ftp.xmission.com/2014.06.ftp.xmission.com.tar/ftp.xmission.com/pub/lists/abolition-usa/archive/v01.n066

Internet Message Format | 1999-01-31 | 62KB

From: [e-mail] (abolition-usa-digest)
To: [e-mail]
Subject: abolition-usa-digest V1 #66
Reply-To: abolition-usa-digest
Sender: [e-mail]
Errors-To: [e-mail]
Precedence: bulk


abolition-usa-digest     Monday, February 1 1999     Volume 01 : Number 066




----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1999 15:30:48 -0600 (CST)
From: [e-mail]
Subject: (abolition-usa) Re: ALERT, Y2K/Nukes public comment, Pleasr Call or Write!

On 01/27/99 15:47:53 you wrote:
>


You can also reach NRC Public Comments Office at:301-415-2845. If you don't have the time to write, please at least make a
phone call. Enough of us calling will make a difference.


- -Bill Smirnow


>ALERT! LETTERS TO NRC NEEDED NOW!
>The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has now published NIRS' three
>petitions for rulemaking on nuclear power and Y2K issues (Federal
>Register, January 25, 1999, Vol. 64, No. 15, pp 3789-3793). Public
>comment is being accepted through February 24, 1999. Your comments are
>needed now to ensure that the NRC acts decisively to address potential
>Y2K problems.
>
>The Federal Register notices and the full text of the petitions for
>rulemaking, along with background documents, are available on NIRS'
>website (www.nirs.org).
>
>The NIRS petitions, if adopted, would establish new rules for the atomic
>power industry and the NRC. These rules would:
>
>1) (Docket# PRM 50-65) require the shutdown, by December 1, 1999, of any
>nuclear reactor that is not demonstrably Y2K compliant, until such time
>as they are compliant. There is a widespread belief that the NRC has
>ordered the shutdown by July 1, 1999 of nuclear reactors that are not
>Y2K compliant. This is untrue. The NRC so far only has ordered the
>nuclear utilities to report by July 1 as to whether they are "Y2K ready"
>and if not, when they will be ready. The NRC has NEVER threatened to
>close any nuclear reactor for non-readiness. Rather, the NRC has said it
>will evaluate reactors that do not report readiness by July 1, "on a
>case-by-case basis."
>
>The purpose of this proposed rule is to ensure that there are standard
>criteria that the utilities must meet to demonstrate Y2K compliance (a
>stricter standard than "readiness"), and that the NRC will apply these
>criteria uniformly across the industry. The pressure to NOT apply
>uniform criteria will be great. Consider, for example, the NRC's Draft
>Contingency Plan on Y2K, which attempts to redefine the agency's mission
>of protecting the public health and safety to include ensuring that
>reactors are operating at the turn of the millenium (see below, public
>comments are being accepted on this as well). And consider that the NRC
>so far is not requiring utilities to test "vendor-certified" systems,
>despite the fact that tests (at the Hope Creek reactor, for example) of
>some such "vendor-certified" systems have shown that the systems were,
>in fact, not Y2K compliant (or ready). The NIRS definition would require
>testing of all systems. The first test of these systems must not come on
>01/01/00.
>
>Nuclear reactors should not be allowed to operate on December 31, 1999
>if compliance is not demonstrated, as the potential interactions among
>non-compliant and compliant systems presents an unknown, but foreseeable
>risk to the public.
>
>2) (Docket# PRM 50-66) require each nuclear site to hold a full-scale
>emergency response exercise during 1999 that includes a Y2K-related
>component.
>
>The purpose of this proposed rule is to build an industry-wide
>storehouse of knowledge that can be called upon if Y2K problems do
>evidence themselves. Until July 1996, all nuclear sites were required to
>hold annual emergency response exercises; now they must hold them
>biannually. This proposed rule would simply, for one year only, return
>the industry to an annual exercise and require the Y2K component. The
>NRC and the nuclear utilities are all preparing Y2K contingency plans,
>and are to be commended for this. However, there is a vast difference
>between an untested contingency plan and an actual exercise, in which
>nuclear utility personnel must respond to events as if they actually
>were happening. This type of training is invaluable, particularly for
>the type and range of problems Y2K issues could present.
>
>3) (Docket# PRM 50-67) require each reactor to have both of its
>emergency diesel generators declared operable, as of December 1, 1999;
>have a 60-day supply of diesel fuel available on site for each
>generator; declare irradiated (or "spent") fuel pools to be Class 1E (or
>safety-related and thus requiring back-up power); and require utilities
>to install an additional source of back-up power for each reactor by
>December 1, 1999.
>
>This proposed rule addresses what may be the most important Y2K
>issue-the possibility of local, regional, or widespread blackouts.
>Nuclear reactors require offsite electrical power to cool the reactor
>core and fuel pool. The scenario of losing electrical power is called by
>the NRC "station blackout," and according to the agency's own safety
>studies, this scenario represents about 50% of the risk of operating
>atomic reactors. In short, if an operating reactor loses power for any
>significant amount of time (several hours to a couple of days), the
>reactor will melt down.
>
>To compensate for this, reactors are required to have emergency diesel
>generators, each capable of powering the entire plant. The NRC claims
>these generators are 95% reliable--an uncomfortably low reliability
>factor for an industry that requires just about 100% perfection in
>operations. But NIRS' own research suggests that generator reliability
>is considerably lower than that (see the appendix to NIRS petition,
>available on the NIRS website). Moreover, one of the two emergency
>generators is often out-of-service for routine maintenance.
>
>This proposed rule would require both emergency diesel generators to be
>operable, and to have enough fuel onsite to compensate for potential
>fuel delivery problems caused by unrelated Y2K disruptions.
>Astonishingly, irradiated fuel pools, which also require cooling, are
>not even considered safety-related by the NRC, and thus are not subject
>to backup power requirements. This proposed rule would remedy that
>situation. Finally, because of the high failure rate of emergency diesel
>generators, this proposed rule would require utilities to install an
>additional source of dedicated back-up power (which could be added to
>the electrical grid once the Y2K issue is fully addressed). The petition
>does not specify the source of back-up power, although NIRS' preference
>is that it be locally-appropriate renewable energy sources.
>
>There is considerable misinformation on the Internet and among
>Y2K-concerned people about the need for electrical power for reactors
>and how long a reactor must be closed before offsite power is no longer
>needed.
>
>These issues are actually somewhat complex, and depend considerably on
>when the reactor last refueled (i.e., how long it has been operating
>since refueling). As a general rule of thumb, however, a reactor (with
>electrical power available) can reach "cold" shutdown within a day or
>two, and within about a month does not need circulating water around the
>core (in other words, does not need electrical power for pumps)-as long
>as the reactor vessel head is not opened. If the vessel head has been
>opened (for example, for refueling), evaporation and then boiling can
>occur quite quickly, and circulating water is needed for several months.
>
>It should be noted that it is nearly impossible to reach a "cold"
>shutdown without electrical power. The reactor probably would melt down.
>
>The fuel pool, where the high-level atomic waste sits, may also need
>circulating water depending on how recently waste has been added to the
>pool. This waste is not only extremely radioactive, it is thermally very
>hot. If fuel rods have been added recently, the fuel pool can begin to
>boil within a matter of days without water circulation and circulation
>(and electrical power) is needed for many months. Evaporation at a pool
>is also an issue, but a pool with only older fuel in it may be able to
>operate without circulating water for some weeks or months; eventually,
>however, circulation would need to be resumed. Generally speaking,
>high-level waste requires water cooling for about five years.
>
>Thus, we believe that our proposed date in our petitions (December 1,
>1999) is adequate, though probably not ideal. If you would prefer to see
>an earlier date for shutdown for non-compliance, for diesel generator
>operability, etc., you should say so in your comments on the proposed
>rules.
>
>Our conversations with the NRC staff indicate that the staff is
>sympathetic to our proposed rules, but do not believe that we have fully
>made the case for them, especially the case that the utilities should be
>mandated to meet these objectives. The NRC believes that the agency is
>probably doing enough, and that the utilities are taking steps on their
>own to address some of these issues. For example, we have learned that
>many utilities are planning to start up their diesel generators on
>December 30 or 31, 1999 and simply keep them running in case they are
>needed (although this could lead to overheating problems).
>
>Thus, it would be most helpful if your comments supported the concept
>that the NRC should require utilities to meet specified criteria to
>operate after December 1, that the NRC should require emergency response
>exercises, and that the NRC should require additional steps to protect
>against offsite power loss. Comments that draw on your personal
>knowledge, experience, and situation are also quite helpful. Likewise,
>comments bearing signatures of organizations or local officials are also
>helpful.
>
>There is no doubt that both the NRC and the nuclear utilities are aware
>of the potential problems with Y2K and are actively seeking to address
>them. Our disagreement is over how aggressive the NRC should be at
>regulating these issues, and over whether the NRC's mandate to protect
>the public health and safety should take clear precedence over any
>perceived need for electrical power from reactors.
>
>In this regard, the NRC's draft contingency plan is now available for
>public comment through February 15, 1999. The draft plan is already
>available on NIRS' website (www.nirs.org), and our comments will be
>posted in the next couple of days. Briefly, while we appreciate the
>NRC's effort to develop such plans, this particular plan places an undue
>emphasis upon ensuring power production. In fact, it redefines the NRC's
>mission by arguing that ensuring power production IS a public health and
>safety issue. If this ploy works for Y2K, it could work anytime
>anywhere. It simply must not be allowed to stand. In addition, because
>of this new emphasis, the NRC currently intends to short-circuit the
>normal process for utilities to obtain amendments and exemptions to
>their operating licenses to make split-second decisions on them simply
>to keep the reactors operating. This also sets a terrible precedent for
>public involvement in regulatory decisions and upends the NRC's public
>health and safety mandate.
>
>The NRC has told us they are hoping for a lot of comment on our
>petitions. We are too.
>
>Your comments should be sent to: Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
>Commission, Washington, DC 20555. Attention: Rulemakings and
>Adjudications Staff.
>    Deliver comments to 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland,
>between 7:30 am and 4:15 pm on Federal workdays.
>    For a copy of the petition, write: Chief, Rules and Directives
>Branch, Division of Administrative Services, Office of Administration,
>U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001 (petitions
>are also available on NIRS website (www.nirs.org)
>    You may also provide comments via the NRC's interactive rulemaking
>website through the NRC home page (http://www.nrc.gov). This site
>provides the capability to upload comments as files (any format), if
>your web browser supports that function. For information about the
>interactive rulemaking website, contact Ms. Carol Gallagher, (301)
>415-5905 (e-mail: [e-mail]).
>
>
>Michael Mariotte
>NIRS
>January 26, 1999
>
>
>




- -
 To unsubscribe to abolition-usa, send an email to "[e-mail]"
 with "unsubscribe abolition-usa" in the body of the message.
 For information on digests or retrieving files and old messages send
 "help" to the same address.  Do not use quotes in your message.

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1999 22:13:10 -0600 (CST)
From: [e-mail]
Subject: (abolition-usa) Fwd: Mobile Chernobyl is back! ACT NOW, DECISION COULD BE MADE IN JANUARY!!! HR-45

- ------Begin forward message-------------------------

From: Michael Mariotte <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
Subject: Mobile Chernobyl is back!
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=3Diso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Sender: [e-mail]
X-Listprocessor-Version: 8.2.07 -- ListProc(tm) by CREN



    Please call, write, fax again. They need to hear from us in DROVES an=
d they need to hear from us NOW. We don't need 30=20
years of trucking high level commercial nuclear waste vacross 43 states. =
LET'S STOP THEM NOW!


- -Bill Smirnow


=09
MOBILE CHERNOBYL ALERT! ALERT! ALERT! ALERT!

Capital Switchboard 202-225-3121 Call now and often!

Mobile Chernobyl, the idea of shipping all of the nation's high-level
nuclear waste to a parking lot in Nevada is BACK! Although Congress has
been unable to enact such legislation the past four years, the nuclear
industry wasted no time this year: on the first day of the
106th Congress, House members Fred Upton (R-MI) and Edolphus Towns
(D-NY) introduced a new Mobile Chernobyl bill. This year, it is HR 45.

The new bill is nearly identical to the previous House version of Mobile
Chernobyl but has some new funding provisions and new dates--to reflect
the atomic industry's previous failures to pass the legislation. The new
date for the opening of a centralized storage site for irradiated fuel
from nuclear power reactors and the military is 2003, which would
trigger the largest nuclear waste shipping campaign in history.

Transport of high-level nuclear waste from reactor sites, =BE of which ar=
e
east of the Mississippi River, would impact 43 states, according to
studies conducted by the State of Nevada. The legislation would require
an ambitious 3,000 metric tons of irradiated fuel a year--or about the
total amount that has been moved in the last 30 years, each year for the
next 30 years or more. 50 million Americans live within a half mile on
either side of the likely train tracks and highways this waste would
pass by. This is because normal trade routes-major interstate highways
and
railroutes--would be used to move the waste. Urban areas should examine
whether there is a disproportionate impact on some sectors of the
community. For example, highways and railways often are placed in
poorer, predominately minority areas.

MOBILE CHERNOBYL IS MOVING FAST. The new Chair of the House Subcommittee
on Energy and Water is Joe Barton, R-TX, who has long been a "water boy"
for the nuclear industry. He was, for example, the chief sponsor of
"one-step" reactor licensing legislation. Barton would like to move the
bill out of his subcommittee THIS MONTH - with no hearings.

Barton and his nuclear industry allies are counting on us to fold. They
believe that we have fought this effort so long and hard, that we no
longer have it in us to fight again. Guess again, Mr. Barton!

National environmental and public interest groups are meeting weekly to
launch an all-out offensive on Capital Hill. We have stopped this bill
every year since it was first introduced in 1994. We can stop it now,
but it requires immediate action from you, your friends and colleagues,
your organizations.

First target: demand hearings on this legislation. Since the funding
mechanism has changed - and is really complicated - this is the perfect
thing to focus on. NO MORE NUCLEAR WELFARE! Even if your U.S.
Representative is not on the House Commerce Committee, call his/her
office and demand that he/she:

1) OPPOSE HR 45, the Mobile Chernobyl Act
2) Demand new hearings: the bill is not the same and there are new
members of Congress
3) Focus on the money issues, the transport issue, and the fact that
this is environmental plunder not environmental protection!!!

While hearings might show the fallacy of the nuclear industry's funding
schemes-which are intended to put the burden of radioactive waste
storage on the taxpayer instead of the industry that created the waste,
hearings are not enough.

In fact, in December, 219 environmental groups demanded a complete end
to the Yucca Mountain project, for temporary or permanent waste storage,
because the science is now clear: Yucca Mountain cannot legally be
licensed as a radioactive waste dump-unless the government changes its
public health and safety licensing regulations and abandoning any effort
to isolate this massive load of radioactivity from the environment.

Here are a couple of other points you might want to make to your elected
representatives and senators. The impeachment trial is certainly slowing
things down in the Senate, but behind the scenes, the atomic industry's
gophers, such as Sens. Frank Murkowski, Larry Craig and Pete Domenici,
are readying new legislation there as well.

HR 45, and any Mobile Chernobyl legislation, is one of the worst
environmental bills ever. It does not provide a solution for nuclear
waste, just a "fix" for the nuclear industry that gets to dump their
waste on Native Shoshone lands, while at the same time making it the
possession of the tax-payer in perpetuity.  The legislation authorizes
the Department of Energy to curtail or preempt ALL environmental laws.

HR 45 sets new deadlines that are more unrealistic than the current
law's missed deadline of 1998.

Yucca Mountain will not isolate nuclear waste from the environment. Data
in the DOE's own "viability assessment" of the proposed Yucca Mountain
Repository contradicts any assertion that Yucca Mountain will isolate
nuclear waste from the environment. The constant seismic activity in the
area has fractured the soft rock of Yucca Mountain, allowing rain to
travel through the proposed repository site. The same fractures will
allow radioactive gases to escape as the waste decays.

A recent study of the funding of the Yucca Mountain Project shows that
there will be about a 50% shortfall in total project funds. By law the
funding for this project comes from the customers of nuclear power, and
the original concept was that they should pay the full bill. A
proportional 10% to be paid by taxpayers via the military budgets would
cover the cost of military waste that would go to the same site (10% of
the total waste). The fund is paid for monthly with the electric bill of
those who get nuclear power, but at the current rate, this fund will
deliver $28.1 Billion. The total projected cost of the program with
centralized storage is  $53.9 Billion. This means that taxpayers would
end up more than $25 billion in liability if these conservative
projections are met-and every year the cost projections go higher=85.

Our job is clear. We must stop HR 45 and all related legislation, and we
must begin now.

First, call your Congressmember at 202-224-3121 and demand that he/she
actively oppose this bill. Point out the effect transportation of
high-level atomic waste could have on your state.

Second, write your Congressmember-even if you called. Surveys of
Congressmembers clearly indicate that handwritten (or typed) letters
from citizens of the district or state are the single most effective
means of reaching your Congressmember. Faxes, e-mails, phone calls are
all ok, but nothing is as effective as a letter in your own words.

Third, organize your community, encourage more letters, phone calls,
faxes, e-mails. The latest public opinion polls we have available show
that some 67% of the public opposes Mobile Chernobyl, but only about 1/3
of the public even knows about it. Moreover, the more people learn about
it, according to the polls, the more likely they are to oppose it. That
means we all have to get out and educate and organize, because if we can
educate just 1/3 more of the public the battle will be over-we will win
hands down. Let NIRS know what organizing and educational materials you
need, we'll get them to you. You can also continue to collect signatures
on the Don't Waste America petitions, although we hope you'll use those
primarily as an educational tool, and encourage people to write their
own letters. Try setting up tables at public locations with a few sample
letters to Congress, focusing on your local situation, and urge people
to use these samples to write their own letters. Op-eds, letters to the
editor, press releases-it's time to start them all up again.

It is not too late to get resolutions against the legislation passed at
municipal and county levels. A resolution against HR 45 on the basis of
the transport of nuclear waste or any other issue is a very LOUD letter
to your U.S. Rep. Contact us if you need help with that.

It's time to stop Mobile Chernobyl once and for all. It's time to stop
Yucca Mountain once and for all. Together, we WILL prevail.

Michael  Mariotte
Mary Olson
NIRS
202-328-0002
http://www.nirs.org


- ------End forward message---------------------------



- -
 To unsubscribe to abolition-usa, send an email to "[e-mail]"
 with "unsubscribe abolition-usa" in the body of the message.
 For information on digests or retrieving files and old messages send
 "help" to the same address.  Do not use quotes in your message.

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 30 Jan 1999 13:24:58 -0500
From: Peter Weiss <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: (abolition-usa) [Fwd: criminal defense]

Dear Joshua Gordon,

    I assume you are in touch with Francis Boyle (see address above), who
is the world's leading expert on this subject. I have also asked the
LCNP staff to send you some cases.

    I'm afraid you've got a tough case. It's hard enough to get this kind
of evidence into civil disobedience directed at illegal weapons. Do any
of the ones involved in your case fall into that category. Even if not
illegal per se, can they be categorized as inherently aggressive weapons
and therefore in violation of Art. 2(4) of the UN Charter?

    I'll be glad to look at your brief if you want to send me a draft at
the Center for Constitutional Rights, 666 Broadway, New York NY 10012,
ph 212 614 6449, fx 212 614 6499.

                    Peter Weiss

Sean Donahue wrote:
>
> Sean:  Please distribute the following as widely as you can, along with
> my
> e-mail address.  Thanks.
>
> I represent several people who peacefully went on the property of a
> defense
> contractor to protest the company's manufacture of war machinery.  In a
> state court trial for trespass, they attempted to assert as a defense an
> obligation to do such acts pursuant to international law and the
> provisions
> of several treaties.  The defense was not allowed.  I am handling the
> appeal, and am looking for cases where such a defense was asserted,
> whether
> successfully or not.  Any help is appreciated.
>
> Law Office of Joshua Gordon
> 26 S. Main St., #175
> Concord, NH 03301
> [phone]
> e-mail:  [e-mail]
>
>   ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Subject: criminal defense
> Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1999 09:16:57 -0500
> From: "Joshua Gordon" <[e-mail]>
> To: "Sean Donahue" <[e-mail]>
>
> Sean:  Please distribute the following as widely as you can, along with my
> e-mail address.  Thanks.
>
> I represent several people who peacefully went on the property of a defense
> contractor to protest the company's manufacture of war machinery.  In a
> state court trial for trespass, they attempted to assert as a defense an
> obligation to do such acts pursuant to international law and the provisions
> of several treaties.  The defense was not allowed.  I am handling the
> appeal, and am looking for cases where such a defense was asserted, whether
> successfully or not.  Any help is appreciated.
>
> Law Office of Joshua Gordon
> 26 S. Main St., #175
> Concord, NH 03301
> [phone]
> e-mail:  [e-mail]
> This message may contain attorney privileged information.  Please keep
> confidential.



- -
 To unsubscribe to abolition-usa, send an email to "[e-mail]"
 with "unsubscribe abolition-usa" in the body of the message.
 For information on digests or retrieving files and old messages send
 "help" to the same address.  Do not use quotes in your message.

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 30 Jan 1999 12:44:38 -0500
From: Peter Weiss <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: (abolition-usa) Fwd: $50 Billion in Nuclear Liabilites

Just a short note to make your day: Merril Lynch's specialist on
electric utilities, a fellow named Steve Fleishman, said on last night's
Lou Rukeyser show: "Merril Lynch is very bullish on nuclear plants." In
the small comfort department, he added: "But we don't expect any new
ones to be built."
                    Peter Weiss

[e-mail] wrote:
>
> ------Begin forward message-------------------------
>
> Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1999 11:41:00 -0500
> From: Auke Piersma <[e-mail]>
> Sender: [e-mail]
> Organization: Public Citizen
> To: [e-mail] (****NUKE-NET*****),
>         [e-mail] (***NUKE-WASTE)
> Subject: $50 Billion in Nuclear Liabilites
> Reply-To: [e-mail]
> X-Sender: Auke Piersma <[e-mail]>
>
> Public Citizen News Release
>
> For Immediate Release:                                  Contact: Jim Riccio, [phone]
> Jan. 26, 1999                                                   Auke Piersma, [phone]
>
> STUDY SHOWS ELECTRICITY DEREGULATION COULD CAUSE UNFUNDED NUCLEAR WASTE
> LIABILITIES THAT MAY EXCEED $50 BILLION
>
>         WASHINGTON, D.C. -- A new study released today, Stranded Nuclear Waste,
> documents alarming funding shortfalls for decommissioning and nuclear waste
> storage. Authored by Synapse Energy Economics, the study indicates that
> electric utility deregulation will force early closure of many nuclear
> plants, facing policy-makers with difficult and controversial choices
> regarding future funding of nuclear plant decommissioning and waste storage
> costs totaling as much as $54 billion nationally. Of the 103 nuclear plants,
> as many as 90 could be forced to close before their scheduled retirement
> dates as a result of the competitive pressures expected from deregulation.
>
>         "It has been evident for decades that nuclear power is expensive and
> dangerous," said Wenonah Hauter, director of Public Citizen's Critical Mass
> Energy Project. "As the nuclear era dies out, the costs of nuclear power
> continually rise, and as a result ratepayers are forced to pay for the
> bailout of nuclear utilities."
>
>         Because funding under current law assumes plants will run until their
> licenses expire, these economically driven plant closures would create an
> unfunded liability for nuclear plant decommissioning, potentially rising to
> $15.3 billion. "Since nuclear utilities are being unjustly enriched with a
> nuclear bailout, they should pay for the decommissioning of reactors," said
> Jim Riccio, a staff attorney with Public Citizen's Critical Mass Energy
> Project.
>
>         Early plant retirements will also create an unfunded liability for
> long-term storage of high level nuclear waste. This could total as much as
> $46.5 billion if economics force early closure of these plants, and a recent
> independent estimate of the total cost of the planned Yucca Mountain waste
> storage facility proves accurate. To make matters worse, H.R. 45, the
> Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1999, exacerbates the problem by reducing the
> fees paid by the industry for nuclear waste storage. "It is outrageous that
> the nuclear industry is not paying the full costs of nuclear waste storage,
> but for Members of Congress to support a reduction of the fees is
> unthinkable," said Auke Piersma, a energy policy analyst with Public
> Citizen's Critical Mass Energy Project.
>
>         "Public Citizen will oppose any attempts to burden ratepayers or taxpayers
> with additional decommissioning or nuclear waste storage costs," Hauter
> said. "The utilities' past mistakes and bad management require that utility
> profits be used to balance the books."
>
> ------End forward message---------------------------
>
> -
>  To unsubscribe to abolition-usa, send an email to "[e-mail]"
>  with "unsubscribe abolition-usa" in the body of the message.
>  For information on digests or retrieving files and old messages send
>  "help" to the same address.  Do not use quotes in your message.



- -
 To unsubscribe to abolition-usa, send an email to "[e-mail]"
 with "unsubscribe abolition-usa" in the body of the message.
 For information on digests or retrieving files and old messages send
 "help" to the same address.  Do not use quotes in your message.

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 01 Feb 1999 07:41:28 -0500
From: Peace though Reason <[e-mail]>
Subject: (abolition-usa) NucNews (US-2) 2/01/99 - AmeriScan key articles 1/5-26/99

- --=====================_358990==_.ALT
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"


4. AmeriScan: January 26, 1999
http://ens.lycos.com/ens/jan99/1999L-01-26-09.html
*PLUTONIUM STABILIZATION RESUMES AT HANFORD
*DEPLETED URANIUM MAY BE CAUSE OF GULF WAR ILLNESS

5. AmeriScan: January 19, 1999
http://ens.lycos.com/ens/jan99/1999L-01-19-09.html
LATEST VERSION OF "MOBILE CHERNOBYL" OPPOSED

6. AmeriScan: January 7, 1999
http://ens.lycos.com/ens/jan99/1999L-01-07-09.html
*NUCLEAR PLANTS ALLOWED DISCRETION IN SEVERE WEATHER
*BILL TO CREATE PERMANENT NUCLEAR REPOSITORY INTRODUCED
*YUCCA MOUNTAIN FOCUS OF NUCLEAR WASTEREVIEW BOARD MEETING

7. AmeriScan: January 6, 1999
http://ens.lycos.com/ens/jan99/1999L-01-06-09.html
NUCLEAR PLANT LEAK HITS CONNECTICUT BAY

8. AmeriScan: January 5, 1999
http://ens.lycos.com/ens/jan99/1999L-01-05-09.html
*PROLIFERATION RESISTANT PLAN FOR BOMB GRADE SPENT FUEL
*NUCLEAR FUEL SHIPMENTS TO VALLECITOS CHALLENGED
*NEBRASKA DENIES US ECOLOGY NUCLEAR WASTE LICENSE

- -----------------------------------------

- ----------------------------------------

4. AmeriScan: January 26, 1999

http://ens.lycos.com/ens/jan99/1999L-01-26-09.html

PLUTONIUM STABILIZATION RESUMES AT HANFORD

The thermal stabilization of plutonium has resumed after a two-year suspension
at the Plutonium Finishing Plant on the Hanford Nuclear Site in southeastern
Washington. The process converts chemically reactive plutonium-bearing scraps
and powders into a safer form for starage by heating the material in small
ovens at 1,000 degrees Celsius for two to four hours. This drives out the
moisture and volatile chemicals and converts the material into impure, inert
plutonium oxide that can be sealed in containers for long-term storage in
shielded vaults at Hanford. The plant holds 4.3 metric tons of scrap plutonium
in 17.8 metric tons of plutonium-bearing materials in metal, powders, scraps,
liquids and polycubes. In October 1996, B&W Hanford Company (BWHC) took over
management of the Plutonium Finishing Plant. Their staff passed a rigorous
Operational Readiness Review January 15 after inspection by a team from the
Department of Energy (DOE) and one from Hanford's principal contractor, Fluor
Daniel Hanford. The DOE says B&W Hanford has resolved problems raised by the
May 14, 1997 chemical explosion at the Plutonium Reclamation Facility, which is
part of the Finishing Plant.

   * *

*DEPLETED URANIUM MAY BE CAUSE OF GULF WAR ILLNESS

The National Gulf War Resource Center, a coalition of veterans groups based in
Washington, now estimates that as many as 600,000 Gulf War soldiers could have
been exposed to depleted uranium, the San Francisco Examiner reported Saturday.
The exposure could be an explanation for the pervasive and so far unexplained
Gulf War illness. Last December, nearly eight years after the Gulf War, the
Pentagon showed President Bill Clinton's Oversight Committee a map of the Gulf
War battlefield, that detailed sites where Army tanks and Air Force jets fired
more than 300 tons of depleted uranium ammunition at Iraqi troops in 1991. "The
map shows that almost every combat unit goes through contaminated areas twice,"
said Paul Sullivan, executive director of the National Gulf War Resource
Center. He said that soldiers traveled on contaminated roads and may have
camped on contaminated land for two months.

   * *

*5. LATEST VERSION OF "MOBILE CHERNOBYL" OPPOSED

http://ens.lycos.com/ens/jan99/1999L-01-19-09.html

The Nuclear Information and Resource Service (NIRS), a Washington, DC based
nuclear watchdog group, is organizing a campaign against the latest bill
introduced in Congress to move nuclear waste to a central storage facility from
power plants across the country. NIRS is urging calls and letters, faxes and
email to Congress opposing HR 45, introduced on the first day of the 106th
Congress by Fred Upton, a Michigan Republican and Edolphus Towns, a New York
Democrat. Because of the potential risks of shipping nuclear waste across the
country, critics of the plan refer to the bill as "Mobile Chernobyl." NIRS
spokesman Michael Mariotte says, "The latest public opinion polls we have
available show that some 67 percent of the public opposes Mobile Chernobyl, but
only about 1/3 of the public even knows about it. Moreover, the more people
learn about it, according to the polls, the more likely they are to oppose it."
Nuclear power plants say the need for a central waste storage depot is urgent
as they are running out of on-site storage capacity.

   * *

*6. AmeriScan: January 7, 1999

http://ens.lycos.com/ens/jan99/1999L-01-07-09.html

NUCLEAR PLANTS ALLOWED DISCRETION IN SEVERE WEATHER

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has given the NRC staff approval to exercise
discretion expeditiously on enforcement actions during severe weather
conditions where safety will not be undermined. Previously, the use of
enforcement discretion for these types of situations required prior Commission
approval. Now, the Commission will be notified in writing after the action has
been taken. The new policy was immediately used by the Point Beach Nuclear
Plant in Wisconsin where enforcement discretion was requested and granted
Tuesday by the NRC regarding the Unit 1 shutdown required by a frozen
recirculation line. The line was thawed and Unit 1 is now being returned to 100
percent power after being cut to 23 percent during the crisis. The plant, owned
and operated by the Wisconsin Electric Power Co. is located on the west shore
of Lake Michigan, about 30 miles southeast of Green Bay.

   * *

*BILL TO CREATE PERMANENT NUCLEAR REPOSITORY INTRODUCED

U.S. Congressmen Fred Upton, a Michigan Republican and Edolphus Towns, a New
York Democrat, last night introduced legislation that would establish an
integrated nuclear waste management system with centralized interim storage and
permanent disposal of used fuel from commercial nuclear energy plants. The
Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1999 (H.R. 45) is similar to a previous bill
approved in the 105th Congress by a margin of 307-120. The nuclear industry
applauded the legislation and said a recently released report on the viability
of a site at Yucca Mountain, Nevada being evaluated as a permanent repository
"increases confidence that our nation's brightest technical minds can engineer
a repository that safely isolates used fuel." The Nuclear Energy Institute, the
nuclear energy industry's Washington-based policy organization said, "The
government's failure to meet its 1999 deadline to begin disposing of used
nuclear fuel means that the meter is running on potentially tens of billions of
dollars in damages from litigation already under way. Electricity consumers who
already have financed the government's $15 billion nuclear waste fund for a
disposal program they haven't gotten, deserve a solution to this issue now."

   * *

*YUCCA MOUNTAIN FOCUS OF NUCLEAR WASTE REVIEW BOARD MEETING

The Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board will hold its winter meeting, which is
open to the public, on January 26 and 27 in Las Vegas, Nevada. On January 26,
the meeting will focus on progress on alternative repository design, scientific
and engineering investigations, and regulatory criteria pertinent to a
potential repository at Yucca Mountain, Nevada. The Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (NRC) has been invited to send a representative to discuss the NRC's
draft rule for disposal of high-level waste at Yucca Mountain. On January 27,
the focus of the meeting will turn to the U.S. Department of Energy's Viability
Assessment. Representatives from the DOE will make presentations on different
aspects of the VA, including repository design, waste package characteristics,
total system performance assessment, the license application plan, and
repository life-cycle costs. Time will be set aside at the end of both days to
take public comments. The meeting opens at 1:00 pm on January 26, and 8:00 am
on January 27 at the Alexis Park Hotel, 375 East Harmon, Las Vegas, Nevada
89109.

   * *

*7. AmeriScan: January 6, 1999

http://ens.lycos.com/ens/jan99/1999L-01-06-09.html

NUCLEAR PLANT LEAK HITS CONNECTICUT BAY

Millstone Nuclear Power Plant near New London, Connecticut

The state of Connecticut has been notified that at least 840 gallons of waste
water containing trace amounts of radioactive tritium have leaked from the
Millstone Nuclear Power Plant into Niantic Bay. Early Monday morning a leak in
a heater loop for the Unit 3 'A' waste test tank was discovered. Waste water in
the tank contained radioactivity and boric acid. The leak of about one to two
gallons per minute was isolated. A berm surrounding the tank had been installed
due to a prior leak but did not contain this leak. Upon subsequent surveys of
the storm drain system, tritium was detected at the DSN-006 sample point. Owned
by the Northeast Nuclear Energy Company, Millstone is located 3.2 miles
southwest of New London, Connecticut.

   * *

*8. AmeriScan: January 5, 1999

http://ens.lycos.com/ens/jan99/1999L-01-05-09.html

PROLIFERATION RESISTANT PLAN FOR BOMB GRADE SPENT FUEL

The Department of Energy (DOE) has announced a plan to avoid reprocessing most
of the foreign and domestic spent fuel containing bomb-grade uranium now stored
at the Savannah River Site in South Carolina. DOE plans to get rid of the
highly enriched uranium by employing a new process known as "melt-and-dilute"
that directly converts the spent fuel into low-enriched uranium ingots. These
ingots are considered well suited for geological disposal and unattractive for
nuclear weapons use. The alternative considered by DOE - reprocessing the spent
fuel in the H-Canyon at the Savannah River Site - would separate the highly
enriched uranium in a weapons-usable form and extend use of the aging
reprocessing plant, posing proliferation and environmental risks. The choice of
melt-and-dilute over reprocessing is outlined in DOE's "Savannah River Site
Spent Nuclear Fuel Management Draft Environmental Impact Statement," released
December 28. Paul Leventhal, president of the Washington, DC based watchdog
group Nuclear Control Institute, hailed the DOE plan but warned that adequate
funding must be in place. "Turning this plan into reality will require adequate
funding and a final record of decision before the 2000 election," Leventhal
said. "We are concerned that this promising new technology could be smothered
in the cradle by a lack of funding."

   * *

*NUCLEAR FUEL SHIPMENTS TO VALLECITOS CHALLENGED

Environmental groups in the Bay Area, California towns of Livermore, Sunol and
Pleasanton are worried about the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's approval of a
shipment of ten irradiated nuclear fuel rods from the Limerick, Pennsylvania
nuclear power plant to the Vallecitos Nuclear Center in their neighborhood.
Vallecitos was closed in 1997 by General Electric after its location over an
active earthquake fault became known. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission's (NRC)
web page lists the facility as "closed down." But, since 1977, Vallecitos has
received 50 shipments of irradiated nuclear fuel rods, containing 513 kilos of
solid radioactive fuel. At least 11 shipments have come in the last five years,
all without any public notification, the nuclear watchdog group Tri-Valley
CARES complains. The Limerick nuclear power plant encountered "minor problems"
during the last week in November during loading of the fuel rods into a
shipping cask, according to an internal NRC report. "There were also believed
to be some irregularities, so the operation was halted," the memo said. The
shipment is now scheduled to take place sometime in 1999. Tri-Valley CARES is
working with other citizens' groups to demand public meetings at which
information about the hazards of nuclear transport and storage would be
released.

   * *

*NEBRASKA DENIES US ECOLOGY NUCLEAR WASTE LICENSE

Two Nebraska agencies have issued a denial of US Ecology's license application
to construct a low-level radioactive waste facility in Boyd County. The
announcement was made in late December by Randolph Wood, director of the
Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality, and Dr. David Schor of the
Nebraska Department of Health and Human Services Regulation and Licensure. A
preliminary decision of the intent to deny had been announced in August. The
license was denied for six reasons:

 1.The site lacks sufficient depth to the water table. It provides no depth,
let alone a sufficient depth, to ground water.
2.The site lacks an adequate buffer zone. Ground water is capable of
infiltrating the facility's liner and leachate collection system.
3.Engineered structures and barriers are planned substitutes for a suitable
site.
4.Ground water discharges to the surface within the disposal site.
5.There is a need for continuing active maintenance after site closure.
6.The applicant has not demonstrated that it meets the financial assurance
requirements for the construction of a low-level radioactive waste disposal
facility.

US Ecology has until January 21 to file a written petition for a contested case
hearing.

_____________________________________________________________

       * NucNews - to subscribe: [e-mail] - http://prop1.org *
                         Say "Please Subscribe NucNews"
NucNews Archive: HTTP://WWW.ONELIST.COM/arcindex.cgi?listname=NucNews
           since January 13, 1999; for earlier editions - write [e-mail]
                          ---------------------------------------

   NOTE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, this material is
  distributed without profit or payment, to those who have expressed a prior
       interest in receiving this information, for non-profit research and
             educational purposes only. For more information go to:
                <http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml>
_____________________________________________________________
- --=====================_358990==_.ALT
Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<html><div>4. AmeriScan: January 26, 1999</div>
<div><a href=3D"http://ens.lycos.com/ens/jan99/1999L-01-26-09.html"=
 EUDORA=3DAUTOURL>http://ens.lycos.com/ens/jan99/1999L-01-26-09.html</a></di=
v>
<div>*PLUTONIUM STABILIZATION RESUMES AT HANFORD</div>
<div>*DEPLETED URANIUM MAY BE CAUSE OF GULF WAR ILLNESS</div>
<br>
<div>5. AmeriScan: January 19, 1999</div>
<div><a href=3D"http://ens.lycos.com/ens/jan99/1999L-01-19-09.html"=
 EUDORA=3DAUTOURL>http://ens.lycos.com/ens/jan99/1999L-01-19-09.html</a></di=
v>
<div>LATEST VERSION OF "MOBILE CHERNOBYL" OPPOSED</div>
<br>
<div>6. AmeriScan: January 7, 1999</div>
<div><a href=3D"http://ens.lycos.com/ens/jan99/1999L-01-07-09.html"=
 EUDORA=3DAUTOURL>http://ens.lycos.com/ens/jan99/1999L-01-07-09.html</a></di=
v>
<div>*NUCLEAR PLANTS ALLOWED DISCRETION IN SEVERE WEATHER</div>
<div>*BILL TO CREATE PERMANENT NUCLEAR REPOSITORY INTRODUCED</div>
<div>*YUCCA MOUNTAIN FOCUS OF NUCLEAR WASTEREVIEW BOARD MEETING</div>
<br>
<div>7. AmeriScan: January 6, 1999</div>
<div><a href=3D"http://ens.lycos.com/ens/jan99/1999L-01-06-09.html"=
 EUDORA=3DAUTOURL>http://ens.lycos.com/ens/jan99/1999L-01-06-09.html</a></di=
v>
<div>NUCLEAR PLANT LEAK HITS CONNECTICUT BAY</div>
<br>
<div>8. AmeriScan: January 5, 1999</div>
<div><a href=3D"http://ens.lycos.com/ens/jan99/1999L-01-05-09.html"=
 EUDORA=3DAUTOURL>http://ens.lycos.com/ens/jan99/1999L-01-05-09.html</a></di=
v>
<div>*PROLIFERATION RESISTANT PLAN FOR BOMB GRADE SPENT FUEL</div>
<div>*NUCLEAR FUEL SHIPMENTS TO VALLECITOS CHALLENGED</div>
<div>*NEBRASKA DENIES US ECOLOGY NUCLEAR WASTE LICENSE</div>
<br>
<div>-----------------------------------------</div>
<br>
<div>----------------------------------------</div>
<br>
<div>4. AmeriScan: January 26, 1999</div>
<br>
<div><a href=3D"http://ens.lycos.com/ens/jan99/1999L-01-26-09.html"=
 EUDORA=3DAUTOURL>http://ens.lycos.com/ens/jan99/1999L-01-26-09.html</a></di=
v>
<br>
<div>PLUTONIUM STABILIZATION RESUMES AT HANFORD</div>
<br>
<div>The thermal stabilization of plutonium has resumed after a two-year
suspension at the Plutonium Finishing Plant on the Hanford Nuclear Site
in southeastern Washington. The process converts chemically reactive
plutonium-bearing scraps and powders into a safer form for starage by
heating the material in small ovens at 1,000 degrees Celsius for two to
four hours. This drives out the moisture and volatile chemicals and
converts the material into impure, inert plutonium oxide that can be
sealed in containers for long-term storage in shielded vaults at Hanford.
The plant holds 4.3 metric tons of scrap plutonium in 17.8 metric tons of
plutonium-bearing materials in metal, powders, scraps, liquids and
polycubes. In October 1996, B&W Hanford Company (BWHC) took over
management of the Plutonium Finishing Plant. Their staff passed a
rigorous Operational Readiness Review January 15 after inspection by a
team from the Department of Energy (DOE) and one from Hanford's principal
contractor, Fluor Daniel Hanford. The DOE says B&W Hanford has
resolved problems raised by the May 14, 1997 chemical explosion at the
Plutonium Reclamation Facility, which is part of the Finishing Plant.
</div>
<br>
<div>   * * </div>
<br>
<div>*DEPLETED URANIUM MAY BE CAUSE OF GULF WAR ILLNESS</div>
<br>
<div>The National Gulf War Resource Center, a coalition of veterans
groups based in Washington, now estimates that as many as 600,000 Gulf
War soldiers could have been exposed to depleted uranium, the San
Francisco Examiner reported Saturday. The exposure could be an
explanation for the pervasive and so far unexplained Gulf War illness.
Last December, nearly eight years after the Gulf War, the Pentagon showed
President Bill Clinton's Oversight Committee a map of the Gulf War
battlefield, that detailed sites where Army tanks and Air Force jets
fired more than 300 tons of depleted uranium ammunition at Iraqi troops
in 1991. "The map shows that almost every combat unit goes through
contaminated areas twice," said Paul Sullivan, executive director of
the National Gulf War Resource Center. He said that soldiers traveled on
contaminated roads and may have camped on contaminated land for two
months. </div>
<br>
<div>   * * </div>
<br>
<div>*5. LATEST VERSION OF "MOBILE CHERNOBYL" OPPOSED</div>
<br>
<div><a href=3D"http://ens.lycos.com/ens/jan99/1999L-01-19-09.html"=
 EUDORA=3DAUTOURL>http://ens.lycos.com/ens/jan99/1999L-01-19-09.html</a></di=
v>
<br>
<div>The Nuclear Information and Resource Service (NIRS), a Washington,
DC based nuclear watchdog group, is organizing a campaign against the
latest bill introduced in Congress to move nuclear waste to a central
storage facility from power plants across the country. NIRS is urging
calls and letters, faxes and email to Congress opposing HR 45, introduced
on the first day of the 106th Congress by Fred Upton, a Michigan
Republican and Edolphus Towns, a New York Democrat. Because of the
potential risks of shipping nuclear waste across the country, critics of
the plan refer to the bill as "Mobile Chernobyl." NIRS
spokesman Michael Mariotte says, "The latest public opinion polls we
have available show that some 67 percent of the public opposes Mobile
Chernobyl, but only about 1/3 of the public even knows about it.
Moreover, the more people learn about it, according to the polls, the
more likely they are to oppose it." Nuclear power plants say the
need for a central waste storage depot is urgent as they are running out
of on-site storage capacity. </div>
<br>
<div>   * * </div>
<br>
<div>*6. AmeriScan: January 7, 1999</div>
<br>
<div><a href=3D"http://ens.lycos.com/ens/jan99/1999L-01-07-09.html"=
 EUDORA=3DAUTOURL>http://ens.lycos.com/ens/jan99/1999L-01-07-09.html</a></di=
v>
<br>
<div>NUCLEAR PLANTS ALLOWED DISCRETION IN SEVERE WEATHER</div>
<br>
<div>The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has given the NRC staff approval
to exercise discretion expeditiously on enforcement actions during severe
weather conditions where safety will not be undermined. Previously, the
use of enforcement discretion for these types of situations required
prior Commission approval. Now, the Commission will be notified in
writing after the action has been taken. The new policy was immediately
used by the Point Beach Nuclear Plant in Wisconsin where enforcement
discretion was requested and granted Tuesday by the NRC regarding the
Unit 1 shutdown required by a frozen recirculation line. The line was
thawed and Unit 1 is now being returned to 100 percent power after being
cut to 23 percent during the crisis. The plant, owned and operated by the
Wisconsin Electric Power Co. is located on the west shore of Lake
Michigan, about 30 miles southeast of Green Bay. </div>
<br>
<div>   * * </div>
<br>
<div>*BILL TO CREATE PERMANENT NUCLEAR REPOSITORY INTRODUCED</div>
<br>
<div>U.S. Congressmen Fred Upton, a Michigan Republican and Edolphus
Towns, a New York Democrat, last night introduced legislation that would
establish an integrated nuclear waste management system with centralized
interim storage and permanent disposal of used fuel from commercial
nuclear energy plants. The Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1999 (H.R. 45) is
similar to a previous bill approved in the 105th Congress by a margin of
307-120. The nuclear industry applauded the legislation and said a
recently released report on the viability of a site at Yucca Mountain,
Nevada being evaluated as a permanent repository "increases
confidence that our nation's brightest technical minds can engineer a
repository that safely isolates used fuel." The Nuclear Energy
Institute, the nuclear energy industry's Washington-based policy
organization said, "The government's failure to meet its 1999
deadline to begin disposing of used nuclear fuel means that the meter is
running on potentially tens of billions of dollars in damages from
litigation already under way. Electricity consumers who already have
financed the government's $15 billion nuclear waste fund for a disposal
program they haven't gotten, deserve a solution to this issue now."
</div>
<br>
<div>   * * </div>
<br>
<div>*YUCCA MOUNTAIN FOCUS OF NUCLEAR WASTE REVIEW BOARD MEETING</div>
<br>
<div>The Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board will hold its winter
meeting, which is open to the public, on January 26 and 27 in Las Vegas,
Nevada. On January 26, the meeting will focus on progress on alternative
repository design, scientific and engineering investigations, and
regulatory criteria pertinent to a potential repository at Yucca
Mountain, Nevada. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has been
invited to send a representative to discuss the NRC's draft rule for
disposal of high-level waste at Yucca Mountain. On January 27, the focus
of the meeting will turn to the U.S. Department of Energy's Viability
Assessment. Representatives from the DOE will make presentations on
different aspects of the VA, including repository design, waste package
characteristics, total system performance assessment, the license
application plan, and repository life-cycle costs. Time will be set aside
at the end of both days to take public comments. The meeting opens at
1:00 pm on January 26, and 8:00 am on January 27 at the Alexis Park
Hotel, 375 East Harmon, Las Vegas, Nevada 89109. </div>
<br>
<div>   * * </div>
<br>
<div>*7. AmeriScan: January 6, 1999</div>
<br>
<div><a href=3D"http://ens.lycos.com/ens/jan99/1999L-01-06-09.html"=
 EUDORA=3DAUTOURL>http://ens.lycos.com/ens/jan99/1999L-01-06-09.html</a></di=
v>
<br>
<div>NUCLEAR PLANT LEAK HITS CONNECTICUT BAY</div>
<br>
<div>Millstone Nuclear Power Plant near New London, Connecticut</div>
<br>
<div>The state of Connecticut has been notified that at least 840 gallons
of waste water containing trace amounts of radioactive tritium have
leaked from the Millstone Nuclear Power Plant into Niantic Bay. Early
Monday morning a leak in a heater loop for the Unit 3 'A' waste test tank
was discovered. Waste water in the tank contained radioactivity and boric
acid. The leak of about one to two gallons per minute was isolated. A
berm surrounding the tank had been installed due to a prior leak but did
not contain this leak. Upon subsequent surveys of the storm drain system,
tritium was detected at the DSN-006 sample point. Owned by the Northeast
Nuclear Energy Company, Millstone is located 3.2 miles southwest of New
London, Connecticut. </div>
<br>
<div>   * * </div>
<br>
<div>*8. AmeriScan: January 5, 1999</div>
<br>
<div><a href=3D"http://ens.lycos.com/ens/jan99/1999L-01-05-09.html"=
 EUDORA=3DAUTOURL>http://ens.lycos.com/ens/jan99/1999L-01-05-09.html</a></di=
v>
<br>
<div>PROLIFERATION RESISTANT PLAN FOR BOMB GRADE SPENT FUEL</div>
<br>
<div>The Department of Energy (DOE) has announced a plan to avoid
reprocessing most of the foreign and domestic spent fuel containing
bomb-grade uranium now stored at the Savannah River Site in South
Carolina. DOE plans to get rid of the highly enriched uranium by
employing a new process known as "melt-and-dilute" that
directly converts the spent fuel into low-enriched uranium ingots. These
ingots are considered well suited for geological disposal and
unattractive for nuclear weapons use. The alternative considered by DOE -
reprocessing the spent fuel in the H-Canyon at the Savannah River Site -
would separate the highly enriched uranium in a weapons-usable form and
extend use of the aging reprocessing plant, posing proliferation and
environmental risks. The choice of melt-and-dilute over reprocessing is
outlined in DOE's "Savannah River Site Spent Nuclear Fuel Management
Draft Environmental Impact Statement," released December 28. Paul
Leventhal, president of the Washington, DC based watchdog group Nuclear
Control Institute, hailed the DOE plan but warned that adequate funding
must be in place. "Turning this plan into reality will require
adequate funding and a final record of decision before the 2000
election," Leventhal said. "We are concerned that this
promising new technology could be smothered in the cradle by a lack of
funding." </div>
<br>
<div>   * * </div>
<br>
<div>*NUCLEAR FUEL SHIPMENTS TO VALLECITOS CHALLENGED</div>
<br>
<div>Environmental groups in the Bay Area, California towns of Livermore,
Sunol and Pleasanton are worried about the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission's approval of a shipment of ten irradiated nuclear fuel rods
from the Limerick, Pennsylvania nuclear power plant to the Vallecitos
Nuclear Center in their neighborhood. Vallecitos was closed in 1997 by
General Electric after its location over an active earthquake fault
became known. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission's (NRC) web page lists
the facility as "closed down." But, since 1977, Vallecitos has
received 50 shipments of irradiated nuclear fuel rods, containing 513
kilos of solid radioactive fuel. At least 11 shipments have come in the
last five years, all without any public notification, the nuclear
watchdog group Tri-Valley CARES complains. The Limerick nuclear power
plant encountered "minor problems" during the last week in
November during loading of the fuel rods into a shipping cask, according
to an internal NRC report. "There were also believed to be some
irregularities, so the operation was halted," the memo said. The
shipment is now scheduled to take place sometime in 1999. Tri-Valley
CARES is working with other citizens' groups to demand public meetings at
which information about the hazards of nuclear transport and storage
would be released. </div>
<br>
<div>   * * </div>
<br>
<div>*NEBRASKA DENIES US ECOLOGY NUCLEAR WASTE LICENSE</div>
<br>
<div>Two Nebraska agencies have issued a denial of US Ecology's license
application to construct a low-level radioactive waste facility in Boyd
County. The announcement was made in late December by Randolph Wood,
director of the Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality, and Dr.
David Schor of the Nebraska Department of Health and Human Services
Regulation and Licensure. A preliminary decision of the intent to deny
had been announced in August. The license was denied for six
reasons:</div>
<br>
<div> 1.The site lacks sufficient depth to the water table. It
provides no depth, let alone a sufficient depth, to ground
water.   </div>
<div>2.The site lacks an adequate buffer zone. Ground water is capable of
infiltrating the facility's liner and leachate collection
system.   </div>
<div>3.Engineered structures and barriers are planned substitutes for a
suitable site.   </div>
<div>4.Ground water discharges to the surface within the disposal
site.   </div>
<div>5.There is a need for continuing active maintenance after site
closure.   </div>
<div>6.The applicant has not demonstrated that it meets the financial
assurance requirements for the construction of a low-level radioactive
waste disposal facility.</div>
<br>
<div>US Ecology has until January 21 to file a written petition for a
contested case hearing. </div>
<br>

_____________________________________________________________<br>
<br>
       * NucNews - to subscribe:
[e-mail] -
<a href=3D"http://prop1.org/" eudora=3D"autourl">http://prop1.org</a> *<br>
            &nbs=
p;
Say "Please Subscribe NucNews"<br>
<font size=3D2><b>NucNews Archive</b>:
<a href=3D"http://www.onelist.com/arcindex.cgi?listname=3DNucNews"=
 eudora=3D"autourl">HTTP://WWW.ONELIST.COM/arcindex.cgi?listname=3DNucNews</=
a><br>
           since
January 13, 1999; for earlier editions - write [e-mail]<br>
</font><font size=3D1>
<dl>
<dl>
<dd>            =
            &nbs=
p;
- ---------------------------------------<br>
<br>

<dd>   NOTE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107,
this material is=20
<dd>  distributed without profit or payment, to those who have
expressed a prior=20
<dd>       interest in receiving this
information, for non-profit research and=20
<dd>
educational purposes only. For more information go to:=20
<dd>            =

<</font><a href=3D"http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml"=
 eudora=3D"autourl"><font size=3D1=
 color=3D"#0000FF"><u>http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml</a></fo=
nt></u><font size=3D1>>
</font>
</dl>
</dl>_____________________________________________________________</html>

- --=====================_358990==_.ALT--


- -
 To unsubscribe to abolition-usa, send an email to "[e-mail]"
 with "unsubscribe abolition-usa" in the body of the message.
 For information on digests or retrieving files and old messages send
 "help" to the same address.  Do not use quotes in your message.

------------------------------

End of abolition-usa-digest V1 #66
**********************************

-
 To unsubscribe to $LIST, send an email to "[e-mail]"
 with "unsubscribe $LIST" in the body of the message.
 For information on digests or retrieving files and old messages send
 "help" to the same address.  Do not use quotes in your message.