get over with. They're looking at, Congress is already designated Yucca Mountain as the site where repository is going to be. DOE has been studying the site for years and people are saying, you know, enough already. Nevada's opposition, you're throwing up legal roadblocks, funding roadblocks, regulatory roadblocks. It's keeping the nuclear industry from being able to build new nuclear power plants because they need a place to put the waste before they can build the plants. How do you respond to this kind of thing? Bob Loux: Well, I would respond by saying that I don't think Nevada is doing anything any other state wouldn't be doing in a similar situation. The real fundamental problem with the whole program is that you have a bad site. It won't do what they want it to. It will leak. It will contaminate Nevada's groundwater, you couple that with an agency that's virtually incompetent. The Department of Energy has never built a facility that's contained radioactive materials anywhere in the country. According to GAO they own and operate 127 facilities that handle these materials, 124 have completely failed and the other three have partially failed. So there's no confidence and no trust whatsoever in DOE. And the fact that they're promoting a scientifically defective site only adds to that skepticism. Mary O'Driscoll: Well, how can it be scientifically deceptive if they've been studying it for 20 years? How long does it take for them to determine whether the site is good or bad? I mean this has been a pretty long process. Bob Loux: Well, they certainly could have determined it in about 1992 when they first discovered that water moves through it much faster than they thought. And previous statements by DOE said if water moves that fast at a site, we don't have a site. Since then it has been more or less a case of momentum. It's not about whether the site meets scientific standards; it's about how we can maybe engineer it to work. So it's clearly past the threshold of setting safety standards and finding the site that meets that. We're now saying, well, this is the site, and we're going to alter any health and safety standard we need to to get this thing on. The idea from the Department of Energy is that all things nuclear, and nuclear waste included, is totally, inherently safe, so all of these health and safety regulations, in their mind, are not needed. They're an obstruction, in their mind. But in this country we developed health and safety regulations to protect a certain level of public health, and Yucca Mountain won't fit that need. Mary O'Driscoll: OK. At a hearing shortly before the August recess, a Senate hearing, Senator Larry Craig of Idaho, said, from the dais, told you flat out that you have no credibility before the committee because you represent the state of Nevada that just flat out opposes the repository. And your job is to kill the repository period. How do you respond to that? And what does that tell you about the state of the debate on Yucca Mountain? Bob Loux: Well, it tells me that it's still very much contentious, as we all know. If I was the only one in the room getting paid to have a specific view about Yucca Mountain, and we're going to eliminate everyone else who had the same, I mean the hearing wouldn't, everybody in that room is paid to have a specific agenda. And I don't think promoting Yucca Mountain is any different than opposing it. And so I would question the credibility, according to Mr. Craig's standard, of everybody else who's in there. The problem is that it really shows his lack of understanding and his lack of diplomacy to sort of lash out at someone like myself and single me out after he asked me the question, which I responded to. So I would match my credibility against Senator Craig's any day of the week. Mary O'Driscoll: OK. DOE and Senator Domenici are working on legislation, coming back to work this month and working on legislation that will jumpstart the Yucca Mountain process, to speed it up, to try to get things moving, streamline the process. DOE says it needs this legislation in order to get the repository licensed. What's Nevada's view of the legislation? Bob Loux: Well, in our view there's nothing in the legislation that in fact promotes or helps DOE file a high-quality license application with the NRC. DOE seems to believe the problems with the program are all external to them. For example, they want to be able to have the Secretary of Energy exempt Yucca Mountain shipments from any transportation regulation by anybody, Federal Government or the states. So clearly, that tells you a lot about the project. If it requires these extraordinary measures, wiping off transportation regulations, DOE being allowed to deposit hundreds of millions of pounds of heavy metals that would never be allowed to be used in land disposal anywhere else, if that's what it takes to get Yucca Mountain going, then that tells you everything you need to know about the poor quality of the site and the incompetency of department. The fact is that all these problems are occurring of the department's own making. A case in point, their failure to actually correctly certify their record before the NRC is a prerequisite to filing a license application. And they screwed that up, not the state of Nevada, not the NRC or anybody else. So very little in this bill does anything for getting a high-quality license application submitted to the NRC. In fact, nothing does. Mary O'Driscoll: OK. Well, a lot of people say that this is just a NIMBY situation. That Nevada otherwise enjoys the federal largess. You're getting the money. You're getting the jobs at the site and that you're enjoying that, but yet you're still fighting the repository itself. What is your response to that? Bob Loux: Well, first of all, there's not any jobs at the site that actually mean anything to Clark County economy where Yucca Mountain, Las Vegas is located, adjacent to Yucca Mountain. If creating 3000 to 5,000 new jobs a month, so the idea that we have 200 or 300 people or even a thousand people working out there is not even a blip on the screen. So it's not like there's some big economic benefit. And then the money we get is to oversee and evaluate the program and tell people our view of it, and that's what the law requires and that's what we perform under, so none of these things are "benefits" per se. Nevada would love to see this project go away. I'm sure any other state in the same position would like it to go away and not be in their state as well. They're frustrated with, I think, our effectiveness in opposing this site, our ability to challenge them on health and safety issues, and they're very upset with that. And I can understand the frustrations of people like Senator Craig, who, once again, believes all nuclear things are safe. We really don't need any health and safety regulations. Just go build it. Ignore NEPA and the environmental laws, none of that stuff matters. And when you raise those issues about, wait a second, we have laws. Well, then we're obstructionists. We're just trying to get the government to follow the law. Mary O'Driscoll: OK. Now there's a defense angle to this as well, because the site itself is in a little tiny corner of the Nevada test site and it involves the Nellis base, the big Air Force training range that they have out there. And that there has been some concern that building Yucca Mountain and taking the land away would affect training there at Nellis. But that now DOE says it's a very small portion. We're only going to affect four cubic miles, I guess, four miles of air space. It's going to be a very small piece. What is actually the concern out there? Bob Loux: Well, when we talked to the Air Force people at the Nellis Air Force Range, they believe restricting air access to the gunnery range, by restricting the airspace over Yucca Mountain, would be very inhibiting to their mission. The Secretary of Air Force has written previously to the Congress and saying anything that interferes in any way with our mission, they would be opposed to. So it's not about the number of acreage, what it is about is right over Yucca Mountain has been the entrance and the exit for all these fighter jets, with live ordinance, coming in and out of this gunnery range. And also the Air Force tells us that the new fighters coming online, the F-22s, require even more space. And that the southern southwestern corner of the gunnery range, which is where we're talking about, where Yucca Mountain is, is one of the critical components of areas that they need to have to be able to do their training. So I think there's a conflict coming. The Air Force tells us there is no understanding or agreement with DOE. They will not sign off on any flight restrictions over that area, like a no-fly zone. In contrary to the remarks by the DOE people, there is not in agreement and I don't think there will be. Mary O'Driscoll: OK. Now this all kind of ignores the crucial fact about transportation of waste to the site. I guess it's supposed to be rail, yet there's no spur that actually gets to the site itself, and this is a bone of contention with the state of Nevada as well. What can you tell me about that? Bob Loux: Well, first of all, we're in litigation with them over the selection of the so-called Caliente route, which is a 319 mile proposed route right through the heart of central Nevada to get waste to Yucca Mountain from the eastern side of the state. Now we repeatedly told them this is probably the most difficult, the most expensive route they could pick. They even now agree that the route, the cost of this would be over $2 billion. There are several big mountain ranges to go over. And we don't think that an adequate comparison has been done to other, more reasonable alternatives for getting waste to Yucca Mountain, assuming that it even happens. So we're concerned with the selection of the Caliente route. We think that it is inappropriate and, moreover, we believe that the wrong agency is in charge. Under federal law this EIS and this selection of these routes should be done by the Surface Transportation Board that has exclusive jurisdiction over new rail construction in this country and not DOE. Since the Nuclear Waste Policy Act says that the transportation regulations and authorities of any other entities, including the Surface Transportation Board or even the state of Nevada shall not be compromised by this program. DOE will follow the rules. Yet they're turning around, in this legislation, and saying we should be exempt from all transportation regulations. We should be self-governing. And if DOE had a good track record in handling these materials, once again, people might be willing to believe that. But the fact that they don't only reinforces more that we need the regulations on the books. Mary O'Driscoll: Is there any circumstance under which the state of Nevada would accept a repository within its borders? Bob Loux: No, in a word. Mary O'Driscoll: Even if it can be proven safe? Bob Loux: No, in a word. We believe it would be very harmful to our gaming economy. There are lots of studies out there by the gaming industry, as well by the state, that indicates that even if it was operating exactly as planned with no leaks, no accidents, perfectly, that we'd still see between a ten and twenty percent drop-off in gaming because people just don't want to visit places where they have these ongoing nuclear activities, in particular nuclear waste. Mary O'Driscoll: Well, if you're talking about nuclear activities doesn't that mean the Nevada test site would be a problem? Bob Loux: Well, because those activities are no longer going on and I think there's a vast difference sort of between some of the other activities going on out there and some proposed for Yucca Mountain. Some of it has been in place for so long that it's almost been institutionalized. Yet a new nuclear facility in Nevada, at least according to most of the work we've done and the industry has done, would be very harmful to tourism, gaming, business relocation, retirement, all of those things. In fact, Clark County itself, the county adjacent to Yucca Mountain, sees a $3 billion a year negative impact to their economy simply from Yucca Mountain going forward. Mary O'Driscoll: OK. We'll have to end on that note. I'd like to thank Bob Loux of the Nevada Nuclear Waste Projects Office for joining us today, and thank you for joining us. I'm Mary O'Driscoll. See you next time on OnPoint. [End of Audio] © 1996-2007 E&E Publishing, LLC Privacy Policy Site Map ***************************************************************** 27 The American: A Second Crisis in Radioactive Waste By Joseph DiCamillo Friday, August 17, 2007 Filed under: Government & Politics, Science & Technology The way things are going, low-level nuclear waste could end up in everyone’s backyard. The public has long been familiar with the problem of high level radioactive waste disposal at Yucca Mountain. In the next 12 months, the nation will face a second crisis, of disposal of low level waste. Low level waste is not the spent fuel itself, but rather many objects that have absorbed radiation, such as pipes, tools, resins, filters, medical tools, protective clothing, and whole sections from decommissioned nuclear power plants. The scheduled closing of the disposal facility in Barnwell, South Carolina in June 2008 will leave the majority of reactors unable to dispose of certain low-level waste. Hospitals, universities and research facilities will also be affected. For the lowest-level radioactive waste there will be only one privately owned disposal site available for the majority of the waste generated, in Clive, Utah. The answer to this challenge is in part additional disposal sites—a difficult proposition since most states don’t want to allow new sites to be built within their borders. We also must take steps to assure that existing sites are used optimally. The best technology should be encouraged, including volume reduction, waste stabilization and best disposal site management techniques to conserve space. Until now, our system has silently but effectively dealt with the disposal of low-level nuclear waste. However the GAO reports that this system no longer meets the disposal requirement for the United States. The consequences may harm the $15 billion per year commercial nuclear power industry, which is on the verge of a renaissance. As general counsel of Studsvik, a leading company involved in using modern technology to efficiently and safely dispose of low-level waste, it is clear to me that the government must act now. After 2008, hospitals, universities, and commercial nuclear power stations will need to store the most dangerous classes of low-level waste indefinitely, on-site, and closer to the public. In the 1980s, Congress enacted a program permitting formation of multi-state compacts to encourage creation of more low-level waste disposal sites. Commercial nuclear generators and state governments spent over $800 million attempting to open new sites. States have resisted creating such facilities within their borders. As a result of this failure and the huge price of entry (licensing, public opposition, etc.), no new low-level waste disposal sites have opened in almost 20 years. Only three active, designated disposal sites exist with one new site in Texas in the permitting processes. One, in Richland, Washington, only accepts waste from 11 Northwestern and Rocky Mountain states (notably, only one reactor is in operation in these states). The second, in Barnwell, South Carolina, has for years been open to disposal of low-level waste, but starting in June 2008, the site will accept waste from only three states (containing just 12 of America’s 104 operational reactors). A bill to keep Barnwell more accessible failed when the South Carolina legislature declined to act. While the federal government seems concerned, it has not made clear how it will respond under its limited emergency powers to keep the site open for out-of-compact waste. The third site, a privately-owned facility in Clive, Utah, after 2008 will be the last remaining one to accept commercially-generated low-level waste from across the nation. However, in March, Utah’s governor signed an agreement with the owner of the site capping the volume of the lowest class of low-level waste (Class A) that Clive will accept, and forbidding delivery of higher activity “Class B” and “Class C” waste. It is unlikely the governor will revisit his decision. Taken together, the South Carolina and Utah actions mean that after 2008, nuclear generators in 36 states will have access to no permanent disposal facilities for Class B and C waste. As a result, hospitals, universities, and commercial nuclear power will need to store the most dangerous classes of low-level waste indefinitely, on-site, and closer to the public. Worse yet, guarding these myriad small storage sites from terror attacks is more difficult than securing a few designated disposal facilities. Further, the nation is on the verge of markedly increasing the volume of low-level waste it generates. This increase is largely due to the growing number of older reactors now going off-line, requiring dismantling of the reactor and decommissioning of the site. At the same time, the nation is considering building approximately 20 new nuclear power reactors, the first application for construction of a new reactor having been recently submitted to NRC. We must face this looming second crisis in nuclear waste disposal because nuclear energy itself is a direct and positive answer to our national goal of energy independence. It is also a key component in meeting expected demands for electricity. Without support for and expansion of nuclear energy, neither of these challenges can be achieved. The Administration and Congress have recognized the key role that nuclear power will play in our future. Nuclear energy has a proven safe record in electricity generation and the technology is very inexpensive to operate compared to fossil fuels. As an example, South Carolina residents enjoy very low electricity rates in large part due to the significant portion of electricity generated by nuclear energy in that state. Of no less importance is the fact that nuclear energy does not generate any greenhouse gases to create electricity. In the May 2005 edition of Technology Review, noted environmentalist Stewart Brand wrote: “The only technology ready to fill the gap and stop the carbon dioxide loading of the atmosphere is nuclear power.” Since it is clear that the 20 year old system of state-compacts has not led to sufficient waste disposal, national, state and local governments must mobilize to help meet these challenges. Sound policy can address the looming crisis and provide the framework for the expansion of nuclear energy to safely and economically meet our Nation’s energy demands. Given these stakes, Congress, the Department of Energy, and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission must address this lack of disposal capacity. There are essentially three options. First, the federal government could again try to encourage states to accept the waste. But this is unlikely to yield dividends, given that states have not welcomed radioactive waste from other states. Second, the government could open up federally-owned disposal sites to commercially-generated low-level waste. This probably will not happen, because the federal government currently uses the three state sites to dispose of its own low-level waste. A third option—the most environmentally-conscientious one—is for the government to promote techniques that stabilize and minimize the volume of low-level waste prior to disposal. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission in 1981 issued a policy calling for increased attention to this option, but the Commission has done little to implement it. Those technologies can lengthen the life of disposal sites without the need for expansion as well as substantially reducing the possibility of contamination outside of disposal site boundaries. An effective market-based option available to the federal government is to end the practice, followed by some disposal sites and state governments, of price discrimination. This practice results in the disposal facilities charging higher rates and taxes for stabilized and compacted waste than for the same volume of untreated waste. As a result, the United States fails to use optimally our scarce disposal capacity. There is no more time to wait. The federal government must do everything possible to encourage or require the few existing disposal sites to stabilize and reduce the volume of low-level waste. And direct federal intervention is necessary to ensure that after June 2008, 28 states (housing 91 of the 104 reactors in the U.S.) can deposit their “Class B and C” waste in a designated disposal site, rather than leaving it scattered at power plants, universities, and hospitals. After the actions in Utah and South Carolina, the clock is ticking. Joseph DiCamillo is the general counsel of Studsvik, Inc., a subsidiary of a Swedish firm providing nuclear technology and radiological services to the nuclear industry around the world. ***************************************************************** 28 Daily News Journal: County wants dump moratorium extended Murfreesboro and Rutherford County, Tennessee news from The By SCOTT BRODEN sbroden@dnj.com County leaders want the moratorium preventing radioactive dumping at the local landfill to be extended beyond the state-approved Sept. 4 date. All 21 county commissioners voted for this resolution Thursday night, which stated they want the state to ensure that radioactive dumping will be "thoroughly reviewed, analyzed and explained to the residents of the county, city and state." Many residents and county leaders have been upset since learning a few months ago that Middle Point Landfill in the Walter Hill community to the north of Murfreesboro has been accepting low-levels of radioactive waste from other states. The commission's moratorium request calls for the state to review its Bulk Survey for Release (BSFR) dumping regulations and if necessary, modify them to "ensure the long-term health of both persons and the waters and lands of the state ... "In the absence of clear and indisputable scientific evidence that the BSFR program, with or without modification, does not endanger public health, now or in the future, the placement of such waste in the Middle Point Landfill should permanently cease," the commission resolution states. A copy of the motion will be sent to La Vergne, Eagleville and Smyrna governments, and leaders representing these cities are encouraged to vote on similar resolutions. The commission's statement will be sent to Gov. Phil Bredesen, Commissioner of the Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation, the Solid Waste Disposal Control Board, the Municipal Solid Waste Advisory Committee, the county delegation in the Tennessee General Assembly, Murfreesboro Mayor Tommy Bragg and Allied Waste Services, the owner of Middle Point Landfill. — Scott Broden, (615) 278-5158 The spinless cockroaches must be worried about being re-elected. Now is the time to press for closing the landfill, and KEEPING OUT OF COUNTY TRASH, OUT OF THE COUNTY!!!! Posted: Fri Aug 17, 2007 9:00 am ====================================================================== Surely Bredesen will back this measure. It was HIS idea on first campaign for governor to send all of Nashville's trash to Middle Point. The DNJ needs to contact Kent Coleman (district rep) and Rowland and Mayor Bragg. Why have these individuals not spoken up in a one on one article in DNJ to obtain their viewpoint? They have the vote (along with commission). We have no vote. Posted: Fri Aug 17, 2007 6:51 am ====================================================================== This is good news. But we must remind the Commissioners the fight isn't over until it is over. Since the majority of politicians and appointees have no back bone, there will be the need to continue to pressure the members. Here is the web page to all 21 commissioners www.rutherfordcountytn.gov/commission.htm Posted: Fri Aug 17, 2007 5:08 am Copyright ©2007 The Daily News Journal. All rights reserved. Users of this site agree to the Terms of Service and Privacy Policy/Your California Privacy Rights. (Terms updated March 2007) ***************************************************************** 29 Daily News Journal: Committee hears experts about radioactive dumping Murfreesboro and Rutherford County, Tennessee news from The By TURNER HUTCHENS trhutchens@dnj.com — Turner Hutchens, (615) 278-5161 When it comes to dumping of low-level radioactive materials in Tennessee landfills, the state and industry need to include the public more in the process. That was the gernal opinion expressed by members of the committee charged with making recommendations on the Bulk Survey For Release program. Most of a four-and-a-half hour meeting of the Tennessee Municipal Solid Waste Advisory Committee Thursday in Nashville was used to allow experts to explain various aspects of the BSFR program. Under that program, extremely low-level radioactive waste is disposed by private industry at Middle Point Landfill and four other Tennessee landfills. Committee member Jack Barkenbus said it was important to understand the science of the BSFR program, but that it is also important to recognize the public's feelings about the program. "It's really the public out there that has to be comfortable with it," Barkenbus said. The state Legislature has placed a moratorium on the program until after Labor Day and charged the committee with making a recommendation on the program. Alan Leiserson, a lawyer with the Tennessee Department of Environment, told the committee a recommendation from TDEC would be forthcoming for the committee's next meeting Monday. Committee member J. H. Graham said that recommendation should include ways to better inform both the public and local government officials as to the existence and nature of the program in the future. "It's important the public be informed," he said. Experts maintained that the levels of radioactive material going into the landfill don't pose a danger to the public. Mark McHugh, who helped design the protocol for the BSFR program, said the waste being accepted is less radioactive than the dirt they are covering it with by a factor of 100. Lisa Stetar, an independent contractor hired by the state to answer the committee's questions on the program, said that in just a couple weeks she didn't have time to answer all of the questions, which included the effectiveness of the BSFR process and the relative levels of radiation in the landfills used for the program. She did say that the state should challenge the confidential nature of many of the industry documents relating to the BSFR program. Stetar said that while the matter deserved more study, she felt confident that the BSFR program was sound overall. She was not concerned about the level of radioactivity from the BSFR materials, she said. Rutherford County Mayor Ernest Burgess told the committee he had checked every available document relating to the Middle Point Landfill, and there had never been any recorded mention of the BSFR program to county officials — including during the approval process of the landfill's expansion last year. There were at times the mention of "special waste," he said. That is a category that includes about 150 different types of waste, including BSFR waste. Tennessee Division of Solid Waste Director Mike Apple, who also sits on the committee, said there was no legal requirement that local officials be told, only that procedures be followed. Jimmy Fleming of Allied Waste, which operates the landfill, told the committee that to his knowledge, there have been no violations of the BSFR protocol at the landfill. Fleming said BSFR waste is mixed with municipal waste and covered daily. Bob Bachus of Geosyntech Consultants told the committee about the overall soundness of the liner at the bottom of the landfill. The Middle Point Landfill uses a 7-foot clay liner in addition to a polymer liner, while other landfills across the country that receive radioactive waste with much higher rating than BSFR waste do not have polymer lining, he said. Bachus also talked about a puncture to the polymer lining a few years ago during drilling that did not go through the clay lining. He said the puncture was patched with more than 10 feet of a special concrete mix. Post a Comment View All Comments I hope everyone is starting to come to the realization that the landfil problems are not going away. The landfil owners have been protected by the State all along. The committe was set up to be the only ones the landfils have to answere to. They can dump what ever they feel falls within their (the landfils) guidelines. And as long as they have not broken their guidlines the committee ( scape goat) will side on the side of lanfil owners. The problem is there are no guidlines. They all fly by the seat of their paints. What a valent effort by Mr. Burgess. He knows as well as all county commisioners there is nothing they can do. If they had read the laws that govern the landfils like they should have done they could have voted no to the exspansion. Many of them say they did not know. If you didn't know don't you think you should have asked questions. You could have simply represented your constentuence and voted no. Its not like they didn't have access to all the petitions they were signed and given to them. Thanks guys. Job not well done. Posted: Fri Aug 17, 2007 8:36 am ====================================================================== This article does not talk about resolution. Just says 'keep public informed' over and over. Nothing was worked out last night. No, the public was NOT INFORMED. The dumping from Univ of Ca took place in the year 2005. We found out in mid-2007. Go to google and look up Thorium - this lethal substance is in the soil (by our water) at Middle Point. Posted: Fri Aug 17, 2007 6:46 am ====================================================================== Want to contact the Tennessee Municipal Solid Waste Advisory Committee and voice your opinion? Here is their web page listing all the members. www.state.tn.us/environment/boards/mswac.shtml For information regarding this board or a board member contact ask.tdec@state.tn.com Posted: Fri Aug 17, 2007 5:04 am Originally published August 17, 2007 Print this article Email this MORE COVERAGE 8.17.07 County wants dump moratorium extended 8.15.07 TDEC meeting on dumping Thursday 8.15.07 County to consider moratorium extension 8.12.07 Landfill matches population growth 8.9.07 CUD water tests come back OK Radioactive waste dumped at Middle Point Landfill Copyright ©2007 The Daily News Journal. All rights reserved. Users of this site agree to the Terms of Service and Privacy Policy/Your California Privacy Rights. (Terms updated March 2007) ***************************************************************** 30 Tennessean: State urged to include public in dump decisions - Nashville, Tennessee - Friday, 08/17/07 - Tennessean.com Committee hears from experts about radioactive items in landfill By TURNER HUTCHENS Gannett Tennessee When it comes to dumping of low-level radioactive materials in Tennessee landfills, the state and industry need to do more to include the public in the decision-making process. That was the general opinion expressed by members of the committee charged with making recommendations on the Bulk Survey For Release program. Most of a 4˝-hour meeting of the Tennessee Municipal Solid Waste Advisory Committee Thursday in Nashville was used to allow experts to explain various aspects of the program. Under that program, extremely low-level radioactive waste is disposed of by private industry at Middle Point Landfill and four other Tennessee landfills. Committee member Jack Barkenbus said it was important to understand the science of the Bulk Survey For Release program, but that it is also important to recognize the public's feelings about the program. Moratorium on "It's really the public out there that has to be comfortable with it," Barkenbus said. The General Assembly has placed a moratorium on the program until after Labor Day and charged the committee with making a recommendation on the program. Alan Leiserson, a lawyer with the Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation, told the committee a recommendation from the department would be forthcoming for the committee's next meeting Monday. Experts see no danger Committee member J.H. Graham said that recommendation should include ways to better inform both the public and local government officials as to the existence and nature of the program in the future. "It's important the public be informed," he said. Experts maintained that the levels of radioactive material going into the landfill don't pose a danger to the public. Mark McHugh, who helped design the protocol for the Bulk Survey For Release program, said the waste being accepted is less radioactive than the dirt they are covering it with by a factor of 100. Confidentiality troubling Lisa Stetar, an independent contractor hired by the state to answer the committee's questions on the program, said that she was given just a couple of weeks to examine the program, and she didn't have time to answer all of the questions, which involved the effectiveness of the process and the relative levels of radiation in the landfills. She did say that the state should challenge the confidential nature of many of the industry documents relating to the Bulk Survey For Release program. Stetar said that while the matter deserved more study, she felt confident that the program was sound overall. Tennessean.com and its related sites are pleased to be able to offer its users the opportunity to make comments and hold conversations online. However, the interactive nature of the Internet makes it impracticable for our staff to monitor each and every posting. Since Tennessean.com does not control user submitted statements, we cannot promise that readers will not occasionally find offensive or inaccurate comments posted on our Web site. In addition, we remind anyone interested in making an online comment that responsibility for statements posted lies with the person submitting the comment, not Tennessean.com or its related sites. All comments posted should comply with the Tennessean.com's terms of service Post a Comment View All Comments All that occurred at this meeting was the decision 'let's keep the public informed.' Nothing more or less. Thorium (a lethal substance) was dumped into the Middle Point landfill in Ruth. County in 2005 from the Univ of Ca. These nuclear materials traveled across the country to be dumped into our groundwater and soil. This 'secret pact' took place unbenownst to Murfreesboro residents.....only in mid 2007 was the crime made known to all citizens. A 32 year old woman living across from Middle Point was just diagnosed this summer with cancer. Can a cancer study be handled within a 20 mile radius of Middle Point? Why was the 20 year extension signed in 2007 to continue receiving Nashville's trash? Nancy Allen and VP of BFI sealed the original agreement in 1995. Bredesen (first campaign/governor) pushed and pushed and the reality can forth to bring every scrap of trash from a city of half a million to our county. Rutherford has become the biggest dump in the state and GROWING. There are over 40 dump trucks that travel our streets daily in a hazardous way. Our family saw a dump truck TURNED over on a side street last week. The driver was unharmed but the debris was unsightly. Why can Nashville not have their own dump????? For two more decades we will be the recipent of every piece of trash from Davidson County. What a tragedy! The local politicians need to SPEAK OUT in Rutherford County! Yet, they have little or no opinion. Bart Gordon does not return calls. Kent Coleman (rep for Middle Point district) needs to have a SAY in this matter pro or con. Donna Rowland needs a voice.....Mayor Bragg is non-committal! Every player has been spineless. We elected you to REPRESENT us, and this landfill is a HUGE, HUGE issue. So many questions and so few answers.... Posted: Fri Aug 17, 2007 6:20 am This don't sound like a good idea. What other options are there? Don't anyone write a complete story anymore? Posted: Fri Aug 17, 2007 1:53 am Copyright © 2007, tennessean.com. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 31 AFP: Indian uranium deal as good as NPT: Australia - Fri Aug 17, 4:04 AM ET SYDNEY (AFP) - Prime Minister John Howard on Friday defended Australia's landmark deal to sell uranium to nuclear power India, saying its safeguards were as strong as the international anti-proliferation treaty. The in-principle deal reached Thursday has been widely criticised, as India has not signed the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and has nuclear weapons. India is involved in a long-running nuclear stand-off with neighbouring rival Pakistan, leading to fears the uranium could be used to make bombs. With an election a few months away, Australia's opposition Labor party has vowed to scrap the deal if it is elected to government. But Howard's government insisted it was both environmentally friendly and likely to bring India under more supervision by the UN's International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). Safeguards in the deal would have the same effect as signing the NPT, which is meant to limit the spread of nuclear weapons, Howard said. "I can assure your listeners that the net effect of our safeguards agreement will be the same," Howard told national radio. "It's a different approach and India has not signed the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. But we believe that these arrangements will deliver effectively the same outcome." There would be a bilateral safeguards agreement, and India would have to enter a similar agreement with the IAEA, Howard said. "And the sort of conditions that are going to be imposed on India are the same as the conditions that are being imposed on countries like China and Russia and I think also France," Howard said. "We've been selling uranium to France for many, many years," Howard said. The NPT permits five countries, including China, Russia and France, to hold nuclear weapons. Howard said he would be writing to his Indian counterpart Manmohan Singh to stress the conditions. Foreign Minister Alexander Downer said the deal was environmentally friendly, as India was expected to see enormous growth in energy demand in the next few years. It would also mean some of India's power plants would now come under UN supervision, he said, and would build up Australia's relationship with the emerging regional economic powerhouse. Downer said India did not have a "record of proliferation", adding it was unrealistic to expect New Delhi to sign the non-proliferation treaty. "I would rather they did sign the treaty but you have to be realistic about this, if you read the treaty you can see why they won't sign it, the treaty says there shall only be five nuclear weapons states," he said. India would have to abandon its nuclear arsenal first to sign it, he said. Australia is a major producer of uranium, with some of the world's largest known deposits in South Australia state. Copyright © 2007 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 32 Las Cruces Sun-News: Waste drum erroneously placed in WIPP being removed By The Associated Press Article Launched: 08/17/2007 03:35:06 PM MDT By The Associated Press CARLSBAD, N.M. — The U.S. Department of Energy plans to remove a drum of nuclear waste from its repository near Carlsbad this weekend because the barrel includes liquid — which it's not allowed to bury at the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant. State Environment Secretary Ron Curry on Aug. 3 ordered the removal of the drum, sent to WIPP on June 27 from the Idaho National Laboratory. The DOE informed the department of the error July 17. The Energy Department has said the drum will be sent back to the Idaho lab, which shipped it after a mistake in reading its label. The drum was placed in one of WIPP's underground rooms, which store such plutonium-contaminated waste as clothing, tools and other debris. In a notice filed with the state last month, the DOE's field office said the drum would have no impact on health or the environment, and that the only item prohibited under a state permit is three-fourths of a cup of liquid that is not ignitable, reactive or corrosive. Curry, however, ordered it removed. "We have a zero tolerance policy for mistakes like these and we expect DOE officials, including those in Idaho, to quickly correct this pattern of error," he said. WIPP's permit with the Environment Department prohibits the disposal of certain items, including liquids. Curry said Friday he was pleased that WIPP was acting quickly to remove the prohibited drum. "WIPPs permit is a promise to New Mexicans that its mission will remain narrowly focused on certain well-defined wastes that can be properly characterized and disposed of safely," he said. "We need to ensure that DOEs promises are kept now and in the future." Once the container is shipped out, the department will evaluate further action, including assessing penalties on DOE. WIPP, which opened in March 1999, buries nuclear waste from the nation's defense work in vast underground rooms excavated in ancient salt beds. Copyright © 2006 Las Cruces Sun-News, a MediaNews Group Newspaper. ***************************************************************** 33 Decatur Daily: Browns Ferry sends radioactive canister to Valley Recycling FRIDAY, AUGUST 17, 2007 By Eric Fleischauer eric@decaturdaily.com · 340-2435 A small canister of radioactive material from Browns Ferry set off truck-monitor alarms at Tennessee Valley Recycling on Tuesday. The 4-ounce can contained pipe soldering compound that had been contaminated by radioactive surface contact. Browns Ferry spokesman Jason Huffine said the radiation level was extremely low and posed no health threat. "It was mistakenly shipped with recycled material that we routinely send to Tennessee Valley Recycling," Huffine said. "It was with scrap metal that we had sent to the recycling facility." After the alarm went off, Tennessee Valley Recycling contacted TVA, which quarantined the can and confirmed that the scrap contained no other radioactive material. Huffine said TVA voluntarily notified the state Wednesday morning, even though the radiation level was below the amount that requires state notification. Tennessee Valley Recycling notified TVA of the contamination at 4:30 p.m. on Tuesday. "This is a rare occurrence," Huffine said. "We have a working relationship with Tennessee Valley Recycling. Their alarms going off showed a process that worked." TVA is investigating how the can left the plant. "We have systems in place to prevent things from leaving the radiation-controlled area. That's why we're investigating what took place," Huffine said. "We want to find out what took place, and to incorporate any procedures to make sure it doesn't take place again." Save $84.50 a year off our newsstand price: Subscribe today for only 38 cents a day! Leave feedback on this or another story. Email This Page ====================================================================== ====================================================================== THE DECATUR DAILY 201 1st Ave. SE P.O. Box 2213 Decatur, Ala. 35609 (256) 353-4612 webmaster@decaturdaily.com www.decaturdaily.com ***************************************************************** 34 The Inverness Courier: High nuclear ideals that crumbled Published: 17 August, 2007 ACROSS Scotland the bunting's blowing in the breeze. Street parties have been swinging along all week. There has been a mass release of helium-filled balloons. Children, their faces painted as tigers or butterflies, have been whooping in the sunshine. Why? Because it's somebody's Golden anniversary. Ah yes — this week saw the 50th anniversary of nuclear power in Scotland. The first nuclear chain reaction was achieved at the shiny new Dounreay Nuclear Establishment on 13th August, 1957. OK, so I was lying about the celebrations. I was lying about the sunshine too. There are few in Scotland who would, these days, celebrate the advent of nuclear power and fewer still who would celebrate Dounreay's part in it. A lot more would be out on the streets celebrating nuclear power's demise, if only they could be sure that Dounreay's closure was really the beginning of the end of nuclear energy in general. As readers of this column will probably have gathered by now, I'm not nuclear power's greatest fan. And I'm certainly no friend of the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority — UKAEA Ltd since its recent privatisation — or it's notorious Dounreay plant. This week's also seen the recovery of the 96th intensely radioactive particle from the beach at Sandside Bay, three kilometres west of Dounreay. I've lost count of exactly how many have been found on the public beach on the Dounreay part of the foreshore (to which the public is now denied access, thanks to the particle finds). Last week saw waste come back from, of all places, Peru. It had been sent there in the days when Dounreay's management were playing at being businessmen and drawing up contracts to supply all sorts of people with all sorts of stuff without much thought to the consequences. Thorium nitrate had been sent to Peru for use in gas mantles but wasn't used. Peru has no nuclear waste disposal facilities so staff from Dounreay have now had to go and get it back (nice work if you can get it) at a reported cost of Ł1.7 million. But there is another side to the story too. 1957 was a different era from 2007. It's obvious, but it's also too readily forgotten. World War II was fresh in people's memories. Millions of people had died. Soldiers had been massacred in the trenches, airmen had been shot out of the sky and sailors had drowned or burned to death following torpedo attacks. Towns and cities had been bombed. Industry had been devastated. In 1957 there was the opportunity to turn swords into ploughshares; to use the might of the fearsome weapons that had destroyed Hiroshima and Nagasaki in a way that would benefit, not destroy, mankind. Those who planned and developed Dounreay and those who supported its construction, were not evil schemers out to destroy the world, or even just the population of Caithness. On the contrary. They had the burning light of human advancement in their eyes and love of their fellow man in their hearts. That's what drove them. In its day, Dounreay was quite genuinely at the cutting edge of technology. Its scientists were making unprecedented advances in nuclear physics. Its engineers were achieving the apparently impossible. It's difficult for us to imagine, in our cynical, money-driven society, the celebrations there must have been on the Dounreay site 50 ago when that first chain reaction was confirmed. In the period after that, Dounreay and its workforce recorded success on success, achievement after achievement. They broke down all manner of scientific and technical barriers and opened up new frontiers. The experiment that was Dounreay ultimately failed. The costs were astronomical and the system was prone to major failures and lengthy shutdowns. In safety terms, the world moved on while Dounreay, stuck in its post-war bubble, did not. But this week we should remember the considerable achievements of those who strove to make the world a better place by providing energy that they genuinely believed would be clean, plentiful and too cheap to meter. All content copyright 2007 Scottish Provincial Press Ltd. ***************************************************************** 35 barrow in furness: Public will not see fall of four Calder towers Published on 17/08/2007 GOING...GOING...GONE! The demolition of Sellafield’s sister nuclear power station Chapel Cross in Annan SELLAFIELD says the fall of Calder Hall’s four 88-metre-high cooling towers will not be a live spectator event. The company says it cannot organise designated vantage points to watch the dramatic spectacle which will change the local skyline forever. Copeland council leader, Elaine Woodburn, told a meeting of the council’s nuclear working group that it was regrettable. “I think this is a real opportunity missed,” she said. Earlier this year an estimated 15,000 people turned out to see the demolition of the Chapelcross cooling towers at Sellafield’s sister nuclear power station in Annan, in Scotland. Mrs Woodburn said she was disappointed people in Copeland wouldn’t get the same opportunity. But Gill Marsden, stakeholder manager for Sellafield’s decommissioning group, said: “The infrastructure around Sellafield is totally different. Chapelcross had a four-and-a-half-mile stretch of road which gave a perfect view. We don’t have anything like that. “We can’t magic a spectator place where we could direct so many people to. “We have done a positive review with the Health and Safety Executive and Cumbria Constabulary, along with legal experts and it’s just not strategically possible. “Everybody will know when it’s happening, how it’s happening and the traffic management plans. “The demolition will be covered on television and will be shown live on sellafieldsites.com website. Our priority is public safety.” A date for the demolition has yet to be set. View this story and the latest newspaper in full digital reproduction, just like the printed copy at www.nwemail.co.uk/digitalcopy * Business Gazette * Hexham Courant * Cumbria Life * CN Research Make This Your Homepage EMAIL UPDATES * W3C HTML 4.01 * W3C CSS * Cynthia Tested ***************************************************************** 36 News & Star: No nuclear dump job losses pledges bidder Published on 17/08/2007 Future: The government is discussing whether to store high-level waste at Drigg By Susie Carter A MULTI-BILLION-POUND American company shortlisted to win a lucrative contract to run Drigg waste dump has vowed not to axe jobs in West Cumbria. Washington Group International, which is leading a consortium of three separate businesses, has been chosen as the preferred bidder for the deal, thought to be worth up to ÂŁ500m. It means British Nuclear Group could be soon be ousted from the role, with changes to both staff and management. But Martin Adeney, a spokesman for the Washington Group, said there are no job cuts on the cards. He said: “By and large, the workforce will stay the same. “This represents a major stepping up of clean-up work and so we expect there is going to be a lot of work at Drigg. “There will be a small management team made up from the different companies. They have the best international experience. “We will be staying close to the community. We expect links will continue, and even grow stronger. “We are delighted. It is a major step forward.” Mr Adeney confirmed that the government is holding separate talks to discuss whether to store high-level waste at Drigg. But despite having experience in that sector, Mr Adeney said Washington International has not even discussed that idea for West Cumbria. The Nuclear Decommission Authority chose UK Nuclear Waste Management Ltd, a consortium led by Washington International, as its preferred bidder yesterday. As well as Washington, the organisation also comprises experts from Studsvik, AREVA-NC and Serco. The move followed more than a year of bartering by three separate consortia. Washington had worked at Drigg between 1995 and 2004. It has also completed major nuclear waste projects across the globe. In 2006, the company had revenue of US $3.4 billion and a net income of US $80.8 million. News that Washington was selected as the preferred bidder was greeted positively by the nuclear workers’ union Prospect. National Secretary Mike Graham said: “This is welcome news. Prospect has experience of working with some of the partners within the consortium and believes the combined talents will bring a wealth of knowledge and expertise to the industry.” A spokesman from British Nuclear Group declined to comment. SCarter@cngroup.co.uk nw evening mail | cumberland news | times and star | whitehaven news ***************************************************************** 37 Buffalo News: West Valley cleanup project to reduce staff by about 50 people Home > Opinion > Columns > Douglas Turner Updated: 08/17/07 6:42 AM WASHINGTON — About 50 people will be trimmed from the largest federal aid project in Western New York — the West Valley nuclear cleanup program at Ashford — starting next week, The Buffalo News has learned. The project’s new contractor, West Valley Environmental Services Co., has offered “voluntary separation” to employees with the ultimate target of cutting 50 workers. The reductions are part of the contract between the new contractor and the U.S. Department of Energy, and will leave about 250 working at the sprawling site just south of Springville. If there are not enough voluntary separations by Tuesday’s deadline, then the new contractor will be impose “involuntary separations,” according to Sonja Allen, spokeswoman for West Valley Nuclear Services, the corporation that previously directed the cleanup. Since 1981, the federal government has spent more than $2 billion to remove spent nuclear fuel materials from a malfunctioning reprocessing plant operated there by W.R. Grace Inc. The key corporate partners of the new operator are Jacobs Engineering Group of Pasadena, Calif., an international firm dealing with energy and engineering interests, and Washington International Group of Boise, Idaho, which acquired part of Westinghouse, onetime owner of Western New York Fuel Services. The remaining work force will decontaminate and then raze the main processing center at West Valley. The work force peaked at about 1,200. The plant has been a mainstay of the southern Erie County and northern Cattaraugus County economies for years. dturner@buffnews.com © 2007 The Buffalo News. The information you receive online from The Buffalo News is protected by the copyright laws of the United States. The copyright laws prohibit any copying, redistributing, ***************************************************************** 38 Taipei Times: Potential nuclear waste sites to be revealed in list STAFF WRITER, WITH CNA Friday, Aug 17, 2007, Page 4 The government has decided to make public a list of proposed sites for storage of nuclear waste by the end of this year, a senior official said yesterday in Taitung. Minister of the Council for Economic Planning and Development Ho Mei-yueh (¦ó¬ü޵) made the remarks in a regular biannual meeting held with representatives of Orchid Island (ÄőŔ¬) residents. They were joined by academics and experts to discuss relocation of the radioactive waste storage site on the island that is operated by the state-run Taiwan Power Co. two decades Ho said that since the storage site on the island has been used for more than two decades, the government will launch a comprehensive safety check of the current nuclear waste stock, which amounts to around 90,000 barrels. Each barrel will be checked to make sure that the outer metal casing has not rusted and that the inner concrete seal has not loosened or degraded, Ho said, noting that the safety check process is scheduled to be completed by 2010. Response In response to the demand by Orchid Island residents to relocate the waste site, the minister emphasized that the government will make public a list of suggested sites by the end of the year. Local referendums will then be organized in each of the cities and counties where the proposed sites are located, adding that none of the sites will be chosen without the approval of the local residents. This story has been viewed 390 times. Copyright © 1999-2007 The Taipei Times. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 39 Tri-City Herald: Hanford documentary to be shown in Spokane Published Friday, August 17th, 2007 By the Herald staff SPOKANE -- Arid Lands, a documentary about Hanford and the people who live near the nuclear reservation, will be shown Sunday in Spokane. The documentary filmed in 2005 has yet to be shown in the Tri-Cities, but the two directors are planning a homecoming party here in September on a date to be announced, according to the film's website. The Tri-City residents they interviewed will be invited to participate in a question and answer session after the screening. The Spokane screenings will be at 1:30 and 6 p.m. at the New Magic Lantern Theatres, 25 W. Main St. Tickets are $15 at the door or $13 if purchased in advance at www.sidelongfilms.com. © 2007 Tri-City Herald, Associated Press & Other Wire Services ***************************************************************** 40 Tri-City Herald: Fire burns to the fence of Hanford's 200 West Area (w/ video) Aerial video of Wautoma Command Fire Published Thursday, August 16th, 2007 By Annette Cary, Herald staff writer Fire was burning across the Hanford Reach National Monument and the Hanford nuclear reservation Thursday night, but had been kept from any areas storing nuclear waste. The Wautoma Command Fire had burned across about 10,000 acres of grass and sagebrush, according to the Benton County Emergency Operations Center. The fire started near Highway 241 on nearby Wahtoma Road north of Sunnyside and had burned four miles east to the Arid Lands Ecology Reserve of the Hanford Reach National Monument by 3 p.m. Driven by winds of 40 to 45 miles per hour, it quickly spread across the monument and jumped Highway 240 to the nuclear reservation west of the 200 West Area. Firefighters were able to hold it at the fence of the 200 West Area, which has millions of gallons of high level radioactive and hazardous chemical waste stored in underground tanks. But it split into two fingers, one heading toward the reactors and waste burial sites along the Columbia River and the other heading toward the 200 East Area where more waste is held in underground tanks and the $12.2 billion vitrification plant is under construction. "None of the radiological facilities is in imminent danger," said Dave Brockman, manager of the Department of Energy Hanford Richland Operations Office, at 7 p.m. A Washington state Department of Health team also was on scene to check for radiological releases, but had found nothing that could indicate a risk to public health. The fire was burning aggressively on the Hanford Reach National Monument south of Highway 24 Thursday evening, which has more brush to fuel the flames and rough terrain with canyons where fighting the fire is difficult. Highway 240 was closed Thursday evening from Highway 24 to the north to Highway 225 to the south. In late afternoon, workers at the Hanford nuclear reservation were evacuated except for essential personnel, such as security guards. For more information, read Friday's Herald. © 2007 Tri-City Herald, Associated Press & Other Wire Services ***************************************************************** 41 Tri-City Herald: DOE works on high-level probe of radioactive spill at Hanford Published Friday, August 17th, 2007 ANNETTE CARY, HERALD STAFF WRITER Department of Energy officials in Washington, D.C., have launched an investigation into the late-July spill of radioactive waste in central Hanford. Hanford nuclear reservation employees were told Thursday that DOE's Office of Health, Safety and Security has started a Type A investigation. Such investigations are reserved for the most serious safety-related incidents. An estimated 50 to 100 gallons of mixed hazardous chemical and high-level radioactive waste was spilled in the early morning hours of July 27 in central Hanford. Workers were using a new pump to empty waste from a leak-prone single-shell tank when the pump clogged. To unclog the pump, workers reversed it. That evidently pushed waste up a water line that was used to deliver water to the pump, causing the leak. A health physicist with radiological detection equipment entered the area at 2:40 a.m. and detected elevated radiation readings. When a visual inspection was done at 9:45 a.m., workers saw waste had spilled on the ground. Seven workers were given medical evaluations after the spill but were not found to have been contaminated. The investigation will determine the cause and circumstances surrounding the spill from Tank S-102 and evaluate the effectiveness of management processes, said Shirley Olinger, acting manager of DOE's Hanford Office of River Protection, in a message to employees. It also will determine what actions are needed to prevent a recurrence, Olinger's message said, but it will not determine individual fault or harm or propose punishments. The review specifically will look at the potential health effects to workers who were in the vicinity of the spill. It also will look at emergency management plans and response to the event, work control processes for the pumping operation at the tank, and engineering design and modifications to the pumping equipment. Work to empty waste from Tank S-102 to a newer double-shell tank began in December 2004. Hanford workers have described the waste that is left in the tank as having the consistency of peanut butter. Hanford has had Type A investigations in the past, including an investigation in 2004 after a fatal fall from a ladder by a nongovernment contract worker who was removing a surplus office trailer. The investigation team for the tank spill will include one Hanford DOE representative and officials from DOE's Office of Health, Safety and Security and other DOE nuclear sites. An advance team is at Hanford this week and the investigation board will be at Hanford by Monday. The investigations typically take 30 days. CH2M Hill Hanford Group, the DOE contractor for the tank farms, also is investigating and the DOE investigation will add to the understanding of events, Olinger said. © 2007 Tri-City Herald, Associated Press & Other Wire Services ***************************************************************** 42 Tri-City Herald: Waste burning to resume at Umatilla Chemical Depot Published Friday, August 17th, 2007 JEANNINE KORANDA, HERALD OREGON BUREAU HERMISTON -- The Umatilla Chemical Depot can resume burning agent-contaminate waste in its incinerators, a state commission decided Thursday in Portland. The Oregon Environmental Quality Commission upheld a recommendation that the state allow the waste be destroyed in the high-temperature furnaces used to clean and destroy metal parts from chemical weapons stored at the Oregon site. Kelly Hodney, a senior hazardous waste specialists with Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, delivered the news to a citizens advisory commission Thursday night in Hermiston. By agreeing with the rec- ommendation, the environmental commission determined there was no major negative impact on human health or the environment if the waste was burned in existing furnaces. Hermiston had been destroying its secondary wastes as it was burning GB sarin-filled weapons. But in mid-April, a Multnomah County Circuit Court judge ordered the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality to reconsider whether burning mustard agent and agent-contaminated waste was the best option. The suit, brought by incinerator opponents, is the latest attempt to stop the Army from burning chemical weapons. It also pushes for secondary waste to be destroyed in a dunnage incinerator. The depot never built that incinerator and instead burned the secondary waste in the facility's other incinerators. The plant has started the process to resume destroying the waste, Don Barclay, depot site project manager told the Oregon Citizens Advisory Commission Chemical Demilitarization. When the facility started destroying GB-filled munitions in 2004, officials had hoped to have the sarin-contaminated waste destroyed by the time the depot was ready to begin destroying its stockpile of VX nerve agent, he said. Barclay said the waste could still be gone soon after or before the VX destruction effort starts this winter. © 2007 Tri-City Herald, Associated Press & Other Wire Services ***************************************************************** 43 Tri-City Herald: Hanford fire chars 72,000 acres (w/video & photos) Hanford Fire photos Aerial video of Wautoma Command Fire Wautoma Fire aerial video from Friday Dramatic video of Hanford blaze from DOE Published Friday, August 17th, 2007 By Annette Cary, Herald staff writer The fire on the Hanford Reach National Monument continued to burn Friday afternoon after blackening 72,000 acres in less than 24 hours. However, it was described by Benton County Emergency Services as "substantially controlled." A back burn was set along the Rattlesnake ridgeline to control the fire, but it continued to burn Friday afternoon in the rugged canyons in the center of the Arid Lands Ecology Reserve of the Hanford Reach National Monument. That included Snively Canyon, the site of an old homestead. Benton City is no longer threatened by flames, and Highway 240 has been reopened. Hanford employees who work north of the Wye Barricade did not report to work Friday as a precaution. Friday afternoon, command of the fire was changed from local control to a regional Incident Management Team to relieve commanders who had been at the fire for up to 24 hours. The HAMMER training center at Hanford was being used as the new operations center. The fire started about 12:30 p.m. Thursday about four miles west of the Hanford Reach National Monument on Wautoma Road, which is near Highway 241. It crossed onto the Hanford nuclear reservation Thursday afternoon and was driven by strong winds to the fence line of the 200 West Area, where 85 underground tanks hold millions of gallons of high-level radioactive waste. Firefighters contained the fire on the nuclear reservation Thursday night, limiting the damage to three wooden power poles. No release of radioactive materials has been detected. For more information, read Saturday's Herald. © 2007 Tri-City Herald, Associated Press & Other Wire Services ***************************************************************** 44 LocalNews8.com: Brush Fire Burning Near The INL Idaho Falls, Pocatello - A brush fire is burning southeast of the Idaho National Laboratory. The Eastern Idaho Interagency Fire Center says 1,417 acres have burned so far. It was started by lightning Friday afternoon. They're calling it the Moonshiner Fire. The fire is burning northward towards US 20 and is burning next to the where the Twin Butte Fire burned in July. INL and BLM fire crews are watching fire. They say some structures and cattle are threatened. The fire is about 30% contained. The Eastern Idaho Interagency Fire Center is working on several lightning caused fires on Friday night. All content © Copyright 2000 - 2007 WorldNow and KIFI. All Rights Reserved. ***************************************************************** NOTE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107 this material is distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit research and educational purposes only. For more information go to: *****************************************************************