[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
some info from NIRS
Here is some information from the NIRS list that may be of interest on
Yucca Mountain and a letter from Gorbachev.
Mike ... mcbaker@lanl.gov
>From: Michael Mariotte <nirsnet@nirs.org>
>To: nirsnet@nirs.org
>Subject: ALERT! Comment on Yucca licensing rule now
>
>Wednesday, June 23, 1999
>
>Tell the NRC "Don't Screw Nevada!"
>Submit Your Comments on
>NRC Proposed Repository Licensing Rule for Yucca Mountain by June 30th
>
> The deadline for written comments on the NRC's Proposed Repository
>Licensing Rule for Yucca Mountain is quickly approaching. There is only
>one week left --comments are due on or before Wednesday, June 30, 1999!
>
>Comments are critical at this time. The NRC's Proposed Rule would weaken
>radiation protection standards for the public and the environment by
>usurping EPA's legally mandated jurisdiction (under the Energy Policy
>Act of 1992) to set the standards for the proposed Yucca Mountain
>repository. This would accommodate the DOE, which, in its impatience to
>move towards its recommendation to the President and its license
>application for the Yucca Mountain repository, is pressuring NRC to set
>standards soon, in advance of the EPA. This would also serve to lower
>the standards to such an extent that Yucca Mountain might still qualify
>to serve as the repository for the nation's high-level radioactive
>waste, despite Yucca Mountain's severe safety shortcomings. The NRC's
>proposed rule should be withdrawn until EPA promulgates standards, at
>which time NRC can then modify its repository licensing rule to meet the
>EPA standards, as required by law.
> In order to make a bigger "splash" with the NRC, we are encouraging
>individuals and organizations to submit their own comments, rather than
>to simply sign on to NIRS' comments. This way, NRC will have to handle
>each individual entry as one more distinct public comment; the larger
>the number of such comments, the more clear it will be that citizens
>across the USA are concerned with the NRC and DOE forcing shortcuts on
>safety at Yucca Mountain.
> The full text for the NRC proposed rule can be found in the 2/22/99
>Federal Register (Vol. 64, Num. 34, starting at page 8639 -- the
>document is 78 pages long), which is accessible via internet at
>http://www.access.gpo.gov/su_docs/aces/aces140.html
>This is the Federal Register Online via GPO Access. Click on the
>"Federal Register" button. Make sure the date is set for 1999, and on
>2/22/99. Use "nuclear" as the search term, and click "submit". If you
>have problems, phone Kevin Kamps at NIRS (ph. 202-328-0002), or the GPO
>Access User Support Team (ph. 202-512-1530)
> NIRS will post its comments on the NIRS website (www.nirs.org) on
>Monday afternoon, June 28th. Please feel free at that time to "borrow"
>ideas, to formulate comments in your own words.
> In the meantime, the following points give an overview about why NRC's
>proposed rule is unacceptable from environmental, public health, and
>legal perspectives:
>
>* NRC has no legal authority to usurp EPA's legally mandated
>jurisdiction, under the Energy Policy Act of 1992, to set radiation
>release, public health, and environmental protection standards for the
>proposed Yucca Mountain repository.
> As mentioned above, the NRC's proposed rule should be withdrawn, until
>EPA promulgates standards, at which time NRC can then modify its
>repository licensing rule to meet the EPA standards, as required by law.
>
>* Why should Nevadans living near the proposed Yucca Mountain repository
>be less protected from radioactive contamination of their water supply
>than, say, New Mexicans living near WIPP? The NRC rule proposes a
>lesser standard of protection for Yucca Mountain releases, despite the
>fact that local Nevadans will also be exposed to radioactivity from two
>other sources: the Nevada Test Site, and the Beatty "low level"
>radioactive waste dump. Since groundwater contamination would deliver
>Yucca's worst doses of radioactivity to nearby residents, water quality
>must be protected to the fullest extent of the law, which this proposed
>NRC rule fails to do. Yucca Mountain should have the most stringent of
>standards, for leakage will only increase over time. Such stringent
>standards would guard against an unsafe location being licensed for the
>repository.
>
>* This NRC proposed rule does not assure adequate protection for future
>generations of people who would be exposed to radionuclide releases from
>the proposed Yucca Mountain repository.
>
>* The proposed rule does not limit the thermal energy output of
>high-level radioactive waste per unit area of the repository emplacement
>area, which is a critical design and safety shortcoming. Yucca
>Mountain's rock may not be capable of containing such high levels of
>thermal heat and radioactivity.
>
>* Lots can change in 10,000 years. Due to the tremendous uncertainty
>associated with the proposed Yucca Mountain repository, radiation
>protection standards for the public health and the environment should be
>more stringent, rather than the less stringent standards NRC puts forth
>in this proposed rule.
>
>* This NRC proposed rule seriously underestimates the potential dangers
>associated with future, unpredictable human intrusions over the next
>several centuries or millennia which could breach the proposed
>repository at Yucca Mountain.
>
>* Despite the complexity and decades-long process involved with the
>Yucca Mountain repository proposal, this NRC rule would weaken or undo
>the requirement that DOE systematically record its decisions that
>significantly concern safety, how those decisions were made, and what
>factors influenced them. Given the grave consequences of radiation
>leakage from a repository, systematic accountability on scientific and
>engineering decisions related to safety must be upheld.
>
>Comments should be mailed to:
>
>Secretary
>U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
>Washington, D.C. 20555-0001
>attn. Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff
>
> Comments can also be submitted via the NRC's interactive rulemaking
>website, through the NRC home page. It allows you to submit a word
>processing file containing your comments. Go to http://www.nrc.org, and
>click on Rulemaking at the bottom of the page. Click on the following
>sequence of choices: Rulemaking Forum; News, Information, and Contacts
>for Current Rulemakings; Proposed Rulemaking -- Disposal of High-Level
>Radioactive Wastes in a Proposed Geologic Repository at Yucca Mountain,
>Nevada; Public Comments; Submit a Document. You then fill in the blanks
>(name, address, etc.), load your file, and send it.
> Your comments can also be faxed to the Office of the Secretary at (301)
>415-1101 (put to the attention of Andrea Byrd). Comments can be
>e-mailed, as well, to CAG@nrc.gov
> Please include "RE: Proposed Rule : Disposal of High-Level
>Radioactive Wastes in a Proposed Geologic Repository at Yucca Mountain,
>Nevada" at the top of your comments.
> If you have questions about any of these ways to submit your comments,
>contact Kevin Kamps at NIRS (ph. 202-328-0002), or Carol Gallagher at
>NRC (ph. 301-415-5905).
>
>Thank you for any action you can take on this important matter. Please
>contact Kevin Kamps at NIRS if you have any questions: ph.
>202-328-0002.
>
>This update was prepared by Kevin Kamps, NIRS Nuclear Waste Specialist,
>on Wednesday, June 23, 1999.
>
>
>
>
>Sender: owner-nukenet@envirolink.org
>Date: Tue, 22 Jun 1999 04:02:01 -0600
>>Subject: Fwd: [DOEWatch] Mikhail Gorbachev - Poison in the air:
> Theenvironmental cost...
>
><<
> The Guardian, London, Friday, June 18, 1999
>
> Poison in the air: The environmental costs
> of the Kosovo conflict must be exposed
>
> Mikhail Gorbachev
>
> Now that the air strikes against Yugoslavia have stopped, the world
>community
> will have to assess the damage and draw lessons from the events of these
>past
> months. We should not allow this misguided and unwarranted action to be
> followed by the wrong conclusions. Faced with the plight of the Kosovans,
>the
> destruction of much of the essential infrastructure in the rest of
>Yugoslavia
> and the tremendous damage to international relations, triumphant statements
> sound hollow. What is really needed now is responsible analysis.
>
> As president of Green Cross International, a non-government environmental
> organisation that was among the first to sound the alarm about the
> environmental consequences of Nato's military action, I feel duty bound to
> continue the discussion. A region-wide environmental catastrophe may have
> been avoided, though only time and an unbiased assessment will tell. Some
> might now ask: "Was the threat exaggerated? Could nature be much more
> resilient to the impact of war than we thought?" Such complacency is
> dangerous.
>
> Let us recall the effects of the hostilities that followed Saddam Hussein's
> aggression against Kuwait. Data cited at an international conference on the
> environmental consequences of war held in Washington in June 1998 indicate
> that these consequences are long-term. Green Cross experts estimate that 40%
> of Kuwait's strategic water resources have been irreversibly polluted with
> oil. Alarming are the reports of health problems among US and British
> soldiers who fought in that war - problems that now also affect their
> children. The environmental and medical consequences of the war in Iraq
> itself are, for reasons that are well known, not widely covered by the media
> or studied by scientists.
>
> Military action against Yugoslavia included use of weapons containing
> depleted uranium. Such weapons burn at high temperatures, producing
>poisonous
> clouds of uranium oxide that dissolve in the pulmonary and bronchial fluids.
> Anyone within the radius of 300 meters from the epicentre of the explosion
> inhales large amounts of such particles. Although radiation levels produced
> by the external source are quite low, the internal radiation source damages
> various types of cells in the human body, destroys chromosomes and affects
> the reproductive system.
>
> We are told that depleted uranium components are harmless and that DU
>weapons
> are therefore a legitimate means of warfare; many military and political
> leaders believed - and some seem to believe even now - that nuclear weapons
> too are quite "conventional" albeit a more powerful kind of weaponry.
>
> I am calling for a comprehensive analysis of the environmental situation in
> Yugoslavia and other countries in the region and in the Danube basin. This
> should be a priority. But we must do more than that. That military conflicts
> in our time can cause both a human and an environmental catastrophe makes
>the
> task of preventing them even more important. Prevention must be foremost in
> our thinking and our actions. But, if hostilities break out despite all our
> efforts, they must be constrained by certain legal limits. Such constraints
> have been laid down by the Geneva conventions and their protocols. They
> should be supplemented by provisions to limit the environmental damage
>caused
> by warfare.
>
> Specifically, I believe that strikes against certain industries and
> infrastructure, such as nuclear power stations and some chemical and
> petrochemical plants, must be prohibited. We should prohibit weapons whose
> use may have particularly dangerous, long-term environmental and medical
> consequences. In my view, weapons containing depleted uranium should be
>among
> the first to be banned.
>
> The time has come to convene a second conference on the environmental
> consequences of war in order to discuss issues of this kind. The conference
> should also address the need for an emergency fund to finance measures to
> deal with the aftermath of environmental catastrophes. Recent events
> underscore the urgency of this proposal.
>
> Environmentalists, political leaders and public opinion should now
> demonstrate that we can learn the right lessons from the tragedies of the
> twentieth century. The human drama and the drama of nature should be of
>equal
> concern to us. They should sound a call to responsible action.
> ____
> The author was president of the Soviet Union 1991-2.
> >>
>
>
>--=_3B6D7323.8DEC9598
>Content-Type: message/rfc822
>
>Date: Tue, 22 Jun 1999 03:58:06 -0600
>From: <Magnu96196@aol.com>
>Subject: [DOEWatch] Mikhail Gorbachev - Poison in the air: The
> environmentalcosts of the Kosovo War
>
>From: Magnu96196@aol.com
>
>The Guardian, London, Friday, June 18, 1999
>
>Poison in the air: The environmental costs
>of the Kosovo conflict must be exposed
>
>Mikhail Gorbachev
>
>Now that the air strikes against Yugoslavia have stopped, the world community
>will have to assess the damage and draw lessons from the events of these past
>months. We should not allow this misguided and unwarranted action to be
>followed by the wrong conclusions. Faced with the plight of the Kosovans, the
>destruction of much of the essential infrastructure in the rest of Yugoslavia
>and the tremendous damage to international relations, triumphant statements
>sound hollow. What is really needed now is responsible analysis.
>
>As president of Green Cross International, a non-government environmental
>organisation that was among the first to sound the alarm about the
>environmental consequences of Nato's military action, I feel duty bound to
>continue the discussion. A region-wide environmental catastrophe may have
>been avoided, though only time and an unbiased assessment will tell. Some
>might now ask: "Was the threat exaggerated? Could nature be much more
>resilient to the impact of war than we thought?" Such complacency is
>dangerous.
>
>Let us recall the effects of the hostilities that followed Saddam Hussein's
>aggression against Kuwait. Data cited at an international conference on the
>environmental consequences of war held in Washington in June 1998 indicate
>that these consequences are long-term. Green Cross experts estimate that 40%
>of Kuwait's strategic water resources have been irreversibly polluted with
>oil. Alarming are the reports of health problems among US and British
>soldiers who fought in that war - problems that now also affect their
>children. The environmental and medical consequences of the war in Iraq
>itself are, for reasons that are well known, not widely covered by the media
>or studied by scientists.
>
>Military action against Yugoslavia included use of weapons containing
>depleted uranium. Such weapons burn at high temperatures, producing poisonous
>clouds of uranium oxide that dissolve in the pulmonary and bronchial fluids.
>Anyone within the radius of 300 meters from the epicentre of the explosion
>inhales large amounts of such particles. Although radiation levels produced
>by the external source are quite low, the internal radiation source damages
>various types of cells in the human body, destroys chromosomes and affects
>the reproductive system.
>
>We are told that depleted uranium components are harmless and that DU weapons
>are therefore a legitimate means of warfare; many military and political
>leaders believed - and some seem to believe even now - that nuclear weapons
>too are quite "conventional" albeit a more powerful kind of weaponry.
>
>I am calling for a comprehensive analysis of the environmental situation in
>Yugoslavia and other countries in the region and in the Danube basin. This
>should be a priority. But we must do more than that. That military conflicts
>in our time can cause both a human and an environmental catastrophe makes the
>task of preventing them even more important. Prevention must be foremost in
>our thinking and our actions. But, if hostilities break out despite all our
>efforts, they must be constrained by certain legal limits. Such constraints
>have been laid down by the Geneva conventions and their protocols. They
>should be supplemented by provisions to limit the environmental damage caused
>by warfare.
>
>Specifically, I believe that strikes against certain industries and
>infrastructure, such as nuclear power stations and some chemical and
>petrochemical plants, must be prohibited. We should prohibit weapons whose
>use may have particularly dangerous, long-term environmental and medical
>consequences. In my view, weapons containing depleted uranium should be among
>the first to be banned.
>
>The time has come to convene a second conference on the environmental
>consequences of war in order to discuss issues of this kind. The conference
>should also address the need for an emergency fund to finance measures to
>deal with the aftermath of environmental catastrophes. Recent events
>underscore the urgency of this proposal.
>
>Environmentalists, political leaders and public opinion should now
>demonstrate that we can learn the right lessons from the tragedies of the
>twentieth century. The human drama and the drama of nature should be of equal
>concern to us. They should sound a call to responsible action.
>____
>The author was president of the Soviet Union 1991-2.
>
>=======================================================
>
>Comments:
>
> Well Russias x leaders are a lot more honest than our Pentagons and its
>political minions.
>
> Good job Gorbachev !!
>
>--------------------------- ONElist Sponsor ----------------------------
>
>Having difficulty getting "in synch" with list members?
>http://www.onelist.com
>Try ONElist's Shared Calendar to organize events, meetings and more!
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>DOEWatch List ----A Magnum-Opus Project --- The real Natl. Sec. Directive
>Subscribe online: http://www.onelist.com/subscribe.cgi/doewatch
>-based near the cryptic named X-10 [god and ten commandments] and Y-12
>[yahweh and diciples] nuke weapons plants of the nuclear tabernackle of Oak
>Ridge.
>
>"If the radiance of a thousand suns were to burst at once into the sky
>That would be like the splendor of the Mighty one...
>I am become Death, The shatterer of Worlds."
>-Oppenheimer July 16, 45 at Trinity from 5,000 year old Bhagavad-Gita
>
>"We have discovered the most terrible bomb in the history of the world. It
>may be the fire destruction prophesized in the Euphrates Valley Era, after
>Noah and his fabulous Ark. Anyway we think we have found the way to cause
>the disintegration of the atom."
> -Quote from Truman's diary July 25, 45 after Pottsdam and the "baby was
>born" and grew into "Little Boy" and "Fat Man" and the hydrogen bomb
>delivered by bomber named "Dave's Dream." Enola Gay's pilot, after
>Hiroshima, enters "My God' in the log.
>
>"The Doctor of the future will give No Medicine, but will interest his
>patients in the care of the human frame, in diet, and in the cause and
>prevention of disease."
>-Attributed to Thomas Alva Edison
>
>"In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act"
>-George Orwell
************************************************************************
The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html