The US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is one several US government agencies pushing for nuclear waste to be dispersed, unregulated, into everyday commerce. NRC is now seeking public comment on the uses and disposition of nuclear waste and the dose level the public will accept from deregulated nuclear wastes.

The US Department of Energy (DOE) is allowing some radioactive materials but has a moratorium on letting some radioactive metals out. DOE is in the process (drafting an environmental impact statement) of reversing or codifying the ban but seems to be waiting for NRC to act. NRC's rule will affect how much DOE waste gets out through licensed processors. 

In a related article ("Radioactive Recycling," Mother Jones , July/August, 2002, p. 15), Susan Stranahan writes, "If the DOE has its way, the nation's nuclear garbage could end up in everyday items like bicycles, frying pans, and baby strollers...In 1998, occupants in Taiwanese apartment buildings made with radioactive steel beams began reporting health problems, and a Michigan manufacturer was forced to recall hundreds of La-Z-Boy recliners after learning that the rocker springs contained radioactive metal."

NOW (until June 30) is our chance to TELL THE NRC how much nuclear power and weapons waste YOU want in unrestricted or ‘restricted’ commercial daily use! And in your local landfills as if it were normal trash or at hazardous waste sites not designed to take radioactive materials. Comment by June 30: EMAIL NRC at  secy@nrc.gov

The public is being asked to tell NRC what the ‘scope’ (range of issues) to be addressed should be. For example,

• Should radioactive concrete be used to make basements or just bridge abutments?
•  How much radioactivity should be permitted in the metal used for pipes, dental braces, intrauterine devices, belt buckles, frying pans and tableware?
• Should radioactive soil be used for agricultural land or playground fill?
• Should radioactive asphalt be used for parking lots and bike paths?
• Should it go to regular or hazardous waste facilities never intended to take radioactive materials?

1. Continue releasing  nuclear waste like is now being done--letting contaminated
   materials go into unrestricted commerce (consumer goods and more) based on detection
   levels set in 1974 for decommissioning contaminated rooms or
2. Continue releasing nuclear waste but allow more out by using "dose estimates" that
   the NRC thinks are "trivial doses" or negligible risks (dose-based release standards
   cannot be physically measured, verified or enforced-- they are a like a blank check to
   the nuclear industry to let wastes out) or
3. Let nuclear waste be released into commerce, based on dose estimates like in option
   2,  but try to limit where it ends up like in roads or bridges or piping-- Someone would
   place conditions on the uses of the waste even though it would not be tracked or
4. Treat the nuclear waste like regular trash so it can go to regular garbage dumps or
   incinerators (referred to as RCRA Title D facilities) or treat it like hazardous waste
   and dump it in hazardous landfills or facilities (called RCRA Title C facilities) or
5. Send the waste licensed radioactive waste dumps.

Sierra Club is suggesting a 6th choice-- they are asking NRC to report on and recapture all the nuclear wastes they have already deregulated over the years, since they claim no harm has come from it.

NIRS is telling NRC to

• Focus the rulemaking on better ISOLATING nuclear waste from the public and the environment rather than dispersing deliberately;
• PROHIBIT RELEASE of radioactive wastes and materials from nuclear power and weapons into the marketplace for unrestricted or conditional uses;
• Prevent additional radiation exposures rather than "justifying" them with computer
  codes and dose modeling created by nuclear advocates. We oppose "dose-based" or "risk-based" standards.
• Since there is no safe dose of ionizing radiation, we accept NO dose above naturally occurring background and voluntary exposures for our own personal benefit.
• Stop poisoning us and the recycling industries with ANY level of radioactive contamination from nuclear power and weapons fuel chain activities.

WHAT CAN YOU DO?        Comment by June 30 to  NRC at   secy@nrc.gov or

1. Mail Address:   Secretary, US Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555,  Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff
2. Upload onto the NRC website at http://ruleforum.llnl.gov/cgi-bin/rulemake?source=SM_RFC&st=ipcr
3. Send a copy to your local, state and federal officials and to NIRS (at dianed@nirs.org).
4. Encourage elected officials and friends, family, organizations to comment by the June 30 deadline too.
5. Spread the news about this!

MORE INFO: Contact: Diane D’Arrigo at Nuclear Information and Resource Service (NIRS) dianed@nirs.org 202 328-0002 ext 16

...The paper has done its best to send a frank correction in pursuit and I repeat it here:

"A report which was posted on our website on June 4 under the heading 'Wolfowitz: Iraq war was about oil' misconstrued remarks made by the US deputy defence secretary, Paul Wolfowitz, making it appear that he had said that oil was the main reason for going to war in Iraq. He did not say that. He said, according to the department of defence website, 'The...difference between North Korea and Iraq is that we had virtually no economic options with Iraq because the country floats on a sea of oil. In the case of North Korea, the country is teetering on the edge of economic collapse and that I believe is a major point of leverage whereas the military picture with North Korea is very different from that with Iraq.'

The sense was clearly that the US had no economic options by means of which to achieve its objectives, not that the economic value of the oil motivated the war. The report appeared only on the website and has now been removed."

That has not satisfied all the paper's critics. There is no total satisfaction in these situations. Unusual efforts were made not only to correct but to kill the story because it was wrong and by Thursday morning was attracting worldwide interest. There were telephone calls from media organisations in South Africa and New Zealand, for example, seeking to check it. It provided another example of the speed with which information (and misinformation), spreads through the internet.....

--------------------Deleted June 4th article in its entirety below------------------ 

Wolfowitz: ‘Iraq War Was About Oil’
  By George Wright,  The Guardian  Wednesday 04 June 2003

Oil was the main reason for military action against Iraq, a leading White House hawk has claimed, confirming the worst fears of those opposed to the US-led war.   The US deputy defence secretary, Paul Wolfowitz - who has already undermined Tony Blair's position over weapons of mass destruction (WMD) by describing them as a "bureaucratic" excuse for war - has now gone further by claiming the real motive was that Iraq is "swimming" in oil.

  The latest comments were made by Mr Wolfowitz in an address to delegates at an Asian security summit in Singapore at the weekend, and reported today by German newspapers Der Tagesspiegel and Die Welt.

  Asked why a nuclear power such as North Korea was being treated differently from Iraq, where hardly any weapons of mass destruction had been found, the deputy defence minister said: "Let's look at it simply. The most important difference between North Korea and Iraq is that economically, we just had no choice in Iraq. The country swims on a sea of oil." Mr Wolfowitz went on to tell journalists at the conference that the US was set on a path of negotiation to help defuse tensions between North Korea and its neighbours - in contrast to the more belligerent attitude the Bush administration displayed in its dealings with Iraq.

  His latest comments follow his widely reported statement from an interview in Vanity Fair last month, in which he said that "for reasons that have a lot to do with the US government bureaucracy, we settled on the one issue that everyone could agree on: weapons of mass destruction." Prior to that, his boss, defence secretary Donald Rumsfeld, had already undermined the British government's position by saying Saddam Hussein may have destroyed his banned weapons before the war.

  Mr Wolfowitz's frank assessment of the importance of oil could not come at a worse time for the US and UK governments, which are both facing fierce criticism at home and abroad over allegations that they exaggerated the threat posed by Saddam Hussein in order to justify the war. Amid growing calls from all parties for a public inquiry, the foreign affairs select committee announced last night it would investigate claims that the UK government misled the country over its evidence of Iraq's WMD.

  The move is a major setback for Tony Blair, who had hoped to contain any inquiry within the intelligence and security committee, which meets in secret and reports to the prime minister. In the US, the failure to find solid proof of chemical, biological and nuclear arms in Iraq has raised similar concerns over Mr Bush's justification for the war and prompted calls for congressional investigations.

  Mr Wolfowitz is viewed as one of the most hawkish members of the Bush administration. The 57-year old expert in international relations was a strong advocate of military action against Afghanistan and Iraq. Following the September 11 terror attacks on the World Trade Centre and Pentagon, Mr Wolfowitz pledged that the US would pursue terrorists and "end" states' harbouring or sponsoring of militants.

  Prior to his appointment to the Bush cabinet in February 2001, Mr Wolfowitz was dean and professor of international relations at the Paul H Nitze School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS), of the Johns Hopkins University.