Edition
US Court Rules on Yucca Mountain
IN THIS ISSUE: US court rules on Yucca Mountain, another nuclear stumble by Air Force raises doubts, no progress in Russia-NATO missile defense talks, former Soviet nuclear test site still holds mysteries, NRA approves TEPCO's Fukushima decommissioning plan, the end of a nuclear era.
Published on August 15, 2013
US Court Rules on Yucca Mountain
World Nuclear News
The US Nuclear Regulatory Commission acted illegally by abandoning the review of the licence application for the Yucca Mountain waste repository, the US Court of Appeals has ruled.
Another Nuclear Stumble by Air Force Raises Doubts
Robert Burns | Associated Press
Another embarrassing stumble by the U.S. nuclear missile force, this time a safety and security inspection failure, is raising questions about the Air Force's management of arguably the military's most sensitive mission.
No Progress in Russia-NATO Missile Defense Talks – Official
RIA Novosti
Missile defense talks between Russian and NATO military officials in the past 10 days have reached another impasse, Deputy Defense Minister Anatoly Antonov said Wednesday.
Former Soviet Nuclear Test Site Still Holds Mysteries
Rachel Oswald | Global Security Newswire
The nuclear testing ground of the former Soviet Union is a vast, barren area close to the size of Lake Ontario that continues to hold some amount of security risk.
NRA Approves TEPCO's Fukushima Decommissioning Plan, Urges Solution for Water Problem
Jin Nishikawa | Asahi Shimbun
The nuclear Regulation Authority approved Tokyo Electric Power Co.’s plan to decommission damaged reactors at the Fukushima No. 1 nuclear plant. But it called for a quick solution to the radioactive water accumulating at the site and flowing into the ocean.
The End of a Nuclear Era
James E. Goodby | New York Times
President Barack Obama’s cancellation of his planned meeting next month with President Vladimir Putin was followed by a statement at his Aug. 9 press conference regarding a “pause” to “reassess where it is that Russia is going.”
Carnegie does not take institutional positions on public policy issues; the views represented herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of Carnegie, its staff, or its trustees.