China Urges Disarmament in Outer Space

China CRIENGLISH: "China Urges Disarmament in Outer Space
2005-6-30 22:23:25 CRIENGLISH.com
China calls for the prevention of an arms race in outer space at the Conference on Disarmament on Thursday.

China's ambassador on disarmament, Hu Xiaodi, said at the Conference in Geneva that recent developments concerning outer space are worrisome and more efforts are needed to prevent an arms race in outer space.

He stressed deployment of weapons in space can have serious consequences.

He urged for the disarmament conference to work out a plan and set up a special committee to oversee the work."

Reveal full report on Thorp nuclear spill

News & Star: "Reveal full report on Thorp spill – demands Greenpeace

Published on 30/06/2005

By Andrea Thompson

GREENPEACE campaigners are calling for a full disclosure of the investigation report into last year’s nuclear leak at Sellafield’s Thorp plant.

BNFL has published the 34-page report into how 83 cubic metres of highly-radioactive acid liquid leaked and lay undetected for months – but parts of the report, including the identity of the inquiry panel, are blacked out on the company’s web site.

Greenpeace has now issued a Freedom of Information request for the full disclosure of the reports.

Spokeswoman and former Cumbrian anti-nuclear activist, Jean McSorley, said: “I have asked the NDA [Nuclear Decommissioning Authority] why the full report wasn't available. The NDA told me the report was accepted in confidence from British Nuclear Group.”

Yesterday BNFL published the full Board of Inquiry report into the fractured pipe which caused the leak into the Feed Clarification Cell.

Although it happened inside a secure, stainless steel tank designed to withstand such leaks, the incident caused the flagship £1.8 billion reprocessing plant to be shut down and it is not yet known when it will re-open.

Barry Snelson, managing director at Sellafield, said: “The report is written in a no-nonsense style, to ensure that we learn real lessons from whatever has happened. We will address and resolve every issue raised.”

The BNFL report says: “The event caused no harm to any individuals and did not release any radioactivity to the environment. We have successfully accounted for all of the material on the floor of the cell and have been able to focus our attention on finalising the best repair option and working to implement the recommendations of the Board of Inquiry report.”

BNFL is confident it has the capability to return Thorp to service and the NDA is said to be supportive of this.

A team has been established to address the 18 recommendations in the rep"

Activists Appeal Decision To Leave Radioactive Waste at Sandia National Labs Landfill

ABQJOURNAL: Activists Appeal Decision To Leave Radioactive Waste at Sandia National Labs Landfill: "Activists Appeal Decision To Leave Radioactive Waste at Sandia National Labs Landfill


Associated Press
A group of activists has filed an appeal in the state Court of Appeals over an Environment Department decision to leave radioactive waste in a Sandia National Laboratories landfill.
Sue Dayton, director of Citizen Action, said the landfill is 'a dangerous dump where both radioactive and other hazardous wastes were haphazardly disposed of for a period of almost 30 years.''
Up to 250 drums' worth of 'transuranic waste'' lies in the landfill, members said, citing a report by a Sandia consultant. Such waste is usually sent to a radioactive waste disposal center, they say.
In May, State Environment Secretary Ron Curry ruled the waste is safe at the labs as long as the landfill is covered to keep water out.
Any dangerous chemicals that might leak from the landfill are being monitored.
That means 'strong actions will be taken to limit exposure to waste and to closely watch this site into the future so that it does not pose a health hazard,'' Curry said in a statement.
Sandia officials have said the amount of waste in the landfill is not enough to warrant a federal cleanup. but declined to comment on the appeal Monday.
"

Radioactive waste cleanup concluded at two N.J. Superfund sites

Waste News | Waste Management/Recycling/Landfill Headlines: "Radioactive waste cleanup concluded at two N.J. Superfund sites

June 29 -- The cleanup has been concluded at two New Jersey Superfund sites contaminated with radioactive material, and the federal government has determined that the area´s groundwater meets federal drinking water standards.

The Montclair/West Orange and Glen Ridge Radium sites in Essex County, N.J., were contaminated with radioactive waste suspected to have come from radium processing facilities that operated there in the early 1900s. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency added the sites to its National Priorities List in 1985. A contractor used some of the contaminated soil as fill or mixed it in with cement for sidewalks and foundations, the agency said.

The EPA excavated and disposed of the radium-contaminated soil and remediated the affected properties. The agency completed the excavation in December, removing and disposing of about 220,000 cubic yards of soil and debris and filling in the areas with clean soil.

The EPA performed extensive studies to determine whether groundwater at the sites was contaminated, and found that the groundwater meets drinking water standards for radiological contaminants and that radon levels in the groundwater are consistent with regional background levels."

Radioactive leak into Baltic Sea -

Radioactive leak into Baltic Sea - Breaking News - World - Breaking News: "Radioactive leak into Baltic Sea
June 30, 2005 - 5:24AM

Radioactive cesium has leaked into the Baltic Sea from storage tanks at a nuclear power plant in central Sweden, but poses no risk to the public or the environment, the state nuclear authority has said.

Even though cesium levels in the water are 10 times higher than normal, they are still well below what's allowed under Swedish law, the Swedish State Radiation Protection Institute said.

It was not clear exactly how much radioactive waste water had leaked from the tanks at the Forsmark nuclear plant, 75 kilometres north of Stockholm.

'We believe that storage tanks containing low- and medium-level radioactive waste have corroded and leaked into the drainage system, from where the water continues out into the Baltic Sea,' institute spokeswoman Anki Hagg said.

She said the institute had asked the plant management to take measures to stop further leaks.

Forsmark accounts for roughly one-sixth of Sweden's electricity production. The first of its three reactors was started in 1980.
AdvertisementAdvertisement

Sweden has 10 nuclear reactors providing 50 per cent of its electricity, but the government plans to phase them out over the coming decades.

© 2005 AAP"

Nuclear promises

The Keene Sentinel - SentinelSource.com - Online Edition of The Keene Sentinel | Nuclear promises: "
Nuclear promises

Sunday, June 26, 2005


When nuclear power came to the neighborhood a little more than three decades ago, folks were assured there’d be no problems.

For one thing, nuclear-generated electricity would be inexpensive — too cheap to meter, in the memorable phrase of Lewis Strauss, an early chairman of the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission (now the Nuclear Regulatory Commission).

Another early assurance was that the byproducts of nuclear power generation — the deadly spent fuel — would be taken away by the government and safely disposed of. That waste would be encapsulated in glass, or shot to the moon, or whatever. Anyway, the federal government had promised to take the spent fuel away. Eventually, a date was set for the handoff: January 31, 1998. That was the law, and that was a United States government guarantee, and no good American doubted the word of the United States government.

So the plant was built — in this case alongside the Connecticut River in the Vermont town of Vernon. A few scruffy people protested, hippies and the like. What did they know?




As it turned out, they knew a good deal more than the politicians and the experts.

It soon became clear that nuclear-generated electricity would not be cheaper than other varieties, not when you figure in the costs of keeping track of that nuclear waste. Some storage costs are paid by the federal government; most come out of a tax in the rate base. And those costs are open-ended, extending 200,000 or more years into the future, much longer than the entire period of recorded human history so far.

Consider what’s going on at the Yankee Rowe nuclear plant about 35 air miles from southwestern New Hampshire in Massachusetts. After 30 years of operations, Yankee Rowe was closed down in 1992. It was worn out and too expensive to fix. The plant has since been chopped up and carted away. But its owners are still looking after its 1,700 tons of spent nuclear fuel. That fuel sits in dry casks on a big concrete platform, surrounded by a wire fence and patrolled by armed guards.

It’s a costly obligation. Only one armed guard, paid the minimum wage 24 hours a day for 200,000 years would earn about $10.5 billion. There’s a cost of nuclear power no one reckoned with back in the ’50s and ’60s. And one armed guard won’t do the trick in the era of terrorism. Far from it. There are many guards at Yankee Rowe, and they are highly trained and well paid.

Meanwhile, over at Vermont Yankee, the spent-fuel pool is once again nearing its capacity.

We say “once again,” because the plant, which started operating in 1972, was designed to store 600 spent fuel-rod assemblies. Ten years later, the storage pool was almost full. So the Nuclear Regulatory Commission gave plant owners permission to move those assemblies closer together and add 800 more. In 1989, the pool was about full again. So the NRC allowed 870 more assembles to be squeezed in. And so it went. The current limit is 3,355 assemblies. The plant will reach that number by 2007 or 2008. And, apparently, this is really the limit, even for the indulgent NRC.

What about that U.S. government guarantee? Well, January 31, 1998, passed and nothing happened. Glassification and space rockets didn’t work out. And a proposed storage site in Nevada may not be all that safe either. And now, after September 11, how could we ship all that deadly stuff out there along our highways and byways?

Despite all these setbacks, Vermont Yankee’s owner — Entergy Nuclear Corp. — plans to forge ahead. It wants to boost the plant’s power output by 20 percent, creating even more spent-fuel assemblies. It wants to extend its operating license beyond the current 2012. And, rather urgently, it wants to shift some of that spent fuel out of the jam-packed cooling pool and into dry storage casks, similar to the ones over at Yankee Rowe.

And the Vermont Legislature has voted to let the company do it. Within a few weeks, Entergy will make an application to the Vermont Public Service Board, which has the final say.

All this, it seems, is of no concern to New Hampshire. Although Vermont Yankee hugs the Connecticut shoreline across from Hinsdale, this state’s two U.S. senators rarely mention its plans and problems. Second District Congressman Charles Bass issued a press release last year expressing confidence that Entergy’s requested power increase “will be resolved with the necessary due diligence.” Ah, confidence.

Questions do remain. After 33 years of operations, is Vermont Yankee in sound enough shape to handle a big power increase? And are dry casks safer than fuel pools? Some scientists say they are. But a press report in March indicated that a secret scientific warning to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission had raised grave doubts about that. The NRC won’t let the public see the report. An NRC spokesman explained: “Our core concern is making sure that information that could reasonably be expected to be available to a terrorist is not publicly available.”

So who knows? And, as far as official New Hampshire is concerned, who cares?
"

BELLACIAO - NUCLEAR WAR IN IRAQ - Collective Bellaciao

BELLACIAO - NUCLEAR WAR IN IRAQ - Collective Bellaciao: "Sunday 26th June 2005 (17h03) :
NUCLEAR WAR IN IRAQ
27 comment(s).
A new kind of Nuclear War


While we were brushing our teeth this morning, or staring into the refrigerator to decide what to have for breakfast, contemplating whether to get a new ring tone for the phone, and going about yet another uneventful day in our mundane, but hopefully pleasant, existance spare a thought for what was going on during those very moments of domestic routine in a land far away both geographically and mentally.

A nuclear war is being waged - not your typical nuclear war of powerful, glowing mushroom-cloud blasts that reduce everything in their paths to blackened, flattened ruin, but a covert nuclear war using a mechanism that is just as deadly but not so obvious.

During the past few wars, starting with the Balkan wars, and the first Gulf War and on to Afghanistan and the current Iraq war, a major "improvement" to weapons has been in use. It was the tipping of munitions - bullets, shells and bombs with so-called Depleted Uranium. So-called because there is nothing really depleted about it. It is just as lethal un-depleted Uranium.

DU is a by-product of the Nuclear industry - a hitherto waste product and a problem to dispose of. Now the perfect solution was to put it to use making weapons more lethal.

This nuclear war has spread radioactive dust and refuse across the whole landscape where these munitions have been used. The immediate "benefit" of tipping weapons with DU is that it gives a multifold penetration power, hitherto not possible with regular weapons. Munitions can penetrate armour plating with ease and reduce tanks and buildings to ruin. When they explode the power is immense, causing a massive fireball that engulfs all, burning or vapourising its hapless victims without mercy.

This is the immediate horror of war - that we rarely hear about or see. (What we do see and hear about is the sanitised version.)

The aftermath of the immediate horror is the after-horror - over 1000 tonnes of DU has been deployed in the current war in Iraq. The chernobyl nuclear reactor explosion in 1986 released 700 tons of radioactive material into the atmosphere. Over 20,000 bombs (many DU tipped) were deployed in Afghanistan up to mid 2002. "The DU explosive charges in the guided bomb systems used in Afghanistan can weigh as much as one and a half metric tons - as in Raytheon’s Bunker Buster - GBU-28" (Le Monde March 2002)

This material gets into the soil, leaches into plants, rises in dust when the ground is disturbed, gets into the lungs and seeps into the skin of local populations, and the soldiers of both sides, and is carried around the world on the winds.

Children playing on and around destroyed tanks and battlefields are particularly susceptable.

"Children rather than adults may be considered to be more at risk of DU exposure when returning to normal activities within a war zone through contaminated food and water, since typical hand-to-mouth activity of inquisitive play could lead to high DU ingestion from contaminated soil." (The Laissez Faire City Times, Vol 5, No 44, October 29, 2001

Soldiers exposed to radiation by the handling of these weapons and the dust released after they explode have been affected in large numbers.

The first Gulf War resulted in a very low official US soldier death toll and 7035 injured.

The reality is that of 580,000 soldiers who served in that war 325,000 are on permanent medical disabilty and 11,000 have subsequently died - an astonishing figure of 56% of those who served are now seriously ill with radiation related sicknesses, eupehmistically labelled "Gulf War Syndrome" by the medical and military establishments that refuse, of course, to acknowledge its true cause. Typical official explanations are dust storms, reaction to vaccines, exposure to pesticides. Other "official studies" try to further whitewash the situation by inadequate tests on military personnel who were not exposed to the dangers, and subsequently reporting "negligable or zero" levels of radiation in their urine.

Since dust storms, vaccines and pesticides are not known to cause cancers of the magnitude being experienced then the DU issue is front and centre of suspicion.

From the 2003 Iraq invasion, in one US military unit alone, eight out of twenty soldiers have developed malignancies. That is 40% have become seriously ill only 16 months after being exposed to the radiation.

Throughout Iraq (and Afghanistan) doctors are reporting frightening statistics of hitherto unseen levels of hideous birth defects, and radiation sickness related conditions in a wide cross section of the population.

For the people of Iraq the lack of adequate medical facilities, and indeed proper infrastructure of power, water and supply shortages means that any semblance of proper treatment is usually next to impossible and the situation is totally futile.

Don’t forget that during the "Sanctions" against Iraq between the two wars - it is reported that over 500,000 children died as a result of lack of medical and other supplies. A figure that former Secretary Of State, Madeline Albright said was "worth it".

For the soldier who unwittingly has been exposed to high doses of radiation, the threat is not only immediate to his or her own wellbeing but the danger is brought home. The reproductive system becomes a radioactive infection agent, passing on damaged genes to their offspring and even to their spouses.

In a group of 251 soldiers in Missouri who had produced normal babies prior to deployment to the first Gulf War, 67% of post-war babies were born with severe defects - missing arms, eyes, legs and with rare immune and blood diseases.

Marion Fulk, a nuclear physical chemist, when asked about what efffect DU contamination has upon the body explained that the effects of uranium contamination targets the DNA. This causes a multitude of medical conditions that are typically vague and far reaching - in effect the body is "trashed".

When asked if the main purpose for using DU was not only improving weapon performance but indirectly to cause maximum destruction to life, she was blunt - “I would say that it is the perfect weapon for killing lots of people.”

The first DU weapons were produced in 1968 for the US navy and early, crude versions were used by Israel against the Arabs in the Yom Kippur war of 1973. DU weapons have been subsequently sold by the US to 29 countries. Thousands of tons of DU weapons were tested in the US between 1974 and 1999, and contamination from these tests resulted in a dramatic increase in cancers and leukemia rates of those living around the test facilities.

The military again denies any connection to DU.

A new book by Michael Collins Piper, published by American Free Press, “The High Priests of War: The Secret History of How America’s Neo-Conservative Trotskyites Came to Power and Orchestrated the War Against Iraq as the First Step in Their Drive for Global Empire,” details how the US administration neocons led by Henry Kissinger from as far back as the late 1960s had formulated plans to launch wars against the Arab world. This manifested itself into "The War Against Terror", after the 911 atrocity - which, by the way, was NOT caused by a bunch of Arabs living in caves, but that’s a different altogether more scary story. The book delves into the creation of the neocons - by Trotsky lover Irving Kristol - whose son is currently one of the most influential men in the US.
The Israeli lobby’s neocon network has strong links with Kissinger and other notables as George Schultz, Zbignew Brzezinski, Paul Wolfowitz, Samuel S Huntington, and of course the more visible Cheney, Rumsfeld and not to forget the media contingent -for example our own Rupert Murdoch - hence the rabid support of the Iraq war on Foxnews and why you would never hear about the DU story or the true reasons for the Iraq [and onward-Christian-soldier invasions still to come] on Fox or any other mainstream network.
In Brzezinski’s book “The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and Its Geostrategic Imperatives,” the map of the Eurasian chessboard includes four regions strategic to U.S. foreign policy. One of those regions (Afghanistan and Iraq) is currently laid waste with DU radiation.

The US, Australia and Britain went to war with Iraq based on a totally fabricated premise that Iraq possessed "Weapons Of Mass Destruction". Ironically the United Nations defines the use of Depleted Uranium as a "Weapon Of Mass Destruction".
The "coallition of the willing" are deliberately flouting a United Nations resolution which classifies Depleted Uranium munitions as illegal weapons of mass destruction.
According to an August 2002 report by the UN subcommission, laws which are breached by the use of DU shells include: the Universal Declaration of Human Rights; the Charter of the United Nations; the Genocide Convention; the Convention Against Torture; the four Geneva Conventions of 1949; the Conventional Weapons Convention of 1980; and the Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907, which expressly forbid employing ’poison or poisoned weapons’ and ’arms, projectiles or materials calculated to cause unnecessary suffering’. All of these laws are designed to spare civilians from unwarranted suffering in armed conflicts.
When we have the new US Attorney-General Alberto Gonzales, the man who set the groundrules regarding what is "acceptable torture" - saying that the Geneva Conventions are "quaint" - well you get an idea of the seriousness of the problem.
Professor Doug Rokke, ex-director of the Pentagon’s depleted uranium project -- a former professor of environmental science at Jacksonville University and onetime US army colonel who was tasked by the US department of defence with the post-first Gulf war depleted uranium desert clean-up -- said use of DU was a ’war crime’.
Rokke said: ’...This war was about Iraq possessing illegal weapons of mass destruction -- yet we are using weapons of mass destruction ourselves - such double-standards are repellent.’
Rokke added: ’A nation’s military personnel cannot wilfully contaminate any other nation, cause harm to persons and the environment and then ignore the consequences of their actions.
To do so is a crime against humanity.
It is equivalent to a war crime.’
Not only is it a War Crime, it is a War Crime in four ways.
Karen Parker JD, famous UN War Crimes and humanitarian lawyer stated "My ’four-point’ test is this:
"It spreads" (beyond the field of battle);
"it lasts" (can’t be turned off when the war ends);
"it injures people in impermissible ways" (as in making an as yet unborn child deformed); and
"it harms the environment".

Since the one and only time "real" nuclear weapons were used - Hiroshima and Nagasaki world opinion has not been favourable for the use of such destructive weapons - the Ultimate WMD.

Uranium-tipped bombs, shells and bullets are just different forms of slow-acting, nuclear weapons by stealth. They are slower than the instant big boom and flash of Nagasaki type Nuclear Weapons. Now we are using the next generation of nuclear weapons on the hapless civilians of Iraq - and our own soldiers, indeed the whole world, is going to pay a heavy price. Uranium weapons spread deadly radioactivity that kills and contaminates forever.

Japanese professor, Dr. K. Yagasaki, has calculated that 800 tons of DU is the atomicity equivalent of 83,000 Nagasaki bombs. The U.S. has used more DU since 1991 than the atomicity equivalent of 400,000 Nagasaki bombs. 10 times the amount of radiation released into the atmosphere from atmospheric testing!

In June 2003, the World Health Organization announced in a press release that global cancer rates will increase 50 percent by 2020.

So when you are filling up tomorrow’s breakfast dish with cereal - spare a sobering thought that those flakes of corn could be contaminated by an invisible danger - but even if they are not, rest assured that hundreds of thousands of people are.

Sources used in this story that readers are encouraged to consult:

References

1. Depleted uranium: Dirty bombs, dirty missiles, dirty bullets: A death sentence here and abroad" by Leuren Moret,
-http://www.sfbayview.com/081804/Dep...

2. Bob Nichols - bobnichols@cox.net.
-www.globalresearch.ca/articles/NIC5...
-http://www.sfbayview.com/012605/hea...

Depleted Uranium - audio file - dr schultz and dr ali - appearing on Breakfornews.com
-http://www.kathymcmahonutvinternet....

See Doco: The Doctor, The Depleted Uranium and the Dying Children - SBS TV Australia - to be repeated 2005 - call 1800 500 727 for details.

Additional research:
American Free Press four-part series on DU by
Christopher Bollyn.

Part I: "Depleted Uranium: U.S. Commits War Crime
Against Iraq, Humanity,"
-http://www.americanfreepress.net/ht...

Part II: "Cancer Epidemic Caused by U.S. WMD:
-http://www.americanfreepress.net/ht...

Part III: "DU Syndrome Stricken Vets Denied Care:
Pentagon Hides DU Dangers to Deny Medical Care to Vets",
-http://www.americanfreepress.net/ht...

Part IV: "Pentagon Brass Suppresses Truth About Toxic Weapons: Poisonous Uranium Munitions Threaten World",
-http://www.americanfreepress.net/ht...

August 2004 World Affairs Journal. Leuren Moret:
"Depleted Uranium: The Trojan Horse of Nuclear War,"
-http://www.mindfully.org/Nucs/2004/...

by : truth seeker
Sunday 26th June 2005"
T"

1.8 million nuclear fuel bundles have been produced since the production of nuclear power began 30 years ago in Canada.

Thunder Bay Chronicle-Journal: "Nuke waste disposal ideas put forth

By Bryan Meadows - The Chronicle-Journal

June 25, 2005

Ship it to the moon.

That’s one suggestion regarding what to do with Canada’s growing stockpile of nuclear waste.

The option is proposed in an e-mail to the Nuclear Waste Management Organization, which is looking for a long-term solution to managing waste from nuclear reactors.

The NWMO has proposed an approach in a draft report titled Choosing a Way Forward.

It proposes a multi-year management system in which options will be evaluated at every stage, and citizens would participate in decision-making about whether to proceed, stop or reverse the process.

“We don’t have all the answers, either about technology or about the future of society,” NWMO president Elizabeth Dowdeswell said in a news release.

“Adaptive Phased Management is a commitment to continuous learning today to assist decision-making tomorrow.”

The proposal calls for the eventual containment and isolation of used nuclear fuel deep underground in suitable rock formations, possibly in the crystalline rock of the Canadian Shield. Through three implementation stages, lasting perhaps 300 years or more, the waste would be monitored and remain retrievable.

In the first stage, the used fuel would remain safely managed at nuclear reactor sites over the next 30 years.

During this period, the goal would be to site a centralized facility and build an underground research laboratory to confirm suitability of the site and the technology for a deep repository. A decision would also be taken on whether to build an interim shallow underground storage facility at the same site.

Depending on public acceptance, used fuel could be moved to the central site for interim storage during a second 30-year phase.

Used fuel would be placed in a deep-rock repository in the third phase, expected to begin around year 60. Future generations would decide in phase three whether and when to close the repository, and what kind of post-closure monitoring would be required.

Under its proposal, the NWMO would endeavor to find “a willing community” to host the permanent nuclear waste storage site.

Site selection will focus on provinces which currently benefit from the nuclear fuel cycle — Saskatchewan, Ontario, Quebec and New Brunswick — although communities in other regions would not be denied the opportunity to be considered.

The NWMO developed its draft recommendations after hearing from technical specialists and more than 15,000 Canadians, including some 2,000 aboriginal people.

Now the organization is seeking input on its draft proposal before submitting a final report to the federal government in November.

The government will decide how used nuclear fuel will be managed over the long term.

The proposed plan would cost $24.4 billion, officials said.

About 1.8 million used nuclear fuel bundles have been produced since the production of nuclear power began 30 years ago in Canada. That’s enough to fill five hockey rinks from the surface to the top of the boards.

Ontario creates the most nuclear energy in Canada, with 20 reactors at three generation stations. They contribute to Canada’s output of about 100,000 used fuel bundles a year.

For more information or to comment on NWMO’s draft report, visit the organization’s website at www.nwmo.ca.
"

Iran's President-elect Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has said that the country’s nuclear policy will continue

Iran's President-elect Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has said that the country’s nuclear policy will continue: "TVM 27-06-2005

Iran's President-elect Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has said that the country’s nuclear policy will continue. In his first news conference since he beat moderate cleric Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani in Friday's presidential run-off vote, Ahmadinejad said that his country had no significant need for relations with the United States, and would continue talks with the European Union on a controversial nuclear programme.

Ahmadinejad also said his government would be one of peace and moderation but insisted Iran would continue to develop nuclear technology, which the United States says is aimed at acquiring nuclear weapons."

Nuclear fusion reactor project in France: an expensive and senseless nuclear stupidity

EMS News Release Distribution Center » Nuclear fusion reactor project in France: an expensive and senseless nuclear stupidity: "Today, the nuclear industry presents itself as the solution to climate change in a massive green-washing drive. Far from being a solution, the nuclear option stalls real action to combat dangerous climate change. It is taking away the money for real solutions that are ready and economically available at a large scale, such as wind energy.

Fusion energy - if it would ever operate - would create a serious waste problem, would emit large amounts of radioactive material and could be used to produce materials for nuclear weapons. A whole new set of nuclear risks would thus be created.

'Governments should not waste our money on a dangerous toy which will never deliver any useful energy,' said Jan Vande Putte of Greenpeace International. Instead, they should invest in renewable energy which is abundantly available, not in 2080 but today'

"

Safety Hazards at the Pickering Nuclear Station

Canada NewsWire Group: "Greenpeace advisory - Safety Hazards at the Pickering Nuclear Station

OTTAWA, June 28 /CNW Telbec/ -

What: Greenpeace will hold a press conference to release a safety review
of hazards at the Pickering nuclear station, entitled Shutdown or
Meltdown: Safety Hazards at the Pickering Nuclear Station.
Greenpeace will also be discussing safety problems associated with
the restart of the scandal ridden Pickering nuclear station.

Where: Queen's Park Press Gallery

When: Wednesday June 29, 2005, 10:00 a.m.


For further information: Dave Martin, Energy Coordinator,
(416) 597-8408 X 3050, (cell) (416) 627-5004; Shawn-Patrick Stensil, Energy
Campaigner, (English/French) (416) 597-8408 X 3013, (cell) (416) 884-7053;
Andrew Male, Communications Coordinator, (cell) (416) 880-2757"

TRIAL NUKE REACTOR FOR FRANCE

SBS - The World News: "

28.6.2005. 18:37:00

The winning ITER site, at Cadarache in southern France (pic: AAP)
France has won its bid to build the world's first nuclear fusion reactor, after beating a rival bid from Japan.

The $A16 billion experimental reactor will be hosted in Cadarache, in France's south.

The International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER) project is funded by China, the EU, Japan, Russia, South Korea and the United States, however there was division over where to put the test reactor.

Ministers from partner countries signed an agreement at a closed-door meeting in Moscow.

"After long discussions and a great deal of joint work, the participants chose the site of Cadarache in France," Russia's atomic energy chief Alexander Rumyantsev told reporters.

"Today we are making history in terms of international scientific cooperation," the EU's Science and Research Commissioner Janez Potocnik said in a statement.

Estimates cited by Dow Jones NewsWires indicate that the decision could lead to the creation of up to 100,000 new jobs for France, as well as billions of dollars in research funding, construction and engineering contracts.

The reactor seeks to mimic the way the sun produces energy, potentially leading to a virtually constant source of low-cost energy, using seawater as fuel.

Nuclear fusion produces no greenhouse gas emissions and only low levels of radioactive waste.

If successful, scientists hope to replace energy produced by polluting and finite fossil fuels.

Japan had put forward a site at Rokkasho, in the country's north, however withdrew the bid at the last minute.

Site proposals for Canada and Spain had already been withdrawn, clearing the way for Cadarache.

ITER began in 1985, however decades of research have so far failed to produce a commercially viable fusion reactor.

ITER seeks to generate energy by combining atoms, unlike fission reactors used in existing nuclear power stations which release energy by splitting atoms apart.

France has 58 nuclear reactors, second only to the US.




SOURCE: World News

STORY ARCHIVE"

U.S. to launch radioactive project -

U.S. to launch radioactive project -: "U.S. to launch radioactive project
6/27/2005 4:00:00 PM GMT

The U.S. plans to produce highly radioactive plutonium 238 for the first time since the Cold War.

The United States is planning to produce plutonium 238, a highly radioactive substance, for the first time since the Cold War, The New York Times reported on Monday.

The paper cited the project manager as saying that most, if not all, of the new plutonium will be used in classified missions.

The official didn’t reveal details of the project, but The Times said the plutonium in the past powered spying devices.

The newspaper also said that Timothy Frazier, chief of radioisotope power systems at the U.S. Energy Department, denied that the secret missions would involve atomic arms, satellites or weapons in space.

"The real reason we're starting production is for national security," Frazier was cited as saying in a recent interview.

Officials at the Energy Department were not available for comment.

The program, which The Times said raised concerns among environmentalists, would generate 330 pounds (150 kg) over 30 years at the Idaho National Laboratory, a sprawling site outside Idaho Falls.

The project could cost $1.5 billion and produce over 50,000 drums of hazardous and radioactive waste, federal officials said.

The new project stirs debate over the risks and the advantages of the deadly material. It is hot enough to melt plastic, but medical experts say that inhaling even a speck can cause lung cancer.

The Times also said that Plutonium 238 is hundreds of times more radioactive than plutonium 239, which is used in atomic weapons.

It added that plutonium 238 doesn’t have a key role in nuclear weapons, but was valued for its steady heat that could be turned into electricity. Nuclear batteries made from it power spacecraft to go where sunlight is too dim to energize solar cells.

Federal and private experts said that the new plutonium would likely power devices for espionage under the sea and on land.

The U.S. last produced plutonium 238 in the 1980s and now depends on old stockpiles or imports from Russia, the newspaper said.

It added that under the deal with Russia, the U.S. couldn’t use the imports, about 35 pounds (16 kg) since the end of the Cold War, for military operations. "

There are 213 nuclear installations, 454 facilities to store spent nuclear fuel, 1508 radioactive warehouses and some 16,500 radioactive sources in Ru

Russia becomes full-fledged member of the global nuclear market - PRAVDA.Ru: "Russia becomes full-fledged member of the global nuclear market
06/24/2005 17:48

Storing only one kilogram of spent nuclear fuel brings $1,000 of profit

The security of both civil and defense nuclear objects has become a highly important issue during recent years. There are 213 nuclear installations, 454 facilities to store spent nuclear fuel, 1508 radioactive warehouses and some 16,500 radioactive sources in Russia. It stands the reason that such an impressive nuclear constituent requires special attention.

One may not say that Russian nuclear objects are being operated on a perfect level. Andrei Malyshev, the chairman of the Federal Service for Nuclear Control, said that the quality of various violations, which specialists make during their work, increased slightly in 2004. They were all technological violations, Malyshev added, which could not lead to any serious consequences. However, the situation in the Russian nuclear industry does not win favor.

The Russian Nuclear Power Agency currently implements a large-scale program for long-term storage of the spent nuclear fuel. The Russian nuclear industry already suffers from the lack of storage facilities, although it will soon have to deal with deliveries of foreign nuclear wastes as well. The project has a legal base for the time being. The laws to import spent nuclear fuel to Russia were passed in 2000. Russia also has the technology to establish adequate storage and production facilities. However, specialists of the Russian Nuclear Power Agency have not decided yet where the facilities should be built.

Storing only one kilogram of spent nuclear fuel brings $1,000 of profit, whereas the processing is a lot more expensive. This year, Russia ratified the international Vienna convention about civil responsibility for nuclear damage. Moreover, the Russian government submitted a new draft law to the Russian parliament "

radioactive building blocks in Vermont

Times Argus: "Massachusetts probes release of radioactive building blocks to Vermont

June 25, 2005

By Susan Smallheer Rutland Herald

Massachusetts has launched an investigation into why concrete blocks from the Yankee Rowe nuclear power plant — used to build a retaining wall behind a Vermont general store — initially tested free of radioactivity when later tests revealed they were contaminated.

The commonwealth's Department of Environmental Protection said Friday it would never have allowed the tritium-tainted concrete shield blocks to leave the Rowe, Mass., reactor site in 1999 to be used as a retaining wall behind the Readsboro General Store in Vermont if officials had known the blocks still contained any radioactivity.

Tritium is a radioactive byproduct of nuclear fission. The blocks at one time shielded the reactor core at Yankee Rowe.

The Massachusetts department issued an administrative order June 21 to Yankee Atomic Electric Co., requiring answers to a long list of questions about the tritium-tainted wall. The company has until Monday to answer the questions or face enforcement action.

"Yankee Atomic Electric Co. stated … that the concrete shield blocks were radiologically clean, appropriate for unrestricted use and that all contaminant had been removed from the blocks," stated the administrative order signed by Michael Gorski, regional director of the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection.

"These statements are inaccurate and constitute a violation … as shown by the recent sampling results," he added.

And the Massachusetts agency took Yankee Atomic to task for failing to notify state regulators as soon as the company knew of the problem, as required by state law.

The company knew about the problem in 2004, but only told Massachusetts regulators earlier this month, according to the administrative order.

The proposed exemption is to leave the retaining wall in place in Readsboro.

Yankee Rowe was shut down in 1991 and is in the final stages of being decommissioned.

In 1999, the agency approved the blocks to be reused off the site, based on tests conducted by Yankee Rowe at that time. Thus the owner of the Readsboro General Store, a Yankee Atomic employee, was allowed to take about 40 blocks into Vermont to build a 250-foot retaining wall on the Deerfield River behind his store in 2000.

The problem with the tritium contamination surfaced in 2004 when the company tested similar concrete blocks in Rowe prior to getting federal and state approval to crush the blocks and use them as fill as part of the decommissioning process.

The company then went to the Readsboro General Store earlier this year and found those concrete blocks were contaminated as well. This month, the company petitioned the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for a waiver to leave the Readsboro wall in place, claiming it posed no public health risk.

According to Yankee Atomic and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the original testing in 1999 revealed no radioactivity contamination. But more sensitive testing in 2004 revealed the low levels of tritium.

Human exposure to the wall would be very low, only one millirem above normal background levels of radioactivity, Yankee Atomic stated. By comparison, it claimed, a cross-country plane trip would result in exposure to 4 or 5 millirems.

The Vermont Department of Health has agreed that the blocks do not constitute a health hazard and has supported Yankee Atomic's application to the NRC for a waiver to leave the blocks in place.
"

Bush says Nuclear power is Green - Homer Simpson Agrees

i-Newswire.com - Press Release And News Distribution - Bush says Nuclear power is Green: "Bush says Nuclear power is Green
President Bush visited the Calvert Cliffs nuclear power plant in Lusby, Maryland to encourage the building of new plants. He is promoting the concept that nuclear power is cleaner and can reduce global warming in an effort to back his plan.



i-Newswire, - President Bush visited the Calvert Cliffs nuclear power plant in Lusby, Maryland to encourage the building of new plants. He is promoting the concept that nuclear power is cleaner and can reduce global warming in an effort to back his plan.

'Nuclear power is one of America's safest sources of energy,' he added, all 'without producing a single pound of air pollution and greenhouse gases'. New plants would get backing by congress with financial incentives and protection from lawsuits.

Carl Pope, of the Sierra Club says that along with security risks and radioactive waste. 'It also makes absolutely no sense to waste tax dollars on new power plants when we have not secured or cleaned up the waste from existing nuclear power plants.'
"

Scoop: OAS supports Nuclear Test Ban Treaty

Scoop: OAS supports Nuclear Test Ban Treaty: "OAS supports Nuclear Test Ban Treaty
Friday, 24 June 2005, 1:36 pm
Press Release: CTBTO Preparatory Commission
Thirty-fifth Session of the Organization of American States adopts resolution in support of the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty

Vienna, Austria, 23 June 2005: The Organization of American States (OAS) General Assembly has adopted a resolution in support of the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT) at its thirty-fifth Session. The resolution, entitled 'Inter-American support for the CTBT' was adopted at the fourth plenary session, held on 7 June 2005 in Florida, United States of America. It is the sixth such resolution to have been adopted by the OAS General Assembly since 2000.

The OAS, which has 34 Member States, is the premier political forum for multilateral dialogue and action in the American region. Major policies and directions are established by the General Assembly, which brings together the Hemisphere�s foreign ministers once a year. The OAS plays a central role in working towards many of the goals shared by the countries of North, Central and South America and the Caribbean, including the promotion of peace and security.

The resolution urges all States of the Hemisphere, to implement the �Measures to Promote the Entry into Force of the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT)� adopted at the Conference on Facilitating the Entry into Force of the CTBT, which took place in Vienna, September 2003. It urges all States of the Hemisphere to attend and fully participate in the next Conference on Facilitating the Entry into Force of the CTBT, which will take place in New York, United States of America, from 21 to 23 September 2005.

The resolution also urges those States of the Hemisphere that have not yet done so, in particular States whose signature and ratification are required for the Treaty to enter into force, to sign and ratify so that the Treaty may enter into force as soon "

Society of Energy Professionals picket its employer, OPG's Darlington Nuclear Generating Station

PR Direct: "The Society had set up picket lines at OPG's Darlington Nuclear Generating Station in the early hours this morning, causing long lines of vehicles to line up while picketers communicated with employees on their way to work. The picketers were energy professionals employed by Hydro One, who have been on strike since June 1st.

The Society of Energy Professionals represents more than 6,000 professional employees in the electricity industry in Ontario, including engineers, scientists, supervisors, and others. The Society is Local 160 of the International Federation of Professional and Technical Engineers. "

HOW Disarmament and arms control have tended to be lumped together quite erroneously

Pakistan Times | Op-Ed: South Asia & Nuclear Arms Control: "HOW Disarmament and arms control have tended to be lumped together quite erroneously, because in some cases the latter can actually hinder the former. In any case, the two are conceptually distinguishable — while arms control refers to curbs on acquisition of new weapons or ceilings in existing weapons, disarmament refers to a qualitative reduction in total number of existing weapons with the intent to totally disarm, either in terms of specific weapons systems or as in the notion of General and Complete Disarmament (G&CD).

Now the UN Charter has, in many ways, undermined the latter since the principle of collective security and collective defence has been enshrined within it - especially under Chapter VII and Chapter VIII. So the international community’s effort has been to focus on nuclear disarmament.

This, in my view is neither tenable nor desirable, given the massive destructive capability conventional weapons are acquiring — especially with the development of Precision Guided Munitions (PGMs) and so on. Also, since the international community has not outlawed war per se, all efforts in the field of arms control and disarmament have had a dual purpose:

First, in the case of developed States, especially the P5, arms control (AC) has evolved primarily in terms of economic efficiency and cost-effectiveness. In fact, when new weapon systems come into conflict with existing arms control measures, there are moves to either re-negotiate these measures, or to simply undermine hem altogether, as in the case of the US-Soviet ABM Treaty.

Second, with reference to the case of developing States, especially States like Pakistan and India, efforts at arms control have been aimed at technology denial rather than at overall reduction of arms — hence the focus primarily on nuclear weapons.

Now, coming to the issue of nuclear disarmament, it may be an ideal goal but it will not happen on the ground, nor is it desirable for countries like Pakistan, at least as long as conventional imbalances exist and war is seen as a legitimate instrument of State policy.

Even NATO sees nuclear weapons as vital ‘glue’ for the integrity of the alliance. So one needs to explore other options, if one is seeking to distinguish between nuclear and conventional arms and arms control. These options need to relate more to stabilisation of nuclear balances where they exist through appropriate arms control measures.

Since the issue at hand is the context of Pakistan and India, there needs to be a two-track approach, bilateral and multilateral, on the issue of nuclear arms control — the aim being to stabilise the deterrence and develop risk reduction of unintended or accidental war. And in that sense arms control, if undertaken in a balanced and rational manner, can reduce the arms race dynamic.

The underlying premise is that a first step by the international community has to be to accept the nuclearisation of South Asia through a Protocol to be attached to the NPT, which both India and Pakistan can sign accepting NPT rights and obligations as nuclear weapon States.

After all, the intent was to keep a flexible approach on the NPT — that is why we have the Review Conference device. Pakistan and India should volunteer to sign Additional Protocol 11 of the Tlateloco Treaty, which commits all nuclear weapon States to refrain from using nuclear weapons against Parties to the Treaty.

Pakistan and India should seek admission to the Nuclear Suppliers Group and accept the MTCR guidelines in their export policies. Both countries should continue to insist on an arms control dialogue with the P5. Pakistan, either unilaterally, — or with India, should propose a global summit on nuclear weapons and doctrines.

The focus should be on getting the USA and Russia to reduce their 25,000 plus warheads to below 1000, at which stage Pakistan and India can join and stabilise their nuclear forces at a minimum credible deterrence.

If the P5 do not attend, then it would confirm they are not serious on nuclear disarmament. It would also show that they seek only to limit or outlaw weapons that threaten them — hence the delegitimisation of Biological and Chemical weapons — but seek to keep nuclear weapons for themselves, while pushing non-proliferation for others.

This is where there are more long-term opportunities for Pakistan and India. Pakistan has been suggesting a bilateral nuclear, missile and conventional restraint regime, and, at least one of the proposals is finally going to be operationalised — that is, the provision of prior and adequate notification of flight tests of missiles.

Both countries also have an agreement not to attack each other’s nuclear facilities and lists are exchanged in December every year. These lists can be made more inclusive. A joint regional test ban moratorium can be agreed upon if a treaty is not possible - which could be made trilateral to include China.

Both countries need to make a commitment not to acquire BMD systems — this is the single most destabilising threat to the present nuclear deterrence. There could be a bilateral Nuclear Suppliers’ Agreement perhaps where Pakistan and India agree to a list similar to the present NSG’s list.

Both need to agree to the institution of a permanent strategic nuclear dialogue. As for nuclear disarmament, this would only undermine the deterrence and lead to an expensive arms race in the region which Pakistan can ill-afford and cannot possibly reach a balance in terms of conventional force structures.

If at all there has to be some move towards nuclear disarmament, then it must begin with the unravelling of alliances like NATO. Only then can one actually take the nuclear disarmament question seriously.●

© 2005 Shireen M Mazari"

U.S. to Give Away $1 Billion Tax Dollars to Make Nuclear Waste

Bloomberg.com: U.S.: "The Energy Department is considering permits for five sites to build nuclear plants, including one in Clinton, where Chicago- based Exelon already operates a station. Exelon expects to obtain approval for the site by the end of summer. Richmond, Virginia- based Dominion Resources Inc. has a permit pending for its Lake Anna, Virginia, site, and New Orleans-based Entergy has applied to build on its Grand Gulf site in Jackson, Mississippi.
Senators John McCain, an Arizona Republican, and Joseph Lieberman, a Connecticut Democrat, said they plan to offer an amendment to the energy bill that would provide $1 billion to $5 billion more in nuclear-power incentives.
...
``Each one of these power plants has the ability to wipe out the state in which it's operating,'' said Jim Riccio, a Greenpeace nuclear-policy analyst. ``Its wastes will last 240,000 years, and we've yet to come up with any clear solution to that problem. And suicidal terrorists are targeting nuke power plants and are using them as pre-positioned weapons of mass destruction.'' "

U.S. Borders Vulnerable, Witnesses Say - New York Times

U.S. Borders Vulnerable, Witnesses Say - New York Times: "June 22, 2005
U.S. Borders Vulnerable, Witnesses Say
By ERIC LIPTON

WASHINGTON, June 21 - The federal government's efforts to prevent terrorists from smuggling a nuclear weapon into the United States are so poorly managed and reliant on ineffective equipment that the nation remains extremely vulnerable to a catastrophic attack, scientists and a government auditor warned a House committee on Tuesday.

The assessment, coming nearly four years after the September 2001 attacks and after the investment of about $800 million by the United States government, prompted expressions of frustration and disappointment from lawmakers.

'If we go ahead and spend the money and don't succeed, I don't understand that,' said Representative Steve Pearce, Republican of New Mexico.

Four federal departments - Homeland Security, Defense, Energy and State - are involved in a global campaign to try to prevent the illicit acquisition, movement and use of radioactive materials, which includes efforts to prevent theft of nuclear materials from former Soviet stockpiles and inspecting cargo containers on arrival from around the world.

Dirty bombs, crude devices that widely spread low levels of radiation, are relatively easy to detect. But highly enriched uranium, a crucial ingredient in a nuclear bomb, could easily be shielded with less than a quarter-inch of lead, making it 'very likely to escape detection by passive radiation monitors' now installed at ports and border stations, Benn Tannenbaum, a physicist and senior program associate at the American Association for the Advancement of Science, testified at Tuesday's hearing.

The monitors are unable to distinguish between naturally occurring radiation from everyday items like ceramic tile and dangerous material like enriched uranium.

'It has been, let me say, a bad few years,' Dr. Tannenbaum said.

Customs officials also at times allow trucks to pas"

RADIOACTIVE WASTE MANAGEMENT

AzerTAj | STATE INFORMATION AGENCY OF AZERBAIJAN REPUBLIC: "WORKSHOP ON RADIOACTIVE WASTE MANAGEMENT HELD IN BAKU
[June 21, 2005, 12:01:43]

A regional workshop on radioactive waste management approaches organized by the Cabinet of Ministers of the Azerbaijan Republic and International Atomic Energy Agency wrapped up at the �Ganjlik� international tourism center.

The event was attended by 27 representatives and experts from 18 countries from the Eastern and Central Europe.

The seminar focused on handling of radioactive waste processing and storage facilities and waste storage methods. The event participants discussed waste receiving criteria and quality requirements.

The next seminars are due in Moldova (August), Serbia (October) and Albania (November)."

Hazardous waste rolls down I-70

Hazardous waste rolls down I-70: "Hazardous waste rolls down I-70

By KATIE FRETLAND of the Tribune’s staff
Published Monday, June 13, 2005

Trucks carrying low-level radioactive waste have driven down Interstate 70 for about a month, and they will continue to do so this summer on a trip from Fernald, Ohio, to a disposal facility in Clive, Utah.

The state Department of Natural Resources notified local emergency response services last week about the 275 planned shipments of hazardous material from a Cold War uranium refinery in Fernald. From 1952 to 1989, the federal refinery produced high-purity uranium metal fuel cores for use in weapons production. The site is closed and in the process of being cleaned up.

The former refinery is shipping the "conditioned" waste - cold metal oxide in a crumbly, dry form, marked as Radioactive Class 7 - in soft-sided packages called Supersacks, said John Sattler, U.S. Department of Energy spokesman for the Fernald refinery closure project. Each truck contains eight 4,000-pound packages.

About 10 trucks per week will leave the refinery and take the Ohio-to-Utah route through Missouri. Shipments are scheduled to end in late September.

Alan Reinkemeyer, environmental emergency response section chief with DNR, notified officials in Missouri of the shipments in an e-mail Friday. "I am confident that these shipments will pass through Missouri safely and without incident," he said. "These are considered low-level waste shipments."

Reinkemeyer said, however, that accidents are always possible and encouraged local agencies to be prepared.

Jeff Wagner, a spokesman for Flour Fernald, the private contractor handling the cleanup, said only two accidents have occurred in more than 6,700 shipments from the refinery since the 1980s.

"There is always some risk associated with the shipping of hazardous materials, whether it is low-level waste or gasoline," Sattler said. "Our goal is to minimize the risk in transportation, processing and shipping."

The Boone County Fire Protection District and the Columbia Fire Department would respond with hazardous waste teams to any highway emergency involving the trucks, officials said.

Doug Westhoff, assistant chief with the fire district, said the notification allows highway motorists to take extra security measures and use additional caution. "The reality is that hazardous materials roll up and down this interstate every day that we’re not notified about," he said.

Flour Fernald ships the radioactive material on tractor-trailers and trains drivers on how to handle emergencies.

About 2,200 shipments en route to Texas also began traveling through Missouri from Fernald last week on I-44.

Reach Katie Fretland at (573) 815-1731 or kfretland@tribmail.com.

"

Radioactive Spills Probed at Nuclear Sub Dock

Tue 14 Jun 2005

4:17pm (UK)
Radioactive Spills Probed at Nuclear Sub Dock

By Chris Court, PA

Investigations are being carried into two spills of radioactive liquid in a dock where a Royal Navy nuclear submarine is being refitted, it emerged today.

The move follows the service of an Environment Agency enforcement order on Devonport Royal Dockyard Limited in Plymouth.

Work is being carried out there on the nuclear powered Vanguard class submarine HMS Victorious.

DRDL reported to the EA last Friday that there had been a spillage of between 16 and 20 litres of low activity water containing Cobalt-60 during commissioning of new plant in the submarine dock.

The radioactive liquid was contained within the dock floor and monitoring showed no radioactivity was discharged to the environment.

The EA’s Nuclear Regulator for DRDL, Anil Koshti, said:” “This spill did not result in a hazard to the public or the environment.

“Nevertheless, it demonstrated that DRDL must improve certain aspects of its operations.”

A litre of the same liquid dripped from pipework three days earlier.

Devonport Management Limited, carrying out the refit, said today that technical and procedural investigations were being carried out.

A limited quantity of water containing trace levels of contamination was released from process equipment pipe work in a dry dock during the commissioning phase of some new plant, said DML.

The spillages were detected during routine inspections as the testing procedures were taking place.

There was no environmental impact beyond the confines of small areas of concrete in the dock bottom and there was no effect on staff in the immediate area of the plant.

They were “minor leaks of contaminated water onto the dock bottom,” said DML."

The Chinese Government's position on the nuclear issue on the Korean Peninsula is clear and firm. We have always stood for the denuclearization

Foreign Ministry Spokesman Liu Jianchao 's Press Conference on 9 June 2005: "Foreign Ministry Spokesman Liu Jianchao 's Press Conference on 9 June 2005


2005/06/10


On the afternoon of June 9, Foreign Ministry Spokesman Liu Jianchao held a regular press conference.

Liu: Good afternoon, everyone! Let me begin with an announcement.

At the invitation of Premier Wen Jiabao, Jamaican Prime Minister Percival J. Patterson will pay an official visit to China from June 19 to 24, 2005.

Now please raise your questions.

Q: When receiving an interview, DPRK Representative to the Six-Party Talks Kim Gye Gwan said that the DPRK owns nuclear weapons and is capable of making more. Can you confirm? What's your comment?

A: The Chinese Government's position on the nuclear issue on the Korean Peninsula is clear and firm. We have always stood for the denuclearization of the Peninsula and hope the parties concerned make constructive efforts to this end.

Q: China's permanent representative to the UN, Ambassador Wang Guangya said that it was possible that the Six-Party Talks would resume this month. Is this his personal view or the official view of the Chinese government?

A: It is the common aspiration of the relevant parties and the international community that the Six-Party Talks can resume as soon as possible. Recently, the DPRK and the US contacted twice in New York and the DPRK also expressed the willingness to return to the Six-Party Talks, which we are glad to see. We hope that all parties concerned will continue to make constructive efforts to promote the early resumption of the Six-Party Talks.

Q: China has always emphasized that it supports the denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula ever"

Shaw Joins Westinghouse and Mitsubishi ``AP1000 Consortium'' as Architect Engineer

Shaw Joins Westinghouse and Mitsubishi `` June 10, 2005 09:17 AM US Eastern Timezone

Shaw Joins Westinghouse and Mitsubishi ``AP1000 Consortium'' as Architect Engineer

BATON ROUGE, La.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--June 10, 2005--

Westinghouse/Mitsubishi/Shaw Consortium to Target New Nuclear Power Plant Opportunities in China


The Shaw Group Inc. (NYSE: SGR) today announced that its Shaw Stone & Webster unit has joined the Westinghouse Electric Company and Mitsubishi Heavy Industries (Tokyo Stock Exchange: MHI) "AP1000 Consortium". The AP1000 Consortium is currently proposing to provide the "Nuclear Island," including the AP1000 reactor and technology transfer, for four nuclear generating units in China where the demand for energy is growing rapidly.

Two of the nuclear units would be constructed in Sanmen, in the Zhejiang province near Qinshan, for China National Nuclear Corporation. The two remaining units would be built in Yangjiang, in the Guangdong province west of Hong Kong, for China Guangdong Nuclear Power Company. The scope of work for Shaw would include construction management, project planning and oversight, and a portion of the engineering and procurement functions. Shaw will provide piping modules and modularization expertise through its pipe fabrication facility in Nanjing, China. The AP1000 technology is the first Generation III+ reactor design to receive approval from the U.S. Government's Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Generation III+ is the U.S. Department of Energy's nomenclature for the new generation of competitive reactor designs that will follow the Generation III Advanced Light Water Reactors developed in the 1990s.

Shaw Stone & Webster and Westinghouse have a long history of working closely together beginning with the Shippingport Atomic Power Station, the first commercial nuclear-powered central electric-generating station in the United States to more recent advanced reactor design and licensing activities and power uprate projects for operating nuclear plants.

J.M. Bernhard, Jr., Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Shaw, said, "As the premier maintenance provider for over one-third of the United States' nuclear facilities, and a key architect engineer involved in the design and construction of 17 of the nation's nuclear power plants, Shaw is uniquely qualified to participate in the AP1000 Consortium and assist China in achieving its energy goals. In addition to our broad range of nuclear expertise, Shaw is a recognized international leader in pipe fabrication and is the only fabricator certified by ASME to assemble piping systems for nuclear generating facilities. Our pipe shop in China can produce premier piping systems for the country's nuclear plants efficiently and cost-effectively."

Shaw has significant experience in China and Asia, having just completed a 600,000 metric tons-per-year ethylene plant for the BASF-YPC Integrated Petrochemical Site located in Nanjing. With over 20 million work-hours, the project achieved an exemplary safety record of zero lost time accidents. Additionally, Shaw is currently performing engineering and design services for Taiwan Power Company's Lungmen Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2. Shaw is also providing engineering support services to Korea Power Engineering Company, Inc. (KOPEC) for Shin-Kori 1 & 2 and Shin-Wolsong 1 & 2 nuclear plants in the Republic of Korea. The Company is currently performing construction and construction management services for the restart of the Browns Ferry Unit 1 nuclear power plant for the Tennessee Valley Authority.

Mr. Bernhard continued, "We are pleased to join Westinghouse and Mitsubishi to provide premier nuclear services and expertise to the People's Republic of China and other regions focused on providing a sustainable, clean source of energy to their citizens. We look forward to working with the AP1000 Consortium to bring world-class nuclear solutions to the global community."

Westinghouse Electric Company, wholly owned by BNFL plc of the United Kingdom, is the world's pioneering nuclear power company and is a leading supplier of nuclear plant projects and technologies to utilities throughout the world. Today, Westinghouse technology is the basis for approximately one-half of the world's operating nuclear plants.

Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd. (MHI), headquartered in Tokyo, Japan, is one of the world's leading heavy machinery manufacturers, with consolidated sales of 2,373 billion yen in fiscal 2003 (year ended March 31, 2004)."

U.S. Newswire : Releases : "Remarks by President Bush and President Roh..."

U.S. Newswire : Releases : "Remarks by President Bush and President Roh Moo-Hyun of the Republic of Korea in a Photo Opportunity

6/10/2005 1:09:00 PM

To: National Desk

Contact: White House Press Office, 202-456-2580

WASHINGTON, June 9 /U.S. Newswire/ -- The following is a transcript of remarks by President Bush and President Roh Moo- Hyun of the Republic of Korea in a photo opportunity:

The Oval Office

12:17 P.M. EDT

PRESIDENT BUSH: It's my honor to welcome the President of our very close ally to the Oval Office. I'll have a statement; the President will have a statement. Then I'll answer two questions from the American press.

I first want to express my country's deepest condolences for the accident that took place, where a U.S. military vehicle killed a Korean woman. And we send our deepest sympathies to the woman's families. And, Mr. President, I just want you to know our heart -- our hearts are sad as a result of this incident.

The President and I had a very long discussion about very important issues. And we'll continue this discussion over lunch. And the reason why we've had a serious discussion on important issues is because we're strategic partners, and allies, and friends.

I appreciate the President's good advice, and we share the same goals -- peace on the Korean Peninsula, and peace throughout the world. We share the same goals -- we want our peoples to grow up in a peaceful society that's a prosperous society.

And so, Mr. President, welcome. Thank you for coming, and thank you for your friendship.

PRESIDENT ROH: I thank you for your warm welcome, and I also thank you for the opportunity for us to engage in extensive discussions on various issues. I also thank you, Mr. President, for your warm message of condolence regarding the unfortunate incident involving U.S. forces Korea.

This is my fourth meeting with you, Mr. President, and my second visit to the United States. And every time we meet together, Mr. President, questions abound regarding the possible existence of differences between Korea and the United States surrounding the North Korea nuclear issue. But every time I meet you, Mr. President, in person, I come to the realization that there, indeed, is no difference between our two sides with regard to the basic principles. In fact, we're in full and perfect agreement on the basic principles. And whatever problem arises in the course of our negotiations and talks, we will be able to work them out under close consultations.

There are, admittedly, many people who worry about potential discord or cacophony between the two powers of the alliance. But after going through our discussion today, Mr. President, I realize once again that with regard to all the matters and all the issues of great importance, we were able to deal with them and we were able to bring closure to them smoothly. And I am very certain that our alliance remains solid, and will continue to remain solid and staunch in the future, as well.

To be sure, there are one or two minor issues, but I'm also quite certain that we will be able to work them out very smoothly through dialogue in the period ahead.

How do you feel, Mr. President? Wouldn't you agree that the alliance is strong and everything is working --

PRESIDENT BUSH: I would say the alliance is very strong, Mr. President. And I want to thank you for your frank assessment of the situation on the peninsula. And I'm looking forward to having lunch with you. I'm hungry, like you are. (Laughter.)

So I'm going to answer two questions -- first from Tom.

Q: Mr. President, just two days ago, the Vice Foreign Minister of North Korea said they do have a nuclear arsenal and they're building more. Doesn't statements like that make it -- suggest that North Korea will not come back to the bargaining table? And doesn't it make it harder to bridge the kinds of differences that do remain between the U.S. and South Korea?

PRESIDENT BUSH: No, I -- South Korea and the United States share the same goal, and that is a Korean Peninsula without a nuclear weapon. And that's what we've been discussing, how best to do that. And the President and I both agree the six-party talks are essential to saying to Mr. Kim Jong-il that he ought to give up his weapons. We're making it very clear to him that the way to join the community of nations is to listen to China and South Korea and Japan and Russia -- and the United States -- and that is to give up nuclear weapons. And we'll continue to work, to have one voice.

We laid out a way forward last June that is a reasonable proposal, and we're still awaiting the answer to that proposal. But today's meeting should make it clear that South Korea and the United States are of one voice on this very important issue.

Steve.

Q: Sir, are there any inducements you're willing to offer to get North Korea back to the talks? And if I could ask about Syria, as well.

PRESIDENT BUSH: Steve, first of all, the first part of your two-part question is this: Last June we did lay out a way forward. And it's just not the United States; this was a plan that the United States and South Korea and China and Japan and Russia put on the table. And the plan is still there, and it's full of inducements.

The second part, on Syria --

Q: Is it your feeling that Syria still has intelligence operatives in Lebanon, and are they carrying out targeted political killings?

PRESIDENT BUSH: Well, I've been disturbed by reports I read in today's newspaper that said that Syrian intelligence officers might still be in Lebanon, and might still be there. And our message -- and it's not just the message of the United States; the United Nations has said the same thing -- is that in order for Lebanon to be free, is for Syria to not only remove her military, but to remove intelligence officers, as well. And obviously, we're going to follow up on these troubling reports, and we expect the Syrian government to follow up on these troubling reports.

Listen, thank you all very much.

END

12:27 P.M. EDT

http://www.usnewswire.com/

-0-
"

New Scientist Breaking News - Secret nuclear waste disposal sites revealed

Secret nuclear waste disposal sites revealed

* 06:00 10 June 2005
* NewScientist.com news service
* Rob Edwards

Related Articles

* UK's nuclear waste may go up in smoke
* 21 May 2005
* UK's nuclear waste to be buried
* 09 April 2005
* Privatising nuclear clean-up risks public safety
* 19 February 2005
* Search New Scientist
* Contact us

Web Links

* Nirex
* British Geological Survey

The highly sensitive shortlist of 12 sites where the UK nuclear industry wanted to dispose of its dangerous radioactive waste has been unveiled after being kept a closely guarded state secret for more than 15 years.

New Scientist can reveal that the nuclear waste agency, Nirex, identified five sites in Scotland and seven in England as geologically suitable for a deep underground repository. The UK government was forced to reverse its prolonged refusal to publish the list by requests in January from New Scientist and others under the new Freedom of Information Act.

Although the list was drawn up in the late 1980s, some of the sites are likely to become candidates for waste disposal again in the future. For this reason, the release of the list is likely to reignite the ferocious debate over nuclear waste disposal.

"The geology in the UK has not changed," says Nirex. "So sites that were considered to be potentially suitable previously on geological grounds could be considered suitable in a future site-selection process."
Hot and high-level

Geologists agree that another attempt to find waste sites would be likely to end up with a similar list. "There will be overlaps," says Dave Holmes, director of environment and hazards at the British Geological Survey in Keyworth, Nottingham. "But it is unlikely that a new site-selection exercise would produce exactly the same shortlist of sites."

Nirex says that any new site-selection process would not begin with the old list, and points out that scientists' understanding of geology is now different.

The waste to be disposed of now also includes hot, high-level waste, which could require different rock properties. And new concerns about sea level rises in response to climate change could rule out some coastal sites.

"But what has not changed,” says Chris Murray, Nirex's managing director, “is that the waste still exists and needs to be dealt with in a safe, environmentally sound and publicly acceptable way for the long-term. Responsibility lies with this generation to ensure this is done."
Weapons waste

More than 50 years ago, the UK was one of the first countries in the world to develop nuclear fission technology into bombs and power sources. But it is now one of the last to work out what to do with the large amounts of waste created, and has fallen behind other European countries and the US.

The US government already operates the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) for weapons waste in a salt formation 655 metres under the Chihuahuan Desert near Carlsbad in New Mexico. It has also chosen Yucca Mountain in the Nevada desert as a potential repository for irradiated fuel from reactors.

Deep underground repositories are also under active investigation at sites in Finland, Switzerland, Sweden, Belgium and France. The consensus of scientists internationally is that burial in stable geological formations below 300 metres is likely to be the safest method of disposal in the long term.
Tiny islands

This is the option that has always been favoured by Nirex, but it has not yet been adopted by the UK government. Ministers are awaiting advice in a year's time from the Committee on Radioactive Waste Management on whether waste should be stored at the surface or buried.

The plan then is to work out how to select suitable locations. But that process has now been rudely interrupted by the release of the site shortlist.

The list of sites (in full below) includes two tiny, uninhabited Scottish islands, military land, areas by nuclear power stations and even sites under the sea.

One of the sites, near the Sellafield nuclear plant in Cumbria, was eventually chosen by Nirex, but it was rejected by the government in 1997 after a public inquiry suggested Nirex's case was scientifically flawed.

Sites shortlisted by Nirex as potential nuclear waste dumps in the late 1980s:

Adjacent to Bradwell nuclear power station in Essex

Ministry of Defence land on Potton Island, 8 km from Southend on Sea. Essex

Under the North Sea, accessed from the port at Redcar, Yorkshire

Under the sea between the Inner Hebrides and Northern Ireland, accessed from the port at Hunterston in North Ayrshire

Killingholme, South Humberside

Ministry of Defence training area, Stanford, Norfolk

Adjacent to Dounreay nuclear plant in Caithness

Two sites near the Sellafield nuclear plant in Cumbria

Altnabreac in Caithness 18 km south of Dounreay

Fuday, small, uninhabited island north of Barra in the Western Isles

Sandray, small, uninhabited island south of Barra in the Western Isles
"

Reuters AlertNet - Japan shuts research nuclear reactor after glitch

Reuters AlertNet - Japan shuts research nuclear reactor after glitch: "Japan shuts research nuclear reactor after glitch
10 Jun 2005 05:17:50 GMT
Source: Reuters
(Adds details, background)

TOKYO, June 10 (Reuters) - A Japanese research nuclear reactor was shut down on Friday due to a malfunction, but there was no radiation leak to the outside environment and no workers were affected, the Education and Science Ministry said.

The Japan Atomic Energy Research Institute's 3.5 MW nuclear reactor in Tokaimura, north of Tokyo, was shut down manually at 11:29 a.m. (0229 GMT), due to a glitch with one of the reactor's five control rods, the ministry said in a statement.

Nuclear safety officials at the site were making checks, it said.

A science ministry official said the incident was not serious.

'The reactor has been shut down safely,' said Terumi Aoki, director at the Education and Science Ministry's office for nuclear regulation.

'It's more of a malfunction than an accident,' Aoki said, adding that the reactor would eventually be restarted once officials ascertain what caused the problems with the control rod.

One of the worst accidents at any nuclear facility in Japan occurred at a uranium-processing plant in Tokaimura on Sept. 30, 1999, when an uncontrolled nuclear chain reaction was triggered after three poorly trained workers used buckets to mix nuclear fuel in a tub.

The resulting release of radiation killed two workers and forced the evacuation of thousands of nearby residents.

Last August, hot water and steam leaking from a broken pipe at Kansai Electric Power Co.'s <9503.T> Mihama No. 3 nuclear power generator killed five workers in Japan's worst-ever nuclear power plant accident.

AlertNet"

Greenpeace tells McGuinty government: Go Green - No Nukes : ArriveNet Press Releases : Business

Greenpeace tells McGuinty government: Go Green - No Nukes : ArriveNet Press Releases : Business: "A poll released by Greenpeace yesterday showed an overwhelming majority of Ontarians want the province to meet its electricity needs with green power and conservation programmes, 91% of Ontarians support the increased use of solar and wind power to meet the province's needs, and 92% support the use of energy conservation and efficiency programmes.
ADVERTISEMENT

'The McGuinty government is spending a billion dollars to restart one reactor at the Pickering nuclear station. That same money could have created twice as much capacity in conservation and renewable energy - the solutions that Ontarians want' said Shawn-Patrick Stensil, Greenpeace Energy Campaigner.

A majority of Ontarians (51%) think that nuclear power is dangerous, are concerned about radioactive waste and believe that it should be phased out. Even Liberal Party supporters reflect this anti-nuclear trend amongst Ontarians.

Meanwhile, the McGuinty government is pushing ahead with the restart of the scandal-ridden Pickering A reactors and continues secret negotiations with Bruce Power to restart two mothballed reactors at the Bruce A nuclear station. In May, Energy Minister Dwight Duncan announced that the province will also consider building new nuclear plants in Ontario.

'There's a disconnect between public opinion and the government's direction. The McGuinty government is going nuclear while giving lip service to green energy.' said Stensil. 'As they plan their 2007 provincial election campaign, the Liberal Party should remember that Ontarians want green power not nuclear power. It's time to go green before voters get mean'.

The McGuinty government's much-touted targets for conservation and renewable energy are minimal compared to Ontario's green power potential and other jurisdictions in the world. The government has contracted for only 395 MW of green energy (including 355 MW of wind capa"

Nuclear Warrior Replaces Bolton as Arms Control Chief - by Tom Barry

Nuclear Warrior Replaces Bolton as Arms Control Chief - by Tom Barry: "Nuclear Warrior Replaces Bolton as Arms Control Chief
by Tom Barry

The top U.S. government official in charge of arms control advocates the offensive use of nuclear weapons and has deep roots in the militarist political camp.

Moving into the old job of John Bolton, the administration's hardcore unilateralist nominee to be the next U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, Robert G. Joseph is the right wing's advance man for counterproliferation as the conceptual core of a new U.S. military policy.

Within the administration, he leads a band of counterproliferationists who – working closely with such militarist policy institutes as the National Institute for Public Policy (NIPP) and the Center for Security Policy (CSP) – have placed preemptive attacks and weapons of mass destruction at the center of U.S. national security strategy.

Joseph replaced John Bolton at the State Department as the new undersecretary of state for arms control and international security affairs.

U.S. security strategy, according to the new arms control chief, should 'not include signing up for arms control for the sake of arms control. At best that would be a needless diversion of effort when the real threat requires all of our attention. At worst, as we discovered in the draft BWC (Biological Weapons Convention) Protocol that we inherited, an arms control approach would actually harm our ability to deal with the WMD threat.'

Before the Sep. 11, 2001 attacks, proponents of national missile defense and a more 'flexible' nuclear defense strategy focused almost exclusively on the WMD threat from 'competitor' states such as Russia and especially China, and from 'rogue' states such as Iran, Iraq, Libya, Syria, and North Korea.

Joseph and other hard-line strategists advocated large increases in military spending to counter these threats while paying little or no attention to the warnings that the most likely at"

Northwestern applies for two uranium concessions in West Africa

Northwestern applies for two uranium concessions in West Africa: Northwestern applies for two uranium concessions in West Africa
TORONTO, June 2 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ - Northwestern Mineral Ventures
Inc. (TSX-V: NWT; OTCBB: NWTMF) is pleased to announce that it has filed
applications for two prospective uranium exploration concessions in the
democratic West African country of Niger, the world's third largest uranium
producer. The concessions applied for total 4,000 square kilometers
(988,000 acres) and were selected for their favorable geology, exploration
potential and strategic location - within the same strategraphy to two
operating uranium mines which together yield almost 10% of worldwide
production.
Northwestern is now awaiting approval of the concession applications
pending the final review and acceptance by the Government of Niger. Formal
approval of the applications are subject to the discretion of the regulatory
authorities in the Republic of Niger, and there is no guarantee that the
applications will be granted. Further details of the concessions will be
provided if, as and when they are received.
Niger ranks third in the world for uranium production, and is fourth in
terms of reserves. With cumulative output to date of approximately
100,000 metric tonnes, Niger is one of the world's most important sources of
uranium. Through the use of modern exploration techniques, the country offers
significant potential for new discoveries given its favorable geology.

World Uranium Business
Fueling nuclear power plants to generate electricity is the most
significant commercial use for uranium. Currently, uranium provides 16% of the
world's electricity via 440 nuclear reactors operating in 31 countries. Annual
uranium demand is 66,000 tonnes, with mining fulfilling only 55% of that need.
An additional 30% comes from stockpiles, which are not being replenished due
to current production shortfalls, and the remaining 15% is salvaged from
recycled weapons, a non-renewable resource.
Uranium demand is expected to increase in the coming years as new
reactors are built and brought online in developing nations such as China,
which plans to build 27 nuclear plants, India with a planned 31 new reactors,
and Russia with intentions for an additional 25 reactors. With a current
worldwide production shortfall of more than 300 million pounds, demand for
uranium is expected to be 11% higher than supply over the next decade.
"The expected future economics of uranium are what has drawn
Northwestern's attention to these promising prospects and to continue our
search for additional possibilities worldwide," said Kabir Ahmed, President
and CEO of Northwestern."

New light on Hitler's bomb

www.iop.org News - New light on Hitler's bomb: "

New light on Hitler's bomb

Thursday 2 June 2005

Physics World publishes what is believed to be the only known diagram of a German nuclear weapon. The diagram, which has never been published before, has been discovered by the German historian Rainer Karlsch in a scientific report written by an unknown German or Austrian scientist shortly after the end of the Second World War. The weapon is shown to be a fission device based on plutonium, although the report also reveals that German scientists had worked intensively during the war on the theory of a fusion (hydrogen) bomb. Karlsch discovered the diagram after completing his controversial new book Hitlers Bombe, which was published in March. It suggested that Germany had built and tested a primitive fission device that killed several hundred prisoners and concentration-camp inmates in March 1945. Writing in Physics World, Karlsch and fellow historian Mark Walker say that the report 'demonstrates that the knowledge that uranium could be used to make powerful new weapons was fairly widespread in the Germany technical community during the war'."

NRC Licensing Board Ruled in Favor of Granting License to the Private Fuel Storage Dump on Native Land in Utah. Sign on to Oppose This Project

NRC Licensing Board Today Ruled in Favor of Granting a License to the Private Fuel Storage Dump on Native Land in Utah. Sign on to Oppose This Project! - NIRS: "March, 2005

Re: Private Fuel Storage, LLC application for commercial irradiated nuclear fuel "interim" storage site at the Skull Valley Goshutes Indian Reservation in Utah

Dear Commissioners Diaz, Jaczko, Lyons, McGaffigan and Merrifield,

As national, regional, and local environmental and public interest organizations, we urge you not to approve the license application by Private Fuel Storage, LLC (PFS) to open an "interim storage site" for commercial irradiated nuclear fuel at the Skull Valley Goshute Indian Reservation in Utah.

The need for PFS is far from clear, given approvals for on-site dry cask storage at a growing number of reactors, and the fact that true consolidation of waste is not possible as long as nuclear utilities continue to produce it. The proposal is also plagued by many problems, and its location poses unacceptable risks. The facility has no contingency plan for faulty containers, the storage/transport containers are of questionable structural integrity, and there is an increasing risk that PFS could well become de facto permanent storage. The plan also raises serious transportation safety concerns, and is beset with environmental justice violations.

In short, the proposal is neither safe, sound, nor just.

Skull Valley is not an appropriate site for storing irradiated nuclear fuel. The adjacent complex of Hill Air Force Base and the Utah Test and Training Range (UTTR) represents one of the biggest and busiest bombing ranges in the country, with thousands of over-flights annually posing the risk of accidental crashes into PFS. The stray missile which struck the scientific research station on the reservation in the 1990's, and the Genesis satellite crash into the UTTR last September, for instance, show the potential dangers of storing 44,000 tons of highly radioactive waste next to such active military facilities.

PFS also plans no pool or hot cell on-site, and thus would lack any waste repacking capability in the event of an emergency. If storage casks fail for any reason - human error during shipping or handling, natural disaster, accident, act of sabotage, faulty casks, or gradual corrosion - it would be difficult to adequately address the problem and prevent radioactivity from leaking into the soil, water, and air.

Oscar Shirani, former Commonwealth Edison/Exelon lead quality assurance inspector and nuclear safety whistleblower, has questioned the structural integrity of the Holtec casks proposed for PFS. He cites numerous major quality assurance violations in the manufacture of the storage/transport containers. Cask defects would not only raise the risk of irradiated fuel degradation and increased container vulnerability during storage at

Skull Valley, but also of a potentially catastrophic radioactivity release during transport due to a severe accident or terrorist attack.

As it is, PFS's transportation plan, or lack thereof, is very disconcerting. PFS would dramatically increase unnecessary transportation and handling of high-level waste. Despite PFS's assurances that it is only "interim" storage, its lack of waste repackaging contingencies and DOE's reluctance to accept PFS wastes at Yucca Mountain, as discussed below, all combine to raise the specter of irradiated nuclear fuel eventually being sent back thousands of miles to the reactors from which it originated. This would multiply the distances high-level waste is shipped, and escalate the risks of public and worker exposure, severe accidents, and terrorist attacks. It would also increase further stress and damage to the irradiated nuclear fuel, making future handling, transport, and long term isolation from the environment much more troublesome.

It is ironic that NRC would consider granting PFS an operating license, and thus permission to begin shipments, even before its Package Performance Study (PPS) is completed, a point raised by a number of our organizations during the public comment period on the PPS. Rushing the process, and using casks with only minimal testing and planning, is of concern to many communities along the transportation routes.

John Parkyn, PFS chairman and CEO, has publicly stated that PFS would train emergency responders along the routes to Skull Valley, however, PFS has not yet demonstrated the financial or technical capability to deliver on that promise. On February 7, at the U.S. Department of Energy's Fiscal Year 2006 budget unveiling, Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management director Margaret Chu stated that Nuclear Waste Policy Act section 180(c) funding to states for emergency response preparation would not even begin until five years before high-level radioactive waste shipments to Yucca Mountain. If the U.S. federal government requires such a long advance time, how could PFS privately provide such training before shipments would begin as early as 2007? Given the withdrawal from the PFS consortium by member companies such as American Electric Power/Indiana-Michigan Power, and the reduced investment by Southern California Edison, it is unlikely PFS could meet its basic commitments, let alone pay for emergency responder training and equipment all across the U.S.

The "interim" nature of the project is also questionable. Assurances have been given by PFS (and NRC staff in the proposal's Environmental Impact Statement) that irradiated fuel would remain at Skull Valley for no more than 40 years before transfer to Nevada for permanent burial. Last October, however, U.S. Energy Department Yucca Mountain Project transport director Gary Lanthrum told the Salt Lake Tribune that the Yucca Mountain Project would simply not accept irradiated nuclear fuel from PFS, as that would violate the terms of DOE's Standard Contract for Disposal of Spent Nuclear Fuel, which requires DOE to only accept uncanistered fuel directly from nuclear utilities at reactor sites. Since PFS would not meet these requirements, it could very well lead to de facto permanent "disposal" of 4,000 casks of high-level radioactive waste above ground in Skull Valley.

For NRC to approve PFS at this time by assuming that Yucca Mountain would take the wastes after 40 years contradicts Gary Lanthum's statement, and also suggests that NRC is predisposed to approve DOE's Yucca Mountain license application even before the proceedings have begun.

This is very troubling and ignores ongoing, serious uncertainties surrounding the Yucca Mountain Project's future. In addition, even if the Yucca Mountain repository does open, it is technically and legally limited to 63,000 metric tons of commercial irradiated nuclear fuel. DOE projects that the total amount of commercial irradiated nuclear fuel generated in the U.S. will double to over 105,000 metric tons in the decades to come. This means that even if Yucca Mountain opens, PFS could very well turn into the de facto permanent overflow zone for excess waste.

Finally, on its face, the storage or disposal of highly radioactive waste on a tiny, poverty-stricken Native American community that did not even benefit from the nuclear generated electricity also raises significant environmental justice concerns. The existing leadership crisis at Skull Valley only exacerbates such concerns. There is a long-running dispute over the legitimacy of the tribal leadership that supports PFS. The disputed Tribal Chairman, Leon Bear -- the primary proponent for PFS -- has been indicted on federal charges of embezzlement of tribal funds as well as tax evasion. Tribal members who oppose PFS claim they have been severely intimidated and harassed, and allege that irregularities such as bribery and extortion have been used to secure support for PFS within the tribe.

These are very shaky foundations upon which to build dry cask storage for 44,000 tons of commercial irradiated nuclear fuel, nearly 80% of what currently exists in the U.S. The Skull Valley Goshute Indian community seems to have suffered significantly from the PFS proposal long before the first shipment of irradiated nuclear fuel has even arrived.

We urge you to deny the PFS license request. Storing irradiated nuclear fuel at the Skull Valley Goshute Reservation is not a safe, sound, nor just solution to our country's high-level radioactive waste problem."