*****************************************************************
01/22/04 ****     RADIATION BULLETIN(RADBULL)       **** VOL 12.18
*****************************************************************
   RADBULL IS PRODUCED BY THE ABALONE ALLIANCE CLEARINGHOUSE
*****************************************************************
Send News Stories to news@energy-net.org with title on subject
line and first line of body

                         NUCLEAR POLICY
 
1 US: BUSH CHANGES HIS WMD CLAIMS - a CHRONICLE
2 Washington Post: Hunt for Iraqi Weapons May Get New Chief Soon
3 War Wire: "Serious implications" if Iran fails to cooperate with IAE
4 National Review: That Iranian Nuclear Headache
5 War wire: North Korea did not prove it had nuclear weapon 
6 War Wire: US 'very hopeful' of new NKorea talks after conferring wit
7 World Press Review - North Korea - Nuclear Program
8 AP Wire: Expert Unconvinced on North Korea Nukes
9 Washington Post: N. Korean Evidence Called Uncertain 
10 Guardian Unlimited: North Korea could soon be making 13 nuclear bomb
11 US: IPS-English UNITED STATES:Mini-Nukes the New Defence - Or
12 US: Paducah Sun: Progress could be derailed by energy funding cuts -
13 US: Online NewsHour: Nuclear Appraisal 
14 Times of India: Musharraf admits N-proliferation 
15 Daily Times: MPs can be briefed on N-probe: Faisal 
 
                         NUCLEAR REACTORS
 
16 Aftermath of the Bam Earthquake / Shut nuclear plant
17 US: [NukeNet] raising the cost of coal to make nuclear power
18 US: 7D: Will a boost in Vermont Yankee output be a bust for Vermonte
19 US: NRC: NRC Establishes Emergency Preparedness Organization in Offi
20 US: NRC: Finding of No Significant Impact and Notice of Availability
21 US: NRC: Rochester Gas and Electric Corporation R.E. Ginna Nuclear P
22 US: JS Online: Kewaunee Nuclear Plant shut down
23 US: thenews-messenger: Key Davis-Besse test set to start soon - 
24 US: WSJ Business: NRC probes Kewaunee nuclear plant 
25 US: Capital Times: Kewaunee nuclear plant down since Friday 
26 US: AP Wire: NRC staff gets mixed reviews on possible second nuclear
27 US: Toledo Blade: Utility admits failings in staff accountability
28 US: Advocate: Dominion files to renew licenses for Millstone reactor
29 US: Tribune Democrat: 34-ton dome removed from old nuclear plant
 
                          NUCLEAR SAFETY
 
30 [du-list] UK: Study Shows Gulf War Veterans Healthy
31 US: ScienceDaily: Isotope Analysis Shows Exposure To Depleted Uraniu
32 EUpolitix: EU acts to stop nuclear fall out
33 NEWS.com.au: Radiation experts visit outback 
34 AU ABC: Nuclear black market 'unsettling'. 
35 US: Gallup Independent: Navajo EPA clean air meeting Friday
36 St. Petersburg Time: Bellona Says Watchdog Ignoring Dangers at LAES 
 
                         NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE
 
37 US: Nuclear waste official resigns
38 US: Knox News: RNC team gets $3.7M nuclear waste contract
39 US: Salt Lake Tribune: Goshutes ask court to deny IRS access 
40 Las Vegas RJ: YUCCA MOUNTAIN: Scientific evidence faulted 
41 Las Vegas SUN: Editorial: Untenable deadline
42 AU ABC: SA Govt angered by waste dump secrecy. 
43 KRNV: DOE plans to submit final licensing application for Yucca in '
44 US: WIStv.com Columbia, SC: Navy to allow reactor through Chas.
45 KLAS: State of the Nukes in Nevada
46 US: Albuquerque Tribune: More care urged for WIPP trips             
47 US: Albuquerque Tribune: Quest to stop cargo to WIPP is irrational  
 
                         NUCLEAR WEAPONS
 
48 US: War Wire: Americas nuclear test legacy lingers 50 years after Br
 
                        US DEPT. OF ENERGY
 
49 Oakland Tribune: Toxic cleanups may be scaled back
50 DOE: Office of Science Financial Assistance Program Notice DE-FG01-
51 Tri-Valley Herald: Lab expert speaks about security
 
                          OTHER NUCLEAR
 
52 Google News Alert - nuclear
*****************************************************************
*****************************************************************
                         FULL NEWS STORIES
*****************************************************************
*****************************************************************
 1 BUSH CHANGES HIS WMD CLAIMS - a CHRONICLE
 
Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2004 13:22:20 -0600 (CST)

 
http://www.misleader.org/daily_mislead/Read.asp?fn=df01222004.html 

A Daily Chronicle of Bush Administration Distortion

January 22, 2004 | Daily Mislead Archive

BUSH CHANGES HIS WMD CLAIMS

Ignoring his previous definitive statements, President Bush this week
sought to change the justification for the U.S. invasion of Iraq. Before
the war, the president said there was "no doubt the Iraqi regime continues
to possess the most lethal weapons ever devised,"1 while Vice President
Cheney said, "There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of
mass destruction...to use against our friends, against our allies, and
against us."2

This week, however, in the absence of any evidence of weapons of mass 
destruction, Bush said the war was justified not because Iraq had WMD, but 
because Iraq had "weapons of mass destruction-related program 
activities."3 When asked last month about the shift from asserting Iraq 
"possessed" WMD, to Iraq merely exploring 
"WMD-related-program-activities," Bush replied, "What's the difference?"4

Both President Bush and Vice President Cheney made their definitive 
pre-war statements repeatedly, using specific language. On chemical 
weapons, Bush said before the war, "the regime has produced thousands of 
tons of chemical agents, including mustard gas, sarin nerve gas, VX nerve 
gas"5 - a claim since debunked by Bush's own chief weapons inspector, 
David Kay, who said, "Iraq did not have a large, ongoing, centrally 
controlled chemical weapons program after 1991."6

On biological weapons, Bush said before the war that "Iraq has at least 
seven mobile factories for the production of biological agents - equipment 
mounted on trucks and rails to evade discovery."7 However, Mr. Kay 
reported, "We have not yet been able to corroborate the existence of a 
mobile biological weapons production effort."8 The president also claimed 
that "Iraq has a growing fleet of unmanned aerial vehicles that could be 
used to disperse chemical or biological weapons across broad areas." But 
the Washington Post later reported that the vehicles Bush cited "were 
never meant to spread toxins"9 - a fact the U.S. Air Force intelligence 
service had shared with the administration.

On nuclear weapons, Bush said before the war that "Iraq could have a 
nuclear weapon in less than a year."10 More famously, in last year's State 
of the Union, the president said Iraq "sought significant quantities of 
uranium from Africa," and told Americans to fear "a mushroom cloud."11 
Similarly, Vice President Cheney said "Saddam has, in fact, reconstituted 
nuclear weapons."12 But Mr. Kay reported in August, "We have not uncovered 
evidence that Iraq undertook significant post-1998 steps to actually build 
nuclear weapons or produce fissile material."13

SOURCES:

1. Presidential Address, 03/17/2003.

2. "Still no mass weapons, no ties to 9/11, no truth, Boston Globe, 
12/17/2003.

3. State of the Union Address, 01/20/2004.

4. Interview With President Bush, ABC News, 12/16/2003.

5. Presidential Remarks, 10/07/2002.

6. Statement by David Kay, 10/02/2003.

7. President's Radio Address, 02/08/2003.

8. Statement by David Kay, 10/02/2003.

9. "Air Force analysts feel vindicated over drones", The Olympian, 
09/27/2003.

10. Presidential Remarks, 10/07/2002.

11. Presidential Remarks, 10/07/2002.

12. "Ten Appalling Lies We Were Told About Iraq", Alternet, 06/27/2003.

13. Statement by David Kay, 10/02/2003.
*****************************************************************
 2 Washington Post: Hunt for Iraqi Weapons May Get New Chief Soon
                 
(washingtonpost.com)
 
By Walter Pincus and Mike Allen Washington Post Staff Writers 
Thursday, January 22, 2004; Page A26 

Charles A. Duelfer, an experienced former U.N. weapons inspector, 
is likely to be named soon to succeed David Kay as head of the 
U.S. hunt for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, a senior 
administration official said last night. 

Duelfer, 51, who has expressed doubts that such weapons will ever 
be found, is widely respected in the arms-control field and has 
personal relationships with many of the Iraqi scientists who were 
involved in Iraq's weapons programs. 

In making the case for war, President Bush and his aides 
repeatedly warned of the consequences to the United States if 
Saddam Hussein were to use nuclear, chemical or biological 
weapons. The failure of the military to find any such weapons in 
eight months of searching has damaged U.S. credibility in some 
foreign capitals. 

White House officials say they are eager to continue the search. 
Vice President Cheney told National Public Radio yesterday that 
it will "take some additional, considerable period of time in 
order to look in all the cubbyholes and the ammo dumps and all 
the places in Iraq where you might expect to find something like 
that." 

Kay told administration officials last month that he planned to 
leave in February, before a final report is issued. Officials 
said last night that he is still likely to appear on Capitol Hill 
to provide the briefings he has promised to lawmakers. 

Duelfer, who was chosen by CIA Director George J. Tenet, will 
head the 1,400-member Iraq Survey Group, which is slated to 
submit its final report this fall. 

NBC News first reported last night that Duelfer was likely to 
replace Kay. 

Duelfer told NBC in an interview aired Jan. 9: "I think it's 
pretty clear right now that they're not going to find existing 
weapons in Iraq of either a biological or chemical nature." 


               © 2004 The Washington Post Company
         
*****************************************************************
 3 War Wire: "Serious implications" if Iran fails to cooperate with IAEA - ElBaradei

WAR.WIRE

DAVOS, Switzerland (AFP) Jan 22, 2004

 The chief UN nuclear watchdog warned Thursday of "serious 
implications" if the Iranian government failed to fulfil its 
promise of cooperation to dispel fears about its nuclear program.

Mohamed ElBaradei, head of the International Atomic Energy 
Agency, told reporters at the World Economic Forum here that 
Tehran had been working with the IAEA as it pledged to do late 
last year.

But he added: "It is very important for the agency to come to a 
conclusion. It will have serious implications if they do not 
cooperate fully with us in the investigations. I hope and I am 
confident that they will cooperate."

ElBaradei did not elaborate on what he meant by "serious 
implications" if the Iranians did not come clean on their nuclear 
program.

Iranian President Mohammad Khatami gave new assurances here 
Wednesday that his country had no nuclear ambitions and opposed 
the production of nuclear arms. "Iran has never had weapons of 
mass destruction," he said.

Iran agreed last year to suspend uranium enrichment as a 
confidence-building measure, and ElBaradei said Thursday the IAEA 
had no indications Tehran was still trying to procure materials 
to make a bomb.

"They are working hard to verify the suspension of all 
procurement activities and I think we are making good progress 
and I hope we will continue to make progress," he said.

Asked about reports that nuclear materials were being smuggled 
into Iran, ElBaradei said, "We have individuals involved I do not 
want to jump to the conclusion that the government is involved.

"We are in the process of investigating this network first of all 
to stop it and then avoid a recurrence of that very dangerous 
phenomenon."

On Wednesday, Khatami categorically denied reports that Iran was 
receiving shipments of nuclear material from North Korea.

  WAR.WIRE
*****************************************************************
 4 National Review: That Iranian Nuclear Headache
 
     Henry Sokolski on Iran &IAEA on National Review Online
 
NRO NR                       


January 22, 2004, 8:52 a.m.
 The IAEA's key role.

 By Henry Sokolski 

Some problems get worse even after they've been tackled.
Tehran's admission late last week that it is still building
uranium-enrichment centrifuges needed to make nuclear bombs is
surely a case in point. Late last October, Germany, France, and
Great Britain announced that Tehran had agreed to freeze this
activity. Now, it appears they were bamboozled. If Europe and
the U.S. are serious about capping the Iranian nuclear threat,
they need to get the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)
to admit that it still can't be sure Iran is out of the
bomb-making business and to demand that IAEA members (including
Russia) suspend nuclear cooperation with Tehran until it can. 

A review of recent developments suggests why at least this much
is needed.
 
On September 12, 2003, the IAEA all but found Iran in violation
of its Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT) obligations. The
agency urged Tehran to suspend all uranium-enrichment and
-reprocessing activities and advised it to open up to more
intrusive inspections by signing an additional inspections
protocol. The IAEA's deadline for these actions was October 31,
2003. On October 21, 2003, Tehran agreed with Germany, France,
and Great Britain that it would sign the protocol and
"voluntarily suspend all uranium-enrichment and -reprocessing
activities as defined by the IAEA." The quid pro quo for this
announcement was a promise that Iran could expect greater access
to European high technology. Finally, in December, nearly two
months after the IAEA's deadline, Tehran signed the additional
inspections protocol and volunteered to adhere to it even
without ratification. This produced sighs of relief in Europe
and Washington. 

What it didn't do, though, was address two problems. First, the
protocol still allows Iran to come within weeks of getting
nuclear weapons and, second, Iran has accelerated its nuclear
program and done so legally. How is this possible? Mostly, it's
a result of how the NPT is read. The treaty's popular
interpretation permits NPT members to pursue even the most
dangerous nuclear activities — i.e., ones that bring nations
within weeks of producing nuclear weapons — provided these
activities are open to occasional inspection. So long as this is
how the treaty is viewed, intrusive inspections — even of the
sort Iran just agreed to — will only confirm that allowable
nuclear activities are underway. This will hardly reveal, much
less guard against, what Iran is pursuing: We already know it is
nearing completion of two worrisome, declared nuclear projects. 

The first is a large light-water reactor being built with
Russian help at Busheir. This undertaking is roughly 80 percent
complete. Shortly after the IAEA's September ultimatum, Moscow
announced it would delay completion of the plant — originally
slated to go online late this spring — by about a year. Late
last week, however, Russian and Iranian officials met and
announced that they planned to accelerate Busheir's
construction. 

This is worrisome. Many experts insist that light-water reactors
are "proliferation resistant." But all reactors produce
plutonium usable for bombs. That's why we have the IAEA — to
safeguard against "peaceful" reactors being put to military use.
With large light-water reactors, like that at Busheir, over 50
bombs' worth of near-weapons-grade plutonium is produced during
the reactor's first 15 months of operation. All that's required
to get at this material is to remove the spent fuel from the
reactor (something that is done as a matter of course
approximately every 12 months) and chemically strip out the
plutonium from the fuel rods. 

If Iran was to undertake this stripping process, called
reprocessing, on a commercial scale, it would be expensive and
difficult to hide. But Iran needn't go the commercial route. In
l977 — when the U.S. was training hundreds of Iranian nuclear
students at American universities — Oak Ridge National
Laboratory detailed how a small, inexpensive reprocessing plant
could be constructed covertly. This could be done by a nation of
Iran's nuclear abilities within a matter of four to six months.
With dimensions of only 130 feet by 30 feet by 40 feet, the
plant could produce a bomb's worth of plutonium daily after
operating for a week. Fashioning this material into a workable
bomb would only require Iran to have mastered the crude design
that Iraq perfected a decade ago. 

Russia says it can guard against this by taking back the spent
fuel that Busheir produces. Iran, however, has not yet agreed to
this. More important, spent reactor fuel is risky to move long
distances until it has cooled off for several years. Once it is
removed from the reactor, though, Iran could quickly shift this
material at any time to a nearby covert reprocessing plant.
Doing so might set off alarms but by the time any outside nation
tried to block the diversion, Iran could have its first bomb. 

The story is much the same with Iran's enrichment program. Last
week, Iran admitted that it was still importing the means to
build more centrifuges. It insists it has a right to do so under
the NPT and that building more enrichment capacity does not
violate its October pledge to stop enriching uranium. It says it
is not currently operating any of its centrifuges. Neither the
Europeans nor the IAEA concur with this loose view of what the
freeze agreement banned but they have yet to reach a formal
understanding with Iran over what precisely is prohibited. 

If Iran imported centrifuge equipment of the sort Libya did last
fall — nearly complete machines of Pakistani design made in
Malaysia — Tehran could be developing quite a nuclear-breakout
capability. Just 1-2,000 of these machines would enable Iran to
convert enough natural uranium into weapons-grade material to
produce a bomb in one to two years. On the other hand, if Iran
fed these centrifuges with the lightly enriched uranium Russia
plans to send it for Busheir, Iran could produce enough material
for a bomb in a matter of weeks. 

Clearly, getting rid of Iran's centrifuges and its large reactor
program is the best way to keep it from becoming a nuclear
weapons-ready nation. It also suggests why keeping Tehran from
taking delivery of lightly enriched uranium ought to be a high
priority. Given that bombing Iran's known nuclear sites or
overthrowing its regime right now are politically unlikely,
though, U.S. and allied officials are at a loss as to how to
slow Iran's nuclear efforts. 

One approach that's worth trying is to enforce the rules. The
IAEA will report on Iran's NPT compliance in the next three
weeks. It then will meet in March to decide what to do. It would
be useful, given Iran's revelations about importing centrifuge
equipment, if the IAEA publicly told the truth: The agency
cannot clearly find Iran yet to be in full compliance with its
NPT obligations. It also would help if one or more of the IAEA's
key members — say Germany, France, Great Britain, or, if
necessary, the U.S. — formally asked the IAEA to determine how
much time and access it would need to give Iran a clean bill of
health. The IAEA did this in 2001for North Korea but, so far,
for some reason, no senior official from any member state has
formally asked the agency to do this for Iran. This needs to be
corrected immediately. 

Armed with a study, either underway or completed, that would
detail how much more time and access is needed, the IAEA's key
members in March could reasonably insist that all agency members
(including Russia) suspend nuclear cooperation with Iran until
the IAEA can clearly find Iran to be in full compliance. 

Rather than a call for sanctions for a violation, this would
merely be a prudential request for due diligence. It would allow
the IAEA to get a clearer idea of what Iran intends to suspend
or dismantle under the October freeze and to determine whether
or not Tehran is truly out of the bomb making business. It also
would demonstrate a renewed seriousness about enforcing the
rules — something Washington, Europe, and the others members of
the IAEA urgently need to impress now upon Tehran. 

— Henry Sokolski directs the Nonproliferation Policy Education
Centerin Washington, D.C., and is editor with Patrick Clawson of
Checking Iran's Nuclear Ambitions (U.S. Army War College, 2004).
	         
*****************************************************************
 5 War wire: North Korea did not prove it had nuclear weapon 
: US scientist

WAR.WIRE

WASHINGTON (AFP) Jan 21, 2004

 A US scientist who toured a secretive North Korean nuclear 
complex said Wednesday the Stalinist state did not prove it had 
made or could develop a nuclear bomb, but likely had the capacity 
to make weapons grade plutonium.

But Dr Siegfried Hecker suggested that US policymakers would be 
foolish to assume North Korea could not produce nuclear weapons.

Hecker, senior fellow of the Los Alamos National Laboratory in 
New Mexico, said during his first public testimony on his trip 
two weeks ago that North Korea also denied US claims that it 
confessed to a US claim it had a uranium enrichment program.

The US accusation sparked a nuclear crisis in October 2002 which 
has defied a drive to find a diplomatic solution.

Since then, North Korea has restarted a five megawatt nuclear 
reactor at its notorious Yongbyon complex and is piling up 
plutonium at the rate of six kilogrammes a year, Hecker told the 
Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

But a larger 50 megawatt reactor at the complex, frozen under a 
now ruptured 1994 anti-nuclear deal with the United States, was 
in a state of disrepair and clearly inoperable, he reported.

Hecker, part of two unofficial government delegations to North 
Korea, said he was shown what appeared to be a sample of 
reprocessed plutonium, a key ingredient for nuclear weapons.

North Korean officials described the substance as evidence they 
had a nuclear "deterrent." 

"At Yongbyon they demonstrated they most likely had the 
capability to make plutonium metal," he said.

"However, I saw nothing and spoke to no one who could convince me 
that they could build a nuclear device with that metal, and that 
they could weaponize such a device into a delivery vehicle."

Later he told reporters: "It would be unreasonable to assume, and 
also just not smart to assume, they cannot make a rudimentary 
weapon," 

"All observations I was able to make are consistent with the 
sample being plutonium," he said, but stressed that without 
scientific instruments he could not assess whether the substance 
came from a recent reprocessing operation which North Korean 
officials said was completed by June last year.

Hecker told the Foreign Relations Committee, a day after 
testifying in closed session, that Pyongyang had been as good as 
its word in removing 8,000 spent fuel rods from a holding pond, 
where they had been kept under international observation until 
the crisis erupted.

"The spent fuel pond is empty. The approximately 8,000 fuel rods 
have been moved," he said.

The fuel rods were estimated to contain between 25 kg and 30 
kgpounds) of plutonium. "We could not definitively substantiate 
that claim," said Hecker.

But he said laboratory staff had showed "the requisite facility, 
equipment and technical expertise and they appear to have the 
capacity" to extract the plutonium.

Two US delegations, which also included a former US policymaker, 
an academic and two congressional staffers, were also able to 
confirm that Pyongyang had restarted a small nuclear reactor at 
Yongbyon.

Pyongyang officials denied to the delegation US claims they had 
owned up to having an enriched uranium program during an October 
2002 meeting with State Department Asia envoy James Kelly, Hecker 
said.

He quoted North Korean Vice Minister Kim Gye Gwan as telling him 
"'We have no program, we have no equipment, and we have no 
technical expertise for enriching uranium.

But the State Department Wednesday stuck to its guns.

"There were numerous officials at that meeting," said deputy 
spokesman Adam Ereli.

"What was said was vetted by a number of translators, there was 
no doubt in the minds of the officials who were in the meeting or 
in the translations that were made of the comments, and 
subsequently analyzed, about what was said and what was its 
import."

Hecker pointed out that a member of his delegation, Jack 
Pritchard, a former senior State Department official, took part 
in the Kelly meeting, and was sure he had heard clearly that the 
North Koreans had admitted to having a highly enriched uranium 
program.

  WAR.WIRE
*****************************************************************
 6 War Wire: US 'very hopeful' of new NKorea talks after conferring with 
Japan, SKorea

WAR.WIRE

WASHINGTON (AFP) Jan 22, 2004

 The United States said Thursday it was "very hopeful" for a 
quick resumption of multilateral talks on ending the North Korean 
nuclear standoff but suggested only incremental progress had been 
made in bringing Pyongyang back to the table.

At the same time, the State Department warned North Korea that 
Washington placed little stock in its denials to two unofficial 
US delegations that it had a program to develop highly enriched 
uranium in violation of a 1994 agreement.

"We are very hopeful that we will soon have a continuation of 
six-party talks but we don't have any date at this time," said 
James Kelly, the top US diplomat for Asia and the Pacific.

Kelly, who met with senior Japanese and South Korean officials to 
discuss the situation, said he believed it was still possible to 
hold a second round of talks that would eventually result in 
North Korea's agreeing to the dismantlement of its nuclear 
programs.

"This is possible and we are very hopeful that this will be 
developed as we continue the six-party talks," he told reporters.

Such an agreement, however, would have to be comprehensive and 
include verifiable pledges by Pyongyang to eliminate its uranium 
enrichment program, plutonium reprocessing and existing atomic 
weapons, he said.

North Korea showed the unofficial US delegations what it said was 
plutonium but denied having enriching uranium, rejecting US 
accounts of a 2002 meeting in which Pyongyang was said to have 
admitted such a program.

That reported admission set off a diplomatic tidal wave, and sent 
both sides deep into their worst crises in years with North Korea 
kicking out UN arms inspectors, unfreezing its plutonium program 
and pulling out of the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

Kelly, the head of the US delegation at the 2002 meeting said he 
had no doubt North Korea had made the admission despite 
Pyongyang's insistence to the unofficial US teams that Washington 
had misinterpreted its statements.

"I remain convinced by that conversation that a uranium 
enrichment program was admitted," he said, adding, however, that 
US intelligence information had confirmed its existence before 
the admission was made.

"We weren't asking for such an admission and it was surprising 
only in terms of tactics," Kelly said. "This is information that 
we are very strongly convinced about."

A member of one of the unofficial US delegations testified before 
Congress on Wednesday that North Korea likely had the capacity to 
make weapons grade plutonium but had not proved it had already 
made or could develop nuclear bombs.

Kelly downplayed the significance of what the North Koreans had 
told or shown the delegations, suggesting that it was far more 
important to return to the six-party talks which include host 
China, Japan, the two Koreas, Russia and the United States.

"This is interesting but we hope it doesn't distract or delay the 
process of getting to the serious work among the several 
countries to get to resolving the nuclear weapons programs," he 
said.

After Kelly spoke, deputy State Department spokesman Adam Ereli 
said progress was being made toward a resumption of the talks -- 
the first round of which ended inconclusively last year -- but 
would provide no details.

"We are not seeing, I would say, stasis or setbacks," he told 
reporters. "At the same time, we have not yet reached the point 
where we can announce that there are going to be talks."

  WAR.WIRE
*****************************************************************
 7 World Press Review - North Korea - Nuclear Program
 		 		 	
Clearing the Nuclear Fog over North Korea

David Scofield
World Press Review correspondent
Seoul, South Korea Jan. 22, 2004           
 		 	 	 	 	 	 		 		 			 				
  [Yongbyon nuclear reactor]   

  North Korea's Yongbyon nuclear reactor from a satellite photo: 
(Photo: Space Imaging/AFP-Getty Images).  

The Jan. 8 “unofficial” U.S. visit to the empty holding ponds at 
the restarted Yongbyon nuclear site, a strangely obvious facility 
for a country that maintains a most of its strategic assets deep 
underground, yielded little to sway opinion. 

For those who believe in the possibility of reconciliation and 
negotiation with the North Korean leadership, the Yongbyon 
facility represents tangibility and verifiability. For the rest, 
it symbolizes contradiction: a facade designed to obfuscate and 
divide. 

But while Yongbyon is a fog, the words of North Korean Deputy 
Foreign Minister Kim Gye-gwan’s are more illuminating. Charles 
“Jack” Pritchard, a former U.S. State Department official and a 
member of the U.S. team, told reporters that Kim had warned him 
that “time is not on the U.S. side.” Kim may well be right: There 
is a strong case to be made that time is the United States’ 
Achilles heel in its dealings with North Korea. 

All things being equal, dictators have an advantage when dealing 
with democracies. The North Korean leadership is not bound by the 
same time constraints, checks and balances, and rules that bind 
elected officials. There are no elections to be fought, no 
competing interests to reconcile. This offers an obvious 
incentive for North Korea to drag things along, ideally through 
the next elections and toward a potentially more pliant 
adversary. 

The status quo, the tense “cold peace” that has defined the last 
50 years of peninsular history, is a “win” for North Korea. It 
helps the leadership to retain power by fueling the mechanisms 
that keeps them in power: the constant threat of invasion and 
attack by those who seek to destroy the revolution. A negotiated 
settlement is not in their best interests. 

Subject as they are to election cycles, South Korean and U.S. 
governments must keep negotiations moving along. This allows 
North Korea to play a reactionary game of vague declarations and 
opaqueness: “We have the right to nuclear deterrent” (does not 
declare that they have them), “we have a nuclear program” (does 
not differentiate between weapons and energy), leaving their 
negotiating partners scratching their heads and re-checking 
translations to determine exactly what was said and what was 
meant. All the while, the clock keeps ticking. 

At the same time as North Korea allowed a U.S. delegation of 
nuclear experts to tour Yongbyon, North Korea reiterated its 
promise to freeze its nuclear program as a first step to a 
negotiated settlement. This “concession” would be followed 
immediately with economic and political enticements from the 
United States and its allies. But a close look at the North 
Korean offer suggests a repeat of history. 

The 1994 Geneva Agreed Framework, predicated by an “unofficial” 
visit to North Korea by former President Jimmy Carter, basically 
promised the same thing. Then, a “freeze” was met with the 
formation of the Korean Peninsula Energy Development 
Organization, a US$5 billion nuclear reactor project, millions of 
tons of food aid, fertilizer, and other incentives. Eight years 
later, it was discovered that while the nuclear program at 
Yongbyon had been frozen, the pursuit of nuclear weapons 
continued through a uranium-enrichment program at an undisclosed 
location, allowing North Korea to receive billions of dollars’ 
worth of incentives, and continue their program elsewhere. Some 
experts believe much of the aid that was offered was probably 
used to finance the covert nuclear program. 

So here we are again, 10 years later. North Korea has “unfrozen” 
its reactor at Yongbyon and maintains that it has reprocessed, is 
reprocessing, or is technically capable of reprocessing—depending 
on the official statement of the day—the plutonium-laden fuel 
rods once kept there. Their latest offer essentially calls for 
them to refreeze what was supposed to have remained frozen in 
return for more concessions, amounting to a “new” agreement, 
whereby the North will receive more for agreeing to do what they 
already agreed to, but didn’t do, before. This would all be 
laughable if it weren’t an election year in the United States and 
the prospects for success in this initiative didn’t involve a 
redress of a very dangerous problem in a sensitive area of the 
world. 

And Then There’s the Alliance 

During his election campaign 14 months ago, South Korean 
President Roh Mu-hyun declared his intention to develop a more 
indigenous foreign policy for South Korea, a policy more 
congruent with South Korea’s status as a populous, industrial 
nation and one that makes paramount peaceful and speedy 
rapprochement with North Korea—all carrots with few discernable 
sticks. This is a challenge to U.S. attempts to portray the 
region as united in its rejection of North Korean belligerence, 
and suggests that time may not be on the side of the U.S.-South 
Korean alliance. 

Since last spring, a turf war has been simmering between career 
diplomats in the Korean Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade 
(MOFAT) and                                                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         
“independent-minded,” domestically oriented advisors in the 
Korean National Security Council (NSC). The NSC branded those in 
MOFAT, especially long-serving members of the North American 
Division most closely responsible for Washington-Seoul relations, 
as “pro-[U.S.] alliance” and, according to Presidential Secretary 
for Personnel Affairs Jeong Chan-yong, overly “dependence 
minded.” MOFAT officials, for their part, have spent much of past 
year trying to control damage to the 50-year U.S. alliance. 
Indeed, the agreement to deploy 3,000 South Korean soldiers, 
scheduled to leave this April for reconstruction and 
stabilization duties in Iraq, was a substantial victory for 
MOFAT, though the Nationally Assembly has yet to pass the bill 
authorizing their departure. 

The tense balance between the departments responsible for Seoul’s 
foreign policy continued through the end of 2003. By the end of 
December, conflicting sentiments became public. South Korean 
diplomats were quoted as saying the Roh administration was “naive 
and unrealistic” in its dealings with the United States. Others 
said that dealing with members of the NSC, including its chief 
Lee Jong-seok, was like dealing with the Taliban, as they were so 
radical and reactionary. This accompanied speculation that some 
within the administration, specifically the NSC, were North 
Korean sympathizers. 

Clearly fed-up, President Roh reprimanded MOFAT. Officials from 
the NSC, perhaps smelling blood in the water, cranked up their 
own rhetoric, lamenting MOFAT’s weak-kneed approach to its 
dealings with the United States. With the Jan. 14 resignation of 
Foreign Minister Yoon Young-kwan, it seemed the NSC had won. 

But as his appointment of Ban Ki-Moon to succeed Yoon attests, 
Roh is a political pragmatist. A “pro-independence” replacement 
would have given too much fodder to the conservative opposition 
going into National Assembly elections this April. Ban, a career 
diplomat with more than 33 years experience, much of it with the 
United States (he served as both director general of the 
North-American Affairs office in MOFAT and at the South Korean 
Embassy in Washington) was a shrewd choice. 

The full effects of the shuffle, however, are beginning to be 
felt deep in the organization as personnel changes in the North 
American bureau of MOFAT begin. Cho Hyun-dong, another important 
figure from the North American bureau, has been removed and has 
yet to be reassigned. Wi Sung-lac, the bureau’s director general, 
has been reassigned to the NSC to work side by side with the 
“pro-independence” clique, as Roh keeps his friends close and his 
enemies closer. 

For North Korea, the divisiveness within the South Korean 
government and the cracks in the U.S.-South Korean alliance are a 
boon. The tensions appearing in the alliance may not mark its 
immediate demise, but they do show the depth of differences that 
exists within Seoul’s highest government offices and a 
fundamentally different perception of the North Korean “threat.” 

North Korea has been continuously repeating rhetoric designed to 
resonate with the “pro-independence” minded. Since Roh’s 
inauguration, official North Korean media—there’s no other 
kind—has been repeating the mantras, “Let’s reunite our way,” 
and, “Lets’ remove foreign interference in our affairs.” This 
could spell disaster for the upcoming talks. The United States 
has been repeating its own mantra: Any agreement must center 
around North Korea “fully, irreversibly, and verifiably” 
dismantling its nuclear program; the key will always be 
verifiability and the credible threat of regional deterrence. 

As South Korea adjusts its policy, the dynamics of the next 
six-party talks will change, putting increased pressure on Japan 
and the United States. China, for its part, will likely continue 
to be comfortable with the status quo and probably won’t prod 
North Korea too aggressively, while Russia will continue to be 
concerned primarily with stability within North Korea, regardless 
of how it is maintained. But the effect in Japan could be much 
more severe. Vacillations in South Korean policy could cue a 
rising chorus from the right and the center of the Japanese 
political spectrum questioning the utility of constitutional 
restrictions on the military, especially now, with its forces 
deployed in a non-U.N. mission for the first time since the end 
of World War II. 

This will leave the United States in the unenviable position of
soothing Japan, encouraging the participation of Russia and
China, and negotiating with the two Koreas simultaneously. 

For the six-party talks to succeed, the region must be tied to
the successes and failures of agreements with Pyongyang. But
regional solutions imply a regional resolve, and there is little
evidence that such resolve exists. While the North Korean issue
remains essentially locked where it was 10 years ago, the
countries involved are changing. In the case of South Korea, the
perception of North Korea as an intractable enemy is shifting
dramatically. There is a definite trend in South Korea away from
seeing North Korea as a nemesis toward seeing it as a potential
partner. For North Korea, the potential rewards for delay are
clear. It will continue to exploit differences, both within and
between negotiating members, in a desperate and dangerous bid
for survival. For the United States, time is not on its side.
				 				 				 			 			 				 			 			top of page	 			 			 		 	
*****************************************************************
 8 AP Wire: Expert Unconvinced on North Korea Nukes

| 01/21/2004 | 

  [miamiherald.com - The miamiherald home page]     

 GEORGE GEDDA Associated Press


WASHINGTON - An American nuclear expert who recently visited 
North Korea's main nuclear facility said Wednesday he was not 
allowed to see enough to make a judgment on the country's nuclear 
weapons capability. 

Siegfried Hecker, a former director of the Los Alamos, N.M., 
nuclear research laboratory, said the North Koreans "most likely" 
have the ability at the Yongbyon nuclear site to make plutonium 
metal. 

But, he said, he saw no convincing evidence that the North 
Koreans could use that metal to build a nuclear device. And even 
if they had that capability, he said he saw no proof the North 
Koreans could convert such a device into a nuclear weapon. 

Hecker added that he was also unable to substantiate a North 
Korean claim that 8,000 fuel rods were reprocessed last year to 
extract plutonium metal - an essential step in nuclear weapons 
development. 

The nuclear scientist went to North Korea with several American 
colleagues on an unofficial visit two weeks ago. 

In testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, 
Hecker said the North Koreans apparently wanted to show the 
delegation their main nuclear site "to verify that they had taken 
significant actions since December 2002 and to impress us with 
their nuclear capabilities." 

Hecker said his hosts seemed disappointed when he reported to 
them that he had not seen enough to draw definitive conclusions 
about the facility. 

The Bush administration has believed for some time that North 
Korea has at least one nuclear weapon. It has been worried about 
the possibility of North Korean attempts to sell nuclear 
technology to terrorist groups or rogue states. 

The U.S. government neither facilitated nor discouraged the 
mission to North Korea. Participants have provided briefings to 
administration officials. 

While showing interest in the group's conclusions, the 
administration has said its focus is on achieving nuclear 
disarmament in North Korea through a six-nation process that got 
under way last summer in Beijing. 

Efforts since then to arrange a second meeting have not been 
successful because the parties have been unable to reach 
agreement on ground rules. Besides the United States and North 
Korea, other nations taking part are South Korea, China, Japan 
and Russia. 

One of the most divisive issues between the United States and 
North Korea concerns the U.S. contention that Pyongyang is 
attempting to develop a uranium bomb in addition to its plutonium 
bomb project in Yongbyon. 

The Bush administration bases its claim on an October 2002 
meeting in Pyongyang in which, according to U.S. officials, North 
Korea acknowledged the uranium bomb project. That allegation has 
drawn repeated North Korean denials. 

John Lewis, a Stanford University professor emeritus who 
organized the mission to North Korea, said Wednesday in a 
telephone interview that he believes the disagreement may have 
resulted from a problem in the translation from Korean to 
English. 

Heading the U.S. delegation at the meeting was Assistant 
Secretary of State James Kelly. Vice Foreign Minister Kang Sop Ju 
led the North Korean delegation. 

The Bush administration maintains that Kelly confronted Kang with 
intelligence information disclosing the uranium bomb program and 
that Kang surprised Kelly and his colleagues by confirming the 
existence of the program. 

But Lewis said a North Korean transcript of the meeting quoted 
Kang as saying, "We are entitled to have a nuclear program." 

Lewis said that, in the Korean language, there is "a small 
difference between to have and entitled to have." 

When Kelly pressed Kang whether he was acknowledging the uranium 
program, he was told: "It's up to you to think about this. We 
will not take the trouble to interpret this for you," Lewis said. 

Lewis said North Korea has offered to have technical talks with 
the United States to clarify the disagreement. Given the high 
stakes involved, Lewis said he believes it is important that such 
discussions take place. 

Hecker, during his congressional testimony, said the North 
Koreans provided the visiting delegation with a transcript of the 
Pyongyang meeting in 2002 for delivery to the State Department. 

Department spokesman Adam Ereli said Wednesday the administration 
stands by what it has said all along about the outcome of the 
meeting. 

"There was no doubt in the minds of the officials who were in the 
meeting or in the translations that were made of the comments, 
and subsequently analyzed, about what was said and what was its 
import," Ereli said.   

*****************************************************************
 9 Washington Post: N. Korean Evidence Called Uncertain 

(washingtonpost.com)

Scientist Describes Show and Tell at Nuclear Plant Tour 

By Glenn Kessler Washington Post Staff Writer Thursday, January 
22, 2004; Page A01 

The North Korean engineers put a red metal box on the table and 
opened it. They pulled out a white box made of wood that fit 
snugly in it. They slid off the top and pulled out two clear 
jars, which looked as if they had once held marmalade. The lids 
were sealed tight with tape. 

Siegfried S. Hecker, a former director of Los Alamos National 
Laboratory, peered at the jars from several feet away. One 
contained a greenish powder, the other an oddly shaped piece of 
metal. It looked a bit like a funnel, 11/2 inches high and an 
eighth of an inch thick. 

Hecker focused on the metal. This, the North Koreans proudly 
proclaimed, was their "deterrent" -- plutonium that had been 
recently created and shaped from the waste of nuclear fuel rods 
that until a year ago had been under the careful watch of United 
Nations inspectors. 

The jars and boxes were whisked away. Wait a minute, Hecker said. 
"It looks like plutonium, but there is no way I can be sure it is 
plutonium," he said. "I want to hold the jar." The red box 
reappeared. 

North Korea's willingness to show off its Yongbyon nuclear 
facility -- and eagerness to show it can produce plutonium -- was 
intended to demonstrate Pyongyang is serious about breaking the 
stalemate with Washington over its nuclear programs, members of 
an unofficial U.S. delegation say. But the delegation's 
observations have alarmed U.S. officials because the trip two 
weeks ago appears to confirm that North Korea has processed all 
8,000 spent fuel rods -- giving them enough weapons-grade 
plutonium for as many as half a dozen nuclear weapons. 

U.S. intelligence had been divided on this question, with the 
State Department's intelligence arm in particular arguing it was 
unclear whether the rods had been reprocessed. 

Hecker, in a two-hour interview and in testimony yesterday before 
the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said he cannot say 
conclusively that the metal displayed was recently reprocessed 
plutonium, in part because he did not have the necessary 
equipment. Moreover, the North Koreans did not provide evidence 
to the visitors the plutonium had been placed in a nuclear 
device. But the delegation also saw a small reactor operating, 
apparently smoothly, producing enough plutonium for an additional 
bomb a year. 

At one point, Hecker said, Vice Foreign Minister Kim Gye Gwan 
noted that Libya and Iraq were proved not to have nuclear 
weapons. Then he bragged to his visitors, "But we have weapons of 
mass destruction." 

The following account is based on the interview with Hecker and 
supplemented by interviews with other delegation members: 

The delegation was led by Stanford University scholar John W. 
Lewis, and its members were the first Westerners to visit the 
Yongbyon Nuclear Scientific Research Center since U.N. inspectors 
were ousted more than a year ago. The group arrived Jan. 8 at 
10:30 a.m., after a two-hour drive, sometimes over an unpaved 
road, from Pyongyang. 

It spent nearly eight hours there, viewing the small 5-megawatt 
reactor, the cooling pond that once held the rods and the 
facility for reprocessing. They also drove past the crumbling 
facade of a much larger, 50-megawatt reactor, where construction 
had been halted 10 years ago under an agreement with the Clinton 
administration. 

After an introductory meeting at a guest house, the group toured 
the small reactor. It saw a steam plume emanating from the 
cooling tower in the morning and the afternoon, and all 
indications from the control room suggested the reactor was 
operating smoothly. 

The North Koreans said the reactor began operating last February 
to provide heat for the nearby town, replacing shipments of fuel 
oil that had been suspended by the Bush administration in late 
2002 when the nuclear crisis began. Hecker, a metallurgist with 
top-secret clearances, noted to his hosts that the uranium fuel 
rods in the core of the reactor were also generating up to six 
kilograms of plutonium a year. 

The delegation then visited the cooling pond for spent fuel, next 
to the reactor. At great expense, the United States had provided 
400 stainless-steel canisters to store the 8,000 rods in a deep 
pool of water -- and the canisters had been sealed to prevent 
tampering. 


  CONTINUED 1 2 3     Next > Print This Article  

               © 2004 The Washington Post Company
*****************************************************************
 10 Guardian Unlimited: North Korea could soon be making 13 nuclear bombs a year 
                    
Ewen MacAskill, diplomatic editor
Thursday January 22, 2004
		
North Korea could be producing nuclear weapons at the rate of 
eight to 13 a year in the next year or two, the International 
Institute of Strategic Studies predicted yesterday. 

The US claims that North Korea is engaged in a covert programme 
to build nuclear weapons, and has entered into elaborate 
diplomacy with the Pyongyang government. North Korea boasts that 
it has nuclear weapons, but no one outside knows whether it is 
telling the truth. 

The IISS said the window for US diplomacy may be shorter than the 
US believes, and that if North Korea establishes a sizeable 
arsenal, it may be less willing to negotiate. 

John Chipman, director of the London-based IISS, said that lots 
of caveats had to be attached to assessments of North Korea's 
activities as it was an even more secretive state than Saddam 
Hussein's Iraq. An IISS assessment of Iraq's weapons programme in 
1992 proved wrong in several key areas. 

In its latest report, a 120-page assessment of North Korea's 
weapons programmes, the IISS said that before 1992, North Korea 
could have had the ability to produce one or two nuclear weapons. 
A freeze was agreed in 1994 that lasted until 2002. Dr Chipman 
said that, based on various assumptions, "North Korea's arsenal 
could be around four to eight nuclear weapons over the next 
year." 

The IISS assessment is that North Korea's ability to expand 
dramatically a nuclear weapons programme depends on how quickly 
it can complete a 50 megawatt reactor and a production-scale 
centrifuge enrichment plant. Dr Chipman said that it was 
impossible to predict when these might be completed. 

"In a worst case, if the facilities are completed within the next 
one or two years, North Korea's output of nuclear weapons could 
significantly increase around mid-decade to about eight to 13 
weapons every year," he said. 

"A more cautious assessment - taking into consideration possible 
technical difficulties and delays, including interdiction efforts 
- is that these facilities will not be completed until the second 
half of the decade." 

Asked if a US invasion of North Korea to impose regime change was 
an option, Gary Samore, the author of the report, said this was 
"an unattractive option" that would involve high casualties. 

Dr Chipman hinted that the US should speed up negotiations: 
"There is still some time for diplomatic efforts to halt and 
eliminate North Korea's nuclear arsenal while it remains limited 
to a handful of nuclear weapons. As time elapses, however, a 
diplomatic solution could become more difficult, as Pyongyang 
acquires additional strategic bargaining chips." 

In a separate development, a US nuclear weapons specialist, 
Siegfried Hecker, a former director of the Los Alamos nuclear 
research site in New Mexico, told the Senate foreign relations 
committee he had seen no convincing evidence that North Korea has 
the capability to build a plutonium-based nuclear device, but 
said he did see evidence the North Koreans can probably make 
plutonium. 

Mr Hecker made an unofficial visit to a North Korea nuclear 
facility on January 8.
	
Guardian Newspapers Limited
*****************************************************************
 11 IPS-English UNITED STATES:Mini-Nukes the New Defence - Or
 
Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2004 14:34:08 -0800

 
<x-flowed>
ROMAIPS NA IP
UNITED STATES:Mini-Nukes the New Defence - Or Threat?
By Cristina Hernández * - Tierramérica

SAN FRANCISCO, United States, Jan 22(IPS) - The U.S. effort to design a new 
generation of low-power nuclear weapons, approved in the defence budget for 
2004, is politically, technically and militarily unjustifiable, say critics.

The so-called ”mini-nukes” have a potency of less than five kilotons of 
explosive, a third of that contained in the bomb that the United States 
dropped on the Japanese city of Hiroshima in 1945, during the Second World War.

”If warfighters believe that a nuclear weapon is 'small' enough to 
'contain' collateral damage, they are more likely to fire them, which means 
an environmental and humanitarian disaster we haven't seen since World War 
II,” expert Robert K. Musil told Tierramérica.

”That's why we can say that there really is no such thing as a mini-nuke,” 
argues Musil, director of the non-governmental Physicians for Social 
Responsibility, winner of the 1985 Nobel Peace Prize for its campaigns 
against nuclear testing.

The research, design and economic studies of these mini-bombs were approved 
by the U.S. Congress as part of the national defence budget for 2004, after 
the Senate in May 2003 overturned the Spratt-Furse amendment, enacted 10 
years ago to restrict them.

However, engineering development, production and testing of these 
explosives are still banned.

Experts note that the White House initiative does not violate the 
Non-Proliferation Treaty, the international agreement to eliminate nuclear 
weapons, because the text does not prohibit the development of new types of 
these arms.

However, for Wolfgang K.H. Panofsky, former director of the Stanford 
University Linear Accelerator Centre, this armament strategy could have 
considerable negative political impacts.

”The United States should take the lead in de-emphasising dependence on 
nuclear weapons. These are the great 'equaliser' between relatively weak 
and strong states. Therefore the United States has most to lose from 
nuclear proliferation,” he said in a Tierramérica interview.

The defenders of this weapon -- a small nuclear charge carried in the rear 
of a missile -- say that some military targets can only be destroyed with 
atomic-strength arms.

Among the advantages of smaller nuclear charges, say their defenders, is 
that they cause less ”collateral damage” (civilian deaths and injuries, and 
radioactive contamination), and allow better control and lower maintenance 
costs.

The U.S. Department of Defence is specifically interested in studying the 
use of small nuclear bombs, known as ”earth penetrators”, to destroy 
underground refuges used by potential enemies to store chemical and 
biological weapons, considered the greatest security threats of the new 
century.

This sort of installation would be buried under by dozens or hundreds of 
meters of solid rock, concrete or other material, protecting them from 
attack by conventional weapons.

According to a report presented to the U.S. Congress, the CIA (Central 
Intelligence Agency) believes there are more than 1,400 strategic 
underground targets worldwide.

All nuclear arms on reserve have been tested with low levels of 
kilotonnage, says David Wright, co-director of the Global Security Program 
of the non-governmental Union of Concerned Scientists.

In his view, there are two likely motives behind the U.S. weapons 
initiative. ”There is a strong desire by the nuclear arms laboratories, 
like the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory and Los Alamos National 
Laboratory, to design new arsenals, to embark on a new mission,” he said in 
a conversation with Tierramérica.

Furthermore, says physicist Wright, the George W. Bush administration 
believes that the nuclear arms that his country has are too big to be used 
in the battlefield, undermining the credibility of a threat of U.S. nuclear 
attack.

According to that argument, a less powerful weapon could have a much 
greater dissuasive effect on terrorists or enemy states.

There is a belief in Congress, says Wright, that we need these weapons to 
destroy chemical and biological arsenals buried underground. However, 
studies prove the inability of the small bombs to destroy those agents in 
underground installations. On the contrary, they help disperse them.

One of the experts' concerns is that the mini-nukes should achieve a deep 
penetration in the ground, enough to explode, destroy the target and seal 
off the rubble produced at the point of explosion.

Wright estimates that a one-kiloton weapon would have to penetrate at least 
60 meters below ground in order for the nuclear explosion to be contained. 
But with existing technology, such bombs could only go 10 meters deep.

At a depth of 15 meters, a one-kiloton explosion would knock down homes 
within a radius of one kilometre, killing most inhabitants, states a study 
by Physicians for Social Responsibility.

The survivors would absorb hundreds to thousands of rems of radiation, 
enough to be fatal. The rem is a unit used to measure the biological 
effects of radiation.

Even limited contact with radiation could affect the brain's capacity to 
regulate blood circulation, reduce fertility and increase the incidence of 
cancer. Furthermore, DNA damage could give rise to genetic mutations in the 
offspring of affected populations.

For the survivors, discrimination and the refusal of medical treatment and 
employment could force them to keep their experience a secret, as occurred 
with many of the 280,000 Japanese who survived the nuclear blast in 
Hiroshima in 1945.

Because it is such a controversial issue, the fact that presidential 
elections loom in November mean that Bush, who seeks another term, is 
likely to put the matter on hold.

Wright predicts that the Bush administration is interested in restarting 
nuclear tests, but will not push for them until after the presidential 
elections in November -- if he wins.

(* Cristina Hernández is a Tierramérica contributor. Originally published 
Jan. 17 by Latin American newspapers that are part of the Tierramérica 
network. Tierramérica is a specialised news service produced by IPS with 
the backing of the United Nations Development Programme and the United 
Nations Environment Programme.)

*****
+ Tierramérica (http://www.tierramerica.net/english/)
+ Physicians for Social Responsibility (http://www.psr.org/)
+ Union of Concerned Scientists (http://www.ucsusa.org/)
+ Non-Proliferation Treaty 
(http://disarmament.un.org:8080/wmd/npt/npttext.html)

(END/IPS/NA/IP/TRASO-LD/CH/DCL/04)


= 01222041 ORP008
NNNN

</x-flowed>
*****************************************************************
 12 Paducah Sun: Progress could be derailed by energy funding cuts -
 
 Joe Walker jwalker@paducahsun.com--270.575.8650
 
Thursday, January 22, 2004
 
funding cuts 
Money for PACRO has sunk from $8 million to $300,000 and may
 
Regional industrial park leaders are worried about losing vital
help communities crippled by nuclear plant closings and layoffs. 

The Paducah Area Community Reuse Organization could see its
already dwindling funding cut in half from about $300,000 to
$150,000 next fiscal year. After that, there are indications "of
sunsetting" the program that finances the Paducah group and
others like it nationwide, PACRO Director John Anderson said. 

He learned of the development last week at a Florida meeting of
reuse organization directors. PACRO has been a conduit for about
$2.5 million in Energy Department money toward the park in
northern Graves County. 

"It would be very harmful to our program if PACRO stopped
getting funded," said Bill Beasley, park general manager. He is
still waiting for $5 million from the state to help buy about
1,000 acres off Ky. 849 at Folsomdale for the first phase of the
park. The land is optioned, and closing will start next week
using about $1 million in Energy Department money. 

Anderson said he expects to know more about the future of the
program during a conference call tentatively set for Feb. 14.
"We've got a couple of years. That's the good thing," he said.
"Our goal is to become self-sufficient by that time." 

Anderson said Rep. Ed Whitfield and Sens. Mitch McConnell and
Jim Bunning have worked hard to keep the program funded.
Although he declined to speculate on the reason for cutting the
money, others in Congress have pushed for several years to do
away with the program amid budget constraints. 

PACRO officials intend to ask the Kentucky delegation for enough
money through DOE or other sources to survive for two to five
years. That should afford enough time to secure work with
Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant environmental companies,
Anderson said. 

Among other things, PACRO helps steer displaced plant workers
into comparable cleanup jobs. Anderson said the role is even
more critical after last week's announcement that USEC Inc. will
build a gas centrifuge plant in Piketon, Ohio, rather than
Paducah. The outdated Paducah plant employs nearly 1,300. 

PACRO also is pursuing a project with Los Angeles-based ToxCo to
recycle abandoned fluorine cells at the Paducah plant. It wants
to work with new plant cleanup and infrastructure contractors
and with Uranium Disposition Services, which will build a
factory to recycle nearly 40,000 cylinders of depleted uranium
hexafluoride, Anderson said. 

His group also has used DOE money to construct
ready-for-occupancy buildings in several county industrial
parks. But annual Energy Department funding of reuse
organizations nationwide has been cut from $40 million to $14.5
million since 1999, and PACRO's share has sunk from $8 million
to $300,000. 

On Wednesday, Anderson briefed the PACRO finance committee on
the developments. The Purchase Area Regional Industrial Park
Authority met immediately afterward in the same room at the
Paducah Information Age Park Resource Center. 

Last week, Economic Development Secretary Gene Strong said that
to get $5 million in state bond money for the park, developers
would have to provide a budget for the first phase of the work
and a funding source for the balance of the cost. Beasley
repeated at Wednesday's meeting that he did that a month ago. 

"All we're waiting for is for the secretary and his staff to
decide when to disperse the funds," he said. 

A package sent Dec. 18 to Strong’s staff included an engineering
master plan, a first-phase budget of $7.5 million and funding
sources — $2.5 million in federal money, plus in-kind
commitments from various utilities. All the federal money has
been received except $1 million from the new Delta Regional
Authority, which is awaiting Co-chairman Pete Johnson's
signature, Beasley said. 

The park authority plans to buy and develop at least 2,000 acres
suitable for a large industry. Beasley said he expects to start
advertising for bids in March for an engineering study for the
second 1,000 acres, south of Ky. 849. 

-----------------------------------------------------------------
  


*****************************************************************
 13 Online NewsHour: Nuclear Appraisal 

-- January 21, 2004

"http://www.pbs.org

  [a NewsHour with Jim Lehrer Transcript] [Online NewsHour]     
[Online Focus] NUCLEAR APPRAISAL   
  
Siegfried Hecker, former director of the U.S. nuclear weapons 
laboratory in Los Alamos, told Congress Wednesday that North 
Korea did not show him conclusive evidence of a nuclear weapons 
program during his visit to the country. Margaret Warner speaks 
with Hecker and Jack Pritchard, who accompanied Hecker to North 
Korea, about their trip. 

[Warner] MARGARET WARNER: For two years, the Bush administration 
and North Korea have been engaged in a bitter standoff over that 
country's nuclear program. Early last year, North Korea withdrew 
from the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, and said it was 
reprocessing spent plutonium fuel rods into weapons-grade 
material. U.S. officials say the North Koreans have also 
privately admitted they had a secret separate uranium weapons 
program underway. The North Koreans now deny saying any such 
thing. 

Meanwhile, a six-nation negotiation process, following a model 
demanded by the U.S., has stalled. Earlier this month, at North 
Korea's invitation, an unofficial U.S. delegation visited that 
country's nuclear facility at Yongbyon. 

Two delegation members join us now. Siegfried Hecker, former 
director of the Los Alamos National Laboratory, who remains a 
senior fellow there, and Jack Pritchard, who handled North Korea 
issues on the National Security Council in the Clinton and Bush 
administrations; he's now a senior fellow at the Brookings 
Institution. Welcome to you, both. 

Mr. Hecker, you are the nuclear expert here, what did you see 
there in North Korea that told you how far along they are in 
developing a nuclear weapon? 

[Hecker] SIEGFRIED HECKER: I think the most important part of 
what we saw is the principal issue was they had 8,000 fuel rods, 
which contained a significant amount of plutonium, enough for 
several weapons. Those fuel rods were stored with international 
inspectors essentially watching them safely and securely in a 
verifiable manner, actually in a pool of a storage building. 

The question was: Were those fuel rods still there? The North 
Koreans said they were not, that they had reprocessed them to 
extract the plutonium. So the most important thing we saw 
immediately was they took us to this spent fuel storage pool 
building and after a significant amount of examination, we came 
to the conclusion that the spent fuel rods are no longer in that 
pool. The delegation's visit to the main nuclear facility 
MARGARET WARNER: So then, go to the next step: did you see 
convincing evidence that they had reprocessed that plutonium, 
those fuel rods that came out of a nuclear reactor, into actually 
weapons grade material? 

[Hecker] SIEGFRIED HECKER: That's a little more difficult to 
answer definitively. What they did to try to convince us of that 
-- they took us through the reprocessing facility. They call it 
the radio chemical laboratory. And what they showed us were the 
facility equipment. They answered all of our technical questions. 
They certainly had the capacity, capability and technical 
expertise to reprocess but they said they finished the 
reprocessing at the end of June 2003. And so when they said to 
me, well, look, we obviously reprocessed, I said, well, I'm not 
convinced. At that point, they said, would you like to see the 
product? 

MARGARET WARNER: And? 

SIEGFRIED HECKER: And I said, well, yes, we would like to see the 
product -- the product being plutonium of some form, and the most 
important part of that was are they able to reprocess the 
plutonium and make plutonium metal? So they brought in a box that 
contained a couple of glass jars, sort of jelly jars to speak, 
and in those jars they had some plutonium powder. It's called 
oxalate. It's a powder that goes into the process along to making 
plutonium metal. The other jar contained plutonium metal, they 
said. 

[Warner] MARGARET WARNER: And, I mean, could you determine that 
it really was? 

SIEGFRIED HECKER: I have seen much plutonium metal in my time, 
and what I can tell you, was that everything we saw and the 
things I was able to do without instrumentation was consistent 
with that being plutonium, however, I had to tell my host that 
without additional more sophisticated measurements I'm not able 
to say 100 percent certain that this is actually plutonium metal. 
Why the North Koreans invited the U.S. group MARGARET WARNER: 
Before we go to the next step, Mr. Pritchard, why did the North 
Koreans do this? They invited you all to come. What did they tell 
you? 

[Pritchard] JACK PRITCHARD: Well, I think it has to do with their 
sense of what deterrence means. They told the United States; they 
told me when I was in the government in advance every step along 
the way in a transparent manner, this is what we're going to do 
-- to the point of saying, we have now decided we have to 
reprocess and develop the plutonium for a nuclear deterrent and 
the response they believe they got from the United States was, 
well, we really don't believe you. 

So to have a nuclear deterrent you've got to have somebody 
believe that you have it. So I think that they are very concerned 
that some third party come in and from their point of view verify 
the deterrence element here. But we go back to what Dr. Hecker is 
saying and we saw specific things and not a deterrence. 

[Warner with Pritchard] MARGARET WARNER: And this is -- from 
their perspective -- from the point of view of wanting to at 
least force the U.S. into direct talks and also to deter the 
U.S., they think, from ever attacking them? Is that what you mean 
by nuclear deterrent? 

JACK PRITCHARD: Well, that's what they mean. They watched the 
development of the situation in Iraq. They have said for some 
time, they were concerned about the U.S. preemptive strike 
policy. They didn't want to be next. There is some concern that 
they had. So they needed to come out and say you really can't 
attack us. We have this deterrent capability.     [pull quote] 
Evidence of nuclear weapons capabilities? MARGARET WARNER: All 
right. So Mr. Hecker, let's say this metal you saw really was 
plutonium. Did they show you in addition that showed they had 
taken it to the next stage which was making it into something 
that we might call a weapon? 

[Hecker] SIEGFRIED HECKER: Indeed. That's where they use the 
fuzzy concept of deterrence and they said look, you can 
understand we have a deterrent. I said wait a minute, that's much 
more complicated than that. 

I view at least having to have three pieces for a deterrent. The 
first one is you have got to make the metal. That's not simple, 
and I think they demonstrated the capability although there's 
still this question of whether what they showed me was actually 
metal. The second piece -- you got to take that metal to a 
nuclear device much you'd have to take steel to a final 
automobile that you can drive out. And then the third piece -- 
you have to take the nuclear device and put it on something, a 
delivery system. I told them very specifically that I never saw 
anything or never talked to anyone that would convince me that 
they actually have taken the next step. 

MARGARET WARNER: Made it into a device.. 

SIEGFRIED HECKER: So we saw nothing that we could say yes, 
convinced us they made it into a nuclear device. 

MARGARET WARNER: Did you ask to see one? 

JACK PRITCHARD: In fact they said, are you suggesting you would 
like to see one? And, of course Dr. Hecker said, yes, we would. 
And then they then said we have run out of the time. We couldn't 
arrange that. We certainly didn't expect them to show us a 
device. 

SIEGFRIED HECKER: And I had actually told them when I made this 
comment that you really haven't shown me the deterrent. They said 
would you like to see our arsenal and I said well, yes but when 
they said that would be difficult, I said I would be happy to 
talk to the people who know how to design a nuclear device or 
have the capabilities for that next step. But in all fairness, 
that was the last day and they there went enough time to get the 
authority to be able talk to the right people. 

[Warner, Hecker and Pritchard] MARGARET WARNER: But why Mr. 
Pritchard, if the whole purpose of exercise, I'm now asking to 
you put on your political hat, you have dealt with these people, 
if they wanted to essentially scare the U.S. into realizing they 
have this, why wouldn't they show the next stage? 

JACK PRITCHARD: Well, I think that's part of what they are going 
to hold back for some eventual negotiation. They really were 
looking for within their controlled element what they could show, 
what they could see. 

I'm sure they had their own discussions internally as to how far 
they wanted to go. They probably believed this was far enough. 
The discussion up to now was a disbelief by the U.S. that they 
had reprocessed the spent fuel rods. 

MARGARET WARNER: Final quick question to you Mr. Hecker, just the 
material they did show you, if it is for real, you know, weapons 
grade, if they didn't -- could they -- is that enough for a dirty 
bomb, a so-called dirty bomb a suitcase bomb or do they have to 
go to the next stage before it could be dangerous in that form? 

SIEGFRIED HECKER: Well, first of all, what they showed me was 200 
grams they claimed of plutonium. It doesn't take much to make 200 
grams. It was inside this jelly jar and I actually held it to see 
whether I could tell if it was warm enough and heavy enough to be 
plutonium. Now, they could use that 200 grams and pack some 
explosive around it and disperse the plutonium and make a dirty 
bomb. Quite frankly, it wouldn't make a terribly good dirty bomb 
because plutonium itself is not that dangerous. It would 
obviously cause disruption but there are many other more 
dangerous radioactive elements. 

MARGARET WARNER: Thank you both very much.     [pull quote]   
          
> Copyright © 2004 MacNeil/Lehrer Productions.
*****************************************************************
 14 Times of India: Musharraf admits N-proliferation 

  FRIDAY, JANUARY 23, 2004
    
indiatimes.com

DAVOS: For years Pakistan has scoffed at reports that its 
scientists might have been involved in proliferation, but at the 
World Economic Forum, President Pervez Musharraf admitted 
laxities. His government would prosecute for anti-state crimes 
any scientists who sold nuclear secrets, he announced. 
  
  
Pervez Musharraf at the World Economic Forum in Davos,
Switzerland (AP Photo)   


"Let me assure this gathering that Pakistan is an extremely
responsible state," Musharraf told a meeting of government and
business leaders. "All the nuclear and strategic assets are
under total custodial control. The Pakistan government has never
and will never proliferate." 
  
But he said it was possible that individual scientists may have
sold secrets. 
  
"We are carrying out a thorough investigation of any
proliferation that may have been done by any individual for
their personal financial gain," he said. "We will deal with them
as anti-state elements." Musharraf also said his government had
been fighting all forms of terrorism, which was behind two
recent assassination attempts against him. 
  
"We are fighting the Al-Qaida and Taliban on the western borders
(with Afghanistan), and we want to negotiate a peaceful
settlement of the Kashmir dispute with the Indians on the
eastern one," he said. "At the same time we are fighting
sectarian and religious extremism within our country. 
  
"So I'm treading on a lot of toes, and that has led to these
extremist attacks on me, but I call them occupational hazards.
And I also believe that I haven't outlived my nine lives as yet.
I have a number of lives left still." 
  
After years of denial, Pakistan started hedging on proliferation
in December, saying individuals motivated by ambition or greed
may have sold secrets, after UN inspections of Iranian nuclear
facilities showed that "Pakistani-linked individuals" had acted
as "intermediaries and black marketeers". 


 Copyright © 2004 Times Internet Limited. All rights reserved. |
*****************************************************************
 15 Daily Times: MPs can be briefed on N-probe: Faisal 
 
Friday, January 23, 2004    

By Shukat Piracha

ISLAMABAD: Interior Minister Faisal Saleh Hayat said on Thursday 
that the government could hold a closed parliamentary session to 
brief the legislature on the investigation into alleged transfers 
of nuclear technology to Iran.

“Parliament is the supreme forum and we can arrange an in-camera 
briefing on the floor of the house if need be,” he told a 
questioner. He said the government would investigate everyone in 
connection with charges of transferring nuclear technology 
“irrespective of their status or association with any 
institution”. He was responding to questions by journalists 
whether the government would question former chief of army staff 
General (r) Mirza Aslam Beg at the headquarters of the Capital 
Development Authority. When his comments were sought on a 
statement by former finance minister Ishaq Dar that Gen Beg had 
asked prime minister Nawaz Sharif to sell nuclear technology to 
Iran for $12 billion, the interior minister asked why Mr Sharif 
or Mr Dar had not taken action against the former COAS. Mr Hayat 
said the nuclear issue was a sensitive one and appealed to the 
opposition not to politicise the matter. He said the 
investigation was in process against all those undergoing 
“debriefing”. 

The minister said that not a single person was arrested in 
connection with the investigation and only people were being 
“debriefed”.

He said the terrorists recently arrested in Karachi have been 
identified and they belong to extremist organizations. “Some of 
them are foreigners whose identity has been established,” he 
said, but did not disclose their nationality.

The minister denied that Sheikh Omar was shifted to Rawalpindi’s 
Adiyala Jail from Hyderabad in connection with the investigation 
of attempts on President Musharraf’s life. He said Mr Omar was 
shifted to Rawalpindi to ensure his security. He said the British 
home secretary would visit Pakistan early next month to hold 
talks on many issues including security. He said efforts to find 
the missing Punjab sports and culture minister, Naeemullah 
Shahani, were continuing and hoped that the minister would be 
recovered very soon. 

Daily Times - All Rights Reserved Site developed and hosted by 
WorldCALL Internet Solutions
*****************************************************************
 16 Aftermath of the Bam Earthquake / Shut nuclear plant
 
Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2004 19:24:36 -0600 (CST)

 
  30 SF Chronicle: Aftermath of the Bam Earthquake / Shut nuclear plant
on same fault as Bam

Haydar Akbari        Tuesday, January 20, 2004

The 6.6 magnitude earthquake in Bam, Iran, last month has brought
two crucial and disturbing visions to the attention of the world:
the heartrending poverty in parts of Iran and the potential
danger of the nuclear power plant being constructed in the
southern city of Bushehr, which is on the same geological fault
line that destroyed the city of Bam.

At one time, Iran was one of the most modern countries in the
region. Now, the level of social well-being and infrastructure in
urban and rural areas is comparable to sub-Saharan Africa.
According to Iranian officials and foreign experts, the prime
causes of the high death rate in the Bam earthquake were poor
building designs, use of primitive materials and widely ignored
building codes.

The city of Bam and most of its satellite towns and villages
lacked the minimum infrastructure of urban and rural life in the
21st century. Bam had only one hospital with no more than 13
doctors for a population of 150,000. Bahram Akasheh, a geophysics
professor at Tehran University, noted that last month's quake
near Paso Robles, Calif., had almost the same magnitude (6.3) and
depth as the Iranian tremor but caused only two deaths in
comparison to more than 40,000 in Bam, according to the Iranian
government.

It should be noted that Iran is a country with rich underground
resources and some $500 billion from oil exports during the last
25 years. What happened to that $500 billion? Much of it was
spent on the export of the late Ayatollah Khomeini's ideology to
neighboring Muslim countries, and much went to the eight-year war
with Iraq. A considerable amount is also being spent to acquire
technology and know-how for weapons of mass destruction, for
support of fundamentalist international terrorism, for the
personal investments of mullahs and for the establishment of the
most atrocious organs of repression, according to the U.S. State
Department, the United Nations and numerous international
journalists.

Finally, some of it has gone to fund a potential catastrophe: a
nuclear power plant in the city of Bushehr, which has been
destroyed three times by earthquakes in recent history (1877,
1911 and 1962). It is easy to predict that an earthquake could
destroy the plant and do irreparable damage to the area, as well
as to other Persian Gulf countries. In a serious earthquake,
there will be unimaginable fatalities and environmental disaster.
In addition, it would affect the world oil trade, with serious
economic costs. (More than half of the world's crude oil travels
through the Persian Gulf.)

Iranian officials and the German company that designed the plant
maintain that the Bushehr nuclear power plant is built to resist
up to a 7.2 magnitude earthquake, but there is no guarantee that
a temblor of greater magnitude will not strike. If that happens,
the immediate and long-term consequences will be larger and more
tragic than the Chernobyl nuclear plant disaster in 1986. This
concern raises questions about the sincerity of the Iranian
regime; even if the world community and International Atomic
Agency could succeed in inspecting and controlling the
development of weapons of mass destruction by the religious
dictatorship ruling Iran, what about the potential for mass
destruction from a ruined nuclear power plant?

For the good of the people of Iran as well as the world, it is
time for the international community to pressure Iran to end the
Bushehr nuclear power plant project.

*Haydar Akbari is president of the National Coalition of
Pro-Democracy Advocates (www.ncpda.com), which promotes
democracy, human rights and socioeconomic justice in Iran.* _7

)2004 San Francisco Chronicle
*****************************************************************
 17 [NukeNet] raising the cost of coal to make nuclear power
 
Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2004 19:03:46 -0800

 
<x-flowed>
http://www.ajc.com/business/content/business/0104/21nuclear.html

Panel: Use coal tax to boost nuclear
By JEFF NESMITH
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution

WASHINGTON -- Breathing new life into a lagging nuclear power industry could
help slow the buildup of carbon dioxide in the Earth's atmosphere, says a
team of Massachusetts Institute of Technology experts.

But without more expensive coal -- possibly through a tax on the carbon
dioxide which that fuel releases into the air -- and steps to make nuclear
power cheaper, the nuclear industry will continue to stagnate, the MIT panel
said last week.

"You need both improvements in performance and a carbon tax to make nuclear
power pay," said former Central Intelligence Agency Director John Deutch,
now an MIT chemistry professor.

If the cost of producing electricity from nuclear power could be brought
down from the present 6.7 cents per kilowatt-hour to 4.2 cents -- about 37
percent -- it would be competitive with coal. And if the cost of power from
coal were increased to 5.4 cents by a penalty of $50 per ton of carbon put
into the air, nuclear power would have a significant advantage.

Deutch co-chaired an MIT committee that also recommended the government
extend tax credits of more than $200 million per plant to jump-start the
nuclear industry. Deutch discussed the study at a seminar sponsored by
Resources for the Future, a Washington environmental research center.
The panel said funds should not be spent on finding ways to reprocess
nuclear waste into new nuclear fuel, because proliferation of the
weapons-usable fuel would be too dangerous.

A national energy policy bill pending in Congress would spend more than $880
million in the next five years on fuel reprocessing. The industry has
lobbied for that provision, which a White House energy task force chaired by
Vice President Dick Cheney recommended in 2001.
The MIT group -- along with a professor of environmental policy from
neighboring Harvard University -- concluded that for nuclear power to
succeed, it must overcome four problems:

• Cost: In deregulated markets, nuclear power is not competitive with coal
or natural gas, the panel said.
• Safety: Although modern nuclear reactors can achieve a very low risk of
serious accidents, the Chernobyl and Three Mile Island accidents, as well as
other incidents in the United States, Japan and Russia, have caused public
concern about safety and environmental and health effects.
• Waste: The problem of long-term management of tons of used nuclear fuel
rods now stored in cooling pools at reactors all over the country has not
been solved.
• Proliferation: Current international safeguards are inadequate to
safeguard nuclear materials if the industry grew enough to significantly
slow the greenhouse effect.

The committee said the proliferation problem would be made even worse by
reprocessing waste into weapons-usable plutonium to fuel power reactors.
Deutch said his committee did the study because of the belief that nuclear
power could be an important option in dealing with climatic change.

If the current worldwide nuclear generating capacity were tripled, to about
1,000 billion watts of electricity by 2050, it would avoid 1.8 billion tons
of carbon emissions annually from fossil fuels burned in power plants, the
committee said. That would be about one-fourth of the increase that would be
expected if no restraint were placed on carbon dioxide.

Deutch said that, when the committee began the study, "we wondered if there
might be some magic technology pathway out there which could lower the cost"
of building and operating nuclear plants. "The results," he said, "were not
helpful."
Critics of nuclear power were critical of the study.

Arjun Makhijani, president of the Institute for Energy and Environmental
Research, said its conclusions were based on assumptions from "economic
la-la land."
"You could end up with a tax of roughly $400 billion or more a year," he
said. "With $400 billion a year, I can do a lot more than they're talking
about here to deal with climate change."


_______________________________________________________________________
Subscribe/Unsubscribe Here: http://www.energyjustice.net/nukenet/
Change your settings at:
http://chrome.nocdirect.com/mailman/listinfo/nukenet_energyjustice.net

</x-flowed>
*****************************************************************
 18 7D: Will a boost in Vermont Yankee output be a bust for Vermonters? 

BY KEN PICARD                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   

Public Service Board Chairman Michael Dworkin has invited the 
public to comment on the scope and content of an independent 
safety assessment of the Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant. 
Comments may be addressed to: Michael Dworkin, chairman, Vermont 
Service Board, 112 State Street, Drawer 20, Montpelier, VT 05620.
 										   								 								
It was cold and harsh in Montpelier last week for representatives 
of Entergy Nuclear, owner of the Vermont Yankee nuclear power 
plant in Vernon, but the Arctic-like conditions outside were the 
least of their concerns. Inside the hearing room of the Public 
Service Board, board members sounded rather chilly towards 
Entergy, which is seeking permission to boost the plant’s power 
output by 20 percent. Entergy has already struck a deal with the 
Department of Public Service for the power increase, or “uprate.” 
But the agreement also has to be approved by the PSB, the 
quasi-judicial body charged with looking out for Vermont’s 
ratepayers. And after a long week of often highly technical 
testimony, there were clear signs that the board still hasn’t 
warmed up to the idea. Entergy, the Mississippi-based energy 
corporation that bought Vermont Yankee in July 2002, asserts that 
the power increase is necessary to ensure New England a steady, 
reliable and affordable energy source for the next decade. 
Entergy spokesman Rob Williams says the uprate would provide an 
additional 110 megawatts of electricity to New England, exclusive 
power for Vermont utilities if they need it and an estimated 
$400,000 in additional state taxes. Entergy is also prepared to 
make significant investments and upgrades to ensure the 
facility’s ongoing safety and reliability, he adds. Finally, the 
company has agreed to provide the state with $20 million in other 
perks just to sweeten the deal. But uprate opponents point out 
that Vermont Yankee is already 31 years into its expected 40-year 
life span and similar plants of the same vintage have since been 
shut down due to age-related problems. In fact, if the uprate is 
approved, Vermont Yankee will become the oldest nuclear-power 
plant in the country to attempt a power increase of this 
magnitude. And that, critics contend, dramatically increases the 
odds of a catastrophic failure. But those same opponents also 
fear that even their long list of economic, environmental and 
safety concerns about the power increase — higher storage costs 
for the additional radioactive waste, the release of more 
airborne contaminants, a one-third increase in radiation to 
nearby elementary school children, and so on — still won’t be 
enough to scuttle the deal. They point out that Entergy has 
significant political backing from the Douglas administration, 
which has a strong interest in seeing this deal go through. As 
one observer said of Entergy last week, “Where does this 
800-pound gorilla sit in Vermont? Anywhere it wants to.” Still, 
the deal first has to pass muster with the PSB, and by week’s 
end, the board indicated that it’s seriously considering getting 
a closer look at Vermont Yankee before approving the deal. The 
board indicated that it may ask the Nuclear Regulatory Commission 
for an independent safety assessment, which is precisely what 
several industry experts say is needed to determine if the aging 
power plant can handle the added stress. “All we ask for is an 
independent assessment of what’s going on at Vermont Yankee,” 
says Arnie Gundersen, a former nuclear-industry whistleblower who 
testified last week about environmental and safety concerns 
related to the power increase. “The last time the NRC did that at 
Maine Yankee, they found so much wrong, they shut the plant 
down.” Although Gundersen was testifying on behalf of the New 
England Coalition, the Brattleboro-based citizens’ group that is 
fighting the uprate, he hardly qualifies as a no-nukes activist. 
For 20 years, Gundersen was a licensed nuclear-reactor operator 
who assessed the safety and reliability of nuclear-power plants, 
measuring wear and tear on components and calculating their risks 
of failure. He has testified in scores of atomic energy lawsuits 
— including high-profile cases like the Three-Mile Island 
disaster — about 40 percent of the time on behalf of the nuclear 
industry. But when Gundersen, who now teaches math and physics at 
Burlington High School, learned last spring that Vermont Yankee 
wanted to increase its power output by one-fifth, the idea 
troubled him immensely. “We’re absolutely up against every limit 
the plant can get to,” says Gundersen, who is volunteering his 
time and expertise to review some 390,000 pages of documents on 
behalf of the New England Coalition. “I came out of the woods to 
testify because we’re all downwind. And that scares the hell out 
of me.” Gundersen isn’t the only industry expert with serious 
misgivings about the power boost. Paul Blanch is an independent 
consultant who has worked in the nuclear industry for more than 
35 years. Connecticut Senator Joe Lieberman once called Blanch 
“the Henry Aaron of whistleblowers” for his revelations about 
significant design flaws at 37 nuclear-power plants around the 
country. Blanch, who as recently as last year worked for Entergy 
Nuclear at its Indian Point facility in New York, has also 
expressed the need for a more intensive inspection of Vermont 
Yankee. Last week, Blanch gave his professional opinion about 
various safety systems at Vermont Yankee, including his 
assessment of an emergency containment pump just like the one 
that forced the closure of Maine Yankee. After Blanch’s often 
technical testimony, Gundersen explained in plain English what it 
would mean if a containment pump fails. “If there’s no 
containment pressure, we’re screwed. Every pump in the plant 
fails. It’s that simple,” Gundersen says. “My guess is, it’s a 
one in a thousand. Those are pretty shitty odds. I wouldn’t walk 
across the street if my odds were one in a thousand of not making 
it.” Gundersen then summed up what such an accident would look 
like. “Chernobyl is child’s play. This is the China Syndrome,” he 
says. “It’s not like there’d be a safe place to be within 100 
miles.” But Entergy’s Williams dismisses such talk as alarmist 
and says the proposed upgrades fall within the plant’s original 
design specifications. “We’ve assured ourselves that we’re well 
within the safety margins,” Williams says.
 													
                                                                  
                                      If the science behind the 
proposed power increase hasn’t been looking too attractive 
lately, neither has Entergy’s public image. Recently, the company 
has suffered more than its share of regulatory setbacks and legal 
embarrassments, having been slapped twice with sanctions in the 
last four months. In October, ruling that Entergy had made 
“frivolous” filings and withheld crucial documents from the New 
England Coalition, the PSB ordered the company to pay the group 
$51,000. Then in early January, the PSB ruled that Entergy should 
be sanctioned again for beginning uprate-related construction 
work at the power plant without first obtaining the board’s 
approval. An Entergy spokesman called the construction work an 
inadvertent oversight and “an honest mistake.” In December, 
Entergy suffered yet another humiliation when the NRC sent out a 
letter notifying the company that its uprate application was 
inadequate and asking for more information. The NRC decision 
could delay the power increase by as much as a year or more. Then 
just last week, PSB board member David Coen accused Entergy of 
showing “disdain” for the board’s authority and trying to force 
the regulatory process. The headline in the following day’s 
Rutland Herald summed up Coen’s rebuke: “PSB takes Entergy to the 
‘Woodshed.’” Nevertheless, those who have been following this 
process closely for months say that even those setbacks may not 
be enough to stop a proposal that has considerable political 
support. The recent agreement negotiated by the Department of 
Public Service reveals the Douglas administration’s strong 
interest in seeing this deal go through. In exchange for 
permission to increase power, Entergy has agreed to provide $20 
million in benefits to Vermont, including an estimated $7.8 
million for the governor’s “Clean and Clear Initiative” to clean 
up Lake Champlain and other Vermont waterways. The deal also 
provides a $4.5 million indemnification for Vermont ratepayers in 
the event that the nuclear plant goes offline and Vermont 
utilities have to buy their electricity on the open market. 
Entergy also threw in other perks, such as $2.1 million in power 
assistance for low-income Vermonters and $200,000 for marketing 
new Vermont businesses. But uprate opponents contend that this 
agreement actually makes bad economic sense and could end up 
costing Vermonters in the long run. They contend that if Vermont 
Yankee is forced to shut down due to an uprate-related problem, 
the cost of buying power on the open market could readily exceed 
$4.5 million, especially if the outage occurs during peak demand 
months when electricity prices are highest. “Spot market in the 
middle of the summer? You don’t want to be there,” warns Peter 
Alexander, executive director of the New England Coalition. “We 
could exceed all $20 million if something went wrong after year 
three.” Alexander also notes that under the deal, if the outage 
occurs after three years, Entergy pays nothing and Vermonters 
pick up the tab. Moreover, Alexander adds, boosting a nuclear 
reactor’s output by one-fifth also creates more radioactive 
waste, increasing the cost of both storing waste and 
decommissioning the plant when its license expires in 2012. 
During the years when Vermont Yankee was owned by the state, 
Vermonters paid into a decommissioning fund on their utility 
bills. It’s expected that when Vermont Yankee is finally 
decommissioned, whatever money is left over in that fund will be 
split between Entergy and the state. Alexander asserts that if 
Entergy has just increased the cost of decommissioning the plant 
by $15 million, it’s effectively taking $7.5 million out of the 
pockets of Vermonters. Meanwhile, Entergy earns an additional $10 
million to $20 million per year on the power uprate. “Basically, 
what we’re looking at here is Entergy gets all the benefits and 
we take all the risks,” Alexander says. “What I refer to it as a 
smoke-and-mirrors game on the part of Entergy to hoodwink the 
people of Vermont. That’s what’s really going on.”                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               
								
© Seven Days Newspaper, 2003 												

www.sevendaysvt.com 												 												

*****************************************************************
 19 NRC: NRC Establishes Emergency Preparedness Organization in Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
 
News Release - 2004-01
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION   
  Office of Public Affairs     Telephone: 301/415-8200   
  Washington, DC 20555-0001     E-mail: opa@nrc.gov  
  No. 04-010     January 21, 2004   
  


The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is establishing an Emergency
Preparedness Project Office to enhance the effectiveness of
emergency preparedness activities for commercial nuclear
reactors. 

The new organization, which will be part of the NRCs Office of
Nuclear Reactor Regulation, will be directed by Nader L. Mamish.
He is currently Executive Assistant to the NRCs Deputy
Executive Director for Homeland Protection and Preparedness. 

Since the events of September 11, 2001, the NRC has been
reviewing the way it is organized to address security and
emergency preparedness issues involving its licensees.
Establishment of the new Emergency Preparedness Office in NRR
follows the earlier creation of the Office of Nuclear Security
and Incident Response and the appointment of a Deputy Executive
Director for Homeland Protection and Preparedness. 

The NRC also recognizes the importance of bolstering
communication of its emergency preparedness activities with
internal and external stakeholders including the public, the
industry, the international nuclear community, as well as
Federal, state and local government agencies. The establishment
of the new office reflects the NRCs increasing focus on the
importance of emergency preparedness to mitigate the effects of
potential security threats or other events. 

The new office will be responsible for developing emergency
preparedness policies, regulations, programs and guidelines for
currently licensed nuclear reactors and potential new nuclear
reactors. A Licensing and Regulatory Improvements Section within
the new office will provide emergency preparedness technical
expertise and coordinate its activities with the NRCs Office of
Materials Safety and Safeguards, the Office of Nuclear Security
and Incident Response and other agency organizations. 

Additionally, an Inspection and Communications Section will
coordinate emergency preparedness communications and provide
oversight and technical direction for the emergency preparedness
component of the reactor oversight process.   



  


 	Last revised Thursday, January 22, 2004 	   
*****************************************************************
 20 NRC: Finding of No Significant Impact and Notice of Availability of 
 
                         FR Doc 04-1318 
[Federal Register: January 22, 2004 (Volume 69, Number 14)] 
[Notices] [Page 3184-3185] From the Federal Register Online via 
GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr22ja04-101]                         
 
the Environmental Assessment Concerning the License Amendment 
Request for the Operation of the Gas Hills Project Satellite In 
Situ Leach Uranium Recovery Facility AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission.
 
ACTION: Notice of Availability of Environmental Assessment and 
Finding of No Significant Impact.
 
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rick Weller, Fuel Cycle 
Facilities Branch, Division of Fuel Cycle Safety and Safeguards, 
Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear 
Regulatory Commission, Mail Stop T8-A33, Washington DC 
20555-0001, telephone (301) 415-7287 and e-mail rmw2@nrc.gov.
 
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Introduction The U.S. Nuclear 
Regulatory Commission (NRC) received, by letter dated June 24, 
1998, a request from Power Resources Inc. (PRI) to amend Source 
Materials License SUA-1511 for the Highland Uranium Project to 
allow the operation of a satellite in situ leach uranium recovery 
facility at the Gas Hills Project site located in Fremont and 
Natrona Counties, Wyoming. PRI subsequently acquired the 
operating Smith Ranch in situ leach uranium recovery facility 
located adjacent to the Highland Uranium Project and, in August 
2003, the Highland license (SUA-1511) was integrated into the 
Smith Ranch Source Materials License SUA-1548. As such, PRI's 
request to amend the Highland license for the Gas Hills Project 
became a request to amend the Smith Ranch license (SUA-1548) upon 
the combination of the two licenses for these contiguous 
facilities.
 
Pursuant to the requirements of 10 CFR Part 51 (Environmental 
Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related 
Regulatory Functions), the NRC has prepared an environmental 
assessment (EA) to evaluate the environmental impacts associated 
with the proposed operation of the Gas Hills Project satellite in 
situ leach uranium recovery facility. Based on this evaluation, 
the NRC has concluded that a Finding of No Significant Impact 
(FONSI) is appropriate for the proposed licensing action.
 
II. Summary of the Environmental Assessment The EA was prepared 
to evaluate the environmental impacts associated with the 
proposed operation of the Gas Hills Project satellite in situ 
leach uranium recovery facility. In the conduct of its 
evaluation, the NRC considered the following: (1) PRI's license 
amendment application, as supplemented and revised, (2) 
information contained in prior environmental evaluations of 
uranium recovery activities in the Gas Hills Uranium District of 
Wyoming, and (3) information derived from NRC site visits to the 
Gas Hills Project site and from communications with PRI, the 
Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality, the Wyoming State 
Historic Preservation Office, the Wyoming Game and Fish 
Department, the Wyoming State Geological Survey, the U.S. Fish 
and Wildlife Service, and the U.S. Bureau of Land Management. In 
preparing the EA, the NRC evaluated the environmental impacts 
associated with the construction, operation, reclamation, and 
decommissioning of the Gas Hills Project, including the impacts 
to air quality, local soils, surface water, groundwater, cultural 
resources, and threatened and endangered species. Additionally, 
the NRC evaluated the potential impacts to members of the public 
from transportation activities and from releases of radioactive 
materials to the environment and disposal of radioactive wastes. 
The results of the staff's evaluation are documented in an EA 
which is available electronically for public inspection or from 
the Publicly Available Records (PARS) component of NRC's document 
system (ADAMS). The safety aspects of the Gas Hills Project are 
discussed separately in a Safety Evaluation Report that will 
accompany the agency's final licensing action on PRI's request to 
amend Source Materials License SUA-1548.
 
III. Finding of No Significant Impact Pursuant to 10 CFR Part 51, 
the NRC has prepared the EA, summarized above, concerning the 
proposed operation of the Gas Hills Project satellite in situ 
leach uranium recovery facility. On the basis of the EA, the NRC 
has concluded that this licensing action would not have any 
significant effect on the quality of the environment, and, 
therefore, an environmental impact statement is not required. The 
NRC has concluded that the approval of the Gas Hills Project will 
not cause any significant impacts on the environment and is 
protective of human health. The basis for this conclusion is 
supported by the following findings. The NRC has determined that 
the Gas Hills Project will not result in any adverse impacts to 
regional surface water or groundwater. A groundwater monitoring 
program will be established to detect both horizontal and 
vertical excursions of the circulating groundwater used to leach 
uranium from the subsurface ore bodies. Any groundwater impacted 
by these uranium recovery operations will be restored to baseline 
water quality conditions or, as a minimum, to the pre-mining 
Wyoming class-of-use water quality standards. All radioactive 
wastes generated by facility operations will be disposed offsite 
at a licensed disposal site. Evaporation ponds constructed for 
the temporary storage of process waste streams will be provided 
with both primary and secondary liners and leakage detection and 
collection capability. Standard operating procedures will be 
established for all operational process activities involving 
radioactive materials that are handled, processed, or stored. 
Radiological effluents from the operation of the well-field, ion 
exchange, and water treatment facilities will be a small fraction 
of regulatory limits, and an environmental and effluent 
monitoring program will monitor all releases. A radiation 
protection program will be established to ensure that exposures 
will be kept as low as is reasonably achievable.
 
IV. Further Information The EA for this proposed action as well 
as the licensee's request, as supplemented and revised, are 
available electronically for public inspection in the NRC's 
Public Document Room or from the Publicly Available Records 
(PARS) component of NRC's document system (ADAMS). ADAMS is 
accessible from the NRC Web site at 
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html .
 
 
[[Page 3185]] The ADAMS Accession Numbers for the licensee's 
request, as supplemented and revised, are: ML030300468, 
ML030300472, ML030300495, ML030300504, ML030300524, ML030300553, 
ML030300554, ML030300612, ML030300622, ML030300672, ML030300719, 
ML030310080, ML030310108, ML030310133, ML030310195, ML030310304, 
ML030310343, ML030310345, ML030310352, ML030310413, ML030310415, 
ML030310499, ML030310503, ML030310519, ML030310529, ML030310540, 
(June 24, 1998); ML023640335, ML023640343, (September 24, 1999); 
ML993300211 (November 11, 1999); and ML021340187 (May 3, 2002). 
The ADAMS Accession Numbers for the EA are: ML040070538 and 
ML040070311. Documents can also be examined and/or copied for a 
fee, at the NRC's Public Document Room, located at One White 
Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 20852. Any 
questions with respect to this action should be referred to Rick 
Weller, Fuel Cycle Facilities Branch, Division of Fuel Cycle 
Safety and Safeguards, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and 
Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Mail Stop T8-A33, 
Washington DC 20555-0001, telephone (301) 415-7287.
 
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 14th day of January, 2004.
 
For the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Rick Weller, Senior 
Project Manager, Fuel Cycle Facilities Branch, Division of Fuel 
Cycle Safety and Safeguards, Office of Nuclear Material Safety 
and Safeguards.
 
[FR Doc. 04-1318 Filed 1-21-04; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P

 
*****************************************************************
 21 NRC: Rochester Gas and Electric Corporation R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power 
 
                         FR Doc 04-1319 
[Federal Register: January 22, 2004 (Volume 69, Number 14)] 
[Notices] [Page 3183-3184] From the Federal Register Online via 
GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr22ja04-100]                         
 
Plant; Notice of Consideration of Approval of Transfer of 
Facility Operating License and Conforming Amendment and 
Opportunity for a Hearing The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 
(NRC or the Commission) is considering the issuance of an order 
under 10 CFR 50.80 approving the transfer of Facility Operating 
License No. DPR-18 for the R.E Ginna Nuclear Plant (Ginna) 
currently held by Rochester Gas and Electric Corporation (RG), as 
owner and licensed operator of Ginna. The transfer would be to 
R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant, LLC (Ginna LLC). The Commission 
is also considering amending the license for administrative 
purposes to reflect the proposed transfer.
 
According to a December 16, 2003, application for approval filed 
by RG and Constellation Generation Group, LLC, Ginna LLC would 
assume title to the facility following approval of the proposed 
license transfer, and would be responsible for the operation, 
maintenance, and eventual decommissioning of Ginna. No physical 
changes to the Ginna facility or operational changes are being 
proposed in the application. However, the license transfer is 
contingent upon NRC approval of the pending application to renew 
the operating license for Ginna for an additional 20 years beyond 
the current license expiration date of September 18, 2009.
 
The proposed amendment would replace references to RG in the 
license with references to Ginna LLC to reflect the new owner and 
make any other changes necessary to reflect the proposed 
transfer.
 
Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.80, no license, or any right thereunder, 
shall be transferred, directly or indirectly, through transfer of 
control of the license, unless the Commission shall give its 
consent in writing. The Commission will approve an application 
for the transfer of a license, if the Commission determines that 
the proposed transferee is qualified to hold the license, and 
that the transfer is otherwise consistent with applicable 
provisions of law, regulations, and orders issued by the 
Commission pursuant thereto.
 
Before issuance of the proposed conforming license amendment, the 
Commission will have made findings required by the Atomic Energy 
Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), and the Commission's 
regulations.
 
As provided in 10 CFR 2.1315, unless otherwise determined by the 
Commission with regard to a specific application, the Commission 
has determined that any amendment to the license of a utilization 
facility which does no more than conform the license to reflect 
the transfer action involves no significant hazards 
consideration. No contrary determination has been made with 
respect to this specific license amendment application. In light 
of the generic determination reflected in 10 CFR 2.1315, no 
public comments with respect to significant hazards 
considerations are being solicited, notwithstanding the general 
comment procedures contained in 10 CFR 50.91. The filing of 
requests for hearing and petitions for leave to intervene, and 
written comments with regard to the license transfer application, 
are discussed below.
 
By February 11, 2004, any person whose interest may be affected 
by the Commission's action on the application may request a 
hearing and, if not the applicant, may petition for leave to 
intervene in a hearing proceeding on the Commission's action. 
Requests for a hearing and petitions for leave to intervene 
should be filed in accordance with the Commission's rules of 
practice set forth in Subpart M, ``Public Notification, 
Availability of Documents and Records, Hearing Requests and 
Procedures for Hearings on License Transfer Applications,'' of 10 
CFR Part 2. In particular, such requests and petitions must 
comply with the requirements set forth in 10 CFR 2.1306, and 
should address the considerations contained in 10 CFR 2.1308(a). 
Untimely requests and petitions may be denied, as provided in 10 
CFR 2.1308(b), unless good cause for failure to file on time is 
established. In addition, an untimely request or petition should 
address the factors that the Commission will also consider, in 
reviewing untimely requests or petitions, set forth in 10 CFR 
2.1308(b)(1)-(2). Requests for a hearing and petitions for leave 
to intervene should be served upon James M. Petro, Counsel for 
Constellation Energy Group, 750 East Pratt Street, 5th Floor, 
Legal Department, Baltimore, MD 21201, (410) 783-3303, e-mail: 
James.Petro@constellation.com; James R. Curtiss, Counsel for 
Constellation Energy Group at Winston & Strawn, 1400 L St., NW., 
Washington, DC 20005, (202) 371-5751, e-mail: 
jcurtiss@winston.com; Samuel Behrends, Counsel for Rochester Gas 
and Electric Corporation, at LeBoeuf, Lamb, Greene and MacRae, 
1875 Connecticut Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20009, (202) 
986-8018, e-mail: sbehrend@llgm.com; Daniel F. Stenger, Counsel 
for Rochester Gas and Electric Corporation, at Ballard Spahr 
Andrews & Ingersoll, LLP, 601 13th Street, NW., Suite 1000 South, 
Washington, DC 20005-3807, (202) 661-7617, e-mail: 
stengerd@ballardspahr.com; the General Counsel, U.S. Nuclear 
Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001 (e-mail address 
for filings regarding license transfer cases only: 
OGCLT@NRC.gov); and the Secretary of the Commission, U.S. Nuclear 
Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: 
Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff, in accordance with 10 CFR 
2.1313. The Commission will issue a notice or order granting or 
denying a hearing request or intervention petition, designating 
the issues for any hearing that will be held and designating the 
Presiding Officer. A notice granting a hearing will be published 
in the Federal Register and served on the parties to the hearing.
 
As an alternative to requests for hearing and petitions to 
intervene, by February 23, 2004, persons may submit written 
comments regarding the license transfer application, as provided 
for in 10 CFR 2.1305. The Commission will consider and, if 
appropriate, respond to these comments, but such comments will 
not otherwise constitute part of the decisional record. Comments 
should be submitted to the Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: Rulemakings and 
Adjudications Staff, and should cite the publication date and 
page number of this Federal Register notice.
 
For further details with respect to this action, see the 
application dated December 16, 2003, available for public 
inspection at the Commission's Public Document Room (PDR), 
located at One White Flint North, Public File Area O1 F21, 11555 
Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland. Publicly 
available records will be accessible electronically from the 
Agencywide Documents Access and Management System's
 
[[Page 3184]] (ADAMS) Public Electronic Reading Room on the 
Internet at the NRC Web site, 
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. Persons who do not have 
access to ADAMS or who encounter problems in accessing the 
documents located in ADAMS, should contact the NRC PDR Reference 
staff by telephone at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737 or by e-mail 
to pdr@nrc.gov. Dated at Rockville, Maryland this 15th day of 
January 2004.
 
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
 
Robert Clark, Project Manager, Section 1, Project Directorate I, 
Division of Licensing Project Management, Office of Nuclear 
Reactor Regulation.
 
[FR Doc. 04-1319 Filed 1-21-04; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P

 
*****************************************************************
 22 JS Online: Kewaunee Nuclear Plant shut down
 
Silt, weeds in cooling system prompt investigation

 By THOMAS CONTENT

tcontent@journalsentinel.com Posted: Jan. 21, 2004 

Employees of the Kewaunee Nuclear Plant and federal inspectors 
are trying to find out how silt and lake weeds were able to clog 
heat exchangers for an emergency cooling system at the plant last 
week. 

The Kewaunee plant was shut down Friday because of the problem 
and had not restarted Wednesday as an investigation of the 
problem continued. 

The heat exchangers are used to cool the oil that lubricates the 
plant's safety injection pumps. The safety injection system 
provides emergency cooling at the plant, and the problem could 
prevent proper cooling of the reactor in the event of an accident 
at Kewaunee, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission said. 

The shutdown of the plant was not expected to affect electricity 
supplies in the state amid an arctic cold snap that was forecast 
to send temperatures below zero across Wisconsin overnight 
Wednesday and again today. 

The regulatory commission said Wednesday that it has launched a 
special inspection of the plant. Two inspectors arrived Tuesday 
at Kewaunee to examine the sequence of events that led to the 
clogging. 

Inspectors will assess whether there were "indications that could 
have helped the utility to identify the problem earlier," said 
Viktoria Mitlyng, a commission spokeswoman. 

The utility shut the plant down at 1:20 a.m. Friday after finding 
the problem during routine maintenance. 

The problem didn't surface during a test that evaluates the 
integrity of the exchangers. That test measures how much water is 
flowing through the exchangers' tubes. 

Although those flow tests showed everything to be normal, plant 
workers found the problem when they noticed silt and weeds in the 
tubes of the heat exchangers. 

"They didn't have an indication that there was clogging until the 
visual inspection took place," Mitlyng said. 

Tests showed that 17 of 20 inlets in each heat exchanger were 
clogged, according to a report to the nuclear commission from the 
Nuclear Management Co., the Hudson-based company that runs the 
plant. 

It was unclear Wednesday how long Kewaunee will remain shut down. 
Nuclear Management doesn't comment on the projected restart of 
its plants, spokeswoman Maureen Brown said. Plant employees are 
cooperating with the nuclear commission inspectors, she said. 

The 535-megawatt plant is owned by Wisconsin Public Service Corp. 
of Green Bay and Wisconsin Power &Light Co. of Madison. Those 
utilities announced in November they intend to sell the plant for 
$220 million to Dominion Resources Inc., a utility based in 
Richmond, Va. 

The action comes after the Nuclear Regulatory Commission cited 
the Point Beach nuclear plant in Manitowoc County, also operated 
by Nuclear Management Co., for what the agency said were serious 
safety problems. Those problems - in 2001 and 2002 - have since 
been resolved. 

From the Jan. 22, 2004 editions of the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel
 
Copyright 2004, Journal Sentinel Inc. All rights 
*****************************************************************
 23 thenews-messenger: Key Davis-Besse test set to start soon - 
 
Thursday, January 22, 2004   

By RICK NEALE Staff writer 
  
OAK HARBOR -- Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station will soon crank 
its reactor coolant pumps and operating pressures to 
near-operational levels. 

And parent company FirstEnergy hopes the move will demonstrate 
the plant is ready to resume producing electricity. 

The self-governed test will begin this weekend or early next 
week, FirstEnergy spokesman Richard Wilkins said. After the 
planned five- to seven-day trial, the utility giant will assess 
the human and mechanical results against a set of criteria. And 
if all goes well, the company will ask Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission officials to schedule a "restart meeting." 

FirstEnergy outlined its test-fire plan Wednesday night to an NRC 
oversight panel at Oak Harbor High School. Davis-Besse Nuclear 
Power Station has been shuttered since February 2002. An 
acid-chewed cavity was discovered on the reactor vessel, and a 
massive repair and reorganization effort remains under way. 

In an operational effort from Dec. 30 to Jan. 9, Davis-Besse 
workers heated the nuclear plant's reactor cooling system to 
about 260 degrees. Steam pressure reached 250 pounds per square 
inch. 

FirstEnergy acknowledged a trio of errors in the 
heat-up/cool-down process, but Chief Operating Officer Lew Myers 
graded the operation as "satisfactory." 

During the upcoming test, Wilkins said the facility will reach 
temperatures of 535 degrees and sustain pressures of 2,000 pounds 
per square inch. 

Myers said FirstEnergy managers will ask for NRC approval 
afterward if no safety systems are inadvertently activated; no 
significant events occur; no human performance issues are raised; 
work implementation scheduling reaches a 90 percent success rate, 
and a list of other criteria. 

NRC oversight panel member Bill Ruland said the criteria were 
encouraging. But: "We're not satisfied yet, because frankly we 
don't know how this is going to turn out," he said. 

Continuing a trend of Davis-Besse management shake-ups, 
FirstEnergy announced that Kevin Ostrowski was named manager of 
plant operations Jan. 10. 

"We need to be an operations-driven organization, and in the last 
11 days I have seen signs that we are moving in that direction," 
Ostrowski said. 

Dave Imlay is now shift superintendent of plant operations and 
Bill Mugge is manager of work management. 

Vice President Mark Bez-illa said nine doors in the turbine 
building are being strengthened to withstand future steam line 
breaks. 

Davis-Besse operators will soon tour FirstEnergy's Perry and 
Beaver Valley nuclear power plants to observe their on-job 
actions. 

Originally published Thursday, January 22, 2004
 
*****************************************************************
 24 WSJ Business: NRC probes Kewaunee nuclear plant 

9:15 PM 1/21/04 
Judy Newman Business reporters 


The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has begun a special inspection
into problems that led to the shutdown of the Kewaunee nuclear
power plant, which has been out of commission since Friday. 

Routine testing by plant staff found that heat exchangers, used
to cool the oil that lubricates the safety injection system
pumps, were partially clogged by silt and lake weeds. The
problem "could prevent effective cooling of the reactor in
certain accident conditions," the federal agency said, in a news
release. 

Maureen Brown, spokeswoman for the Nuclear Management Co., which
operates six Upper Midwest nuclear plants including Kewaunee,
said the situation "does not present any public health or safety
questions. 

"We found this debris in the system, cleaned it out and made the
conservative decision to take the unit off-line to fully
understand the underlying contributing causes," Brown said. 
The NRC said its inspection team will look at the sequence of
events that led to the clog and evaluate corrective actions
taken at the plant. 

Brown said it is "not uncommon" for the NRC to send inspectors.
But the Citizens Utility Board said it is very concerned about
the problem. 

"As the plant gets older, it puts even more strain on the
ability of plant operators and the NRC to make sure the plant is
safe," said CUB executive director Charlie Higley. 

Kewaunee, along Lake Michigan in northeast Wisconsin, began
operating in 1974 and provides 535 megawatts of electricity,
enough to light more than 175,000 homes. It is owned by Alliant
Energy Corp. of Madison and Wisconsin Public Service Corp. of
Green Bay. 

In January, a $60,000 fine was issued against Nuclear Management
Co. because a supervisor at the plant did not crack down on an
employee who apparently came to work under the influence of
alcohol in 2001. A Nuclear Regulatory Commission investigation
concluded that the supervisor, who worked for a plant
contractor, deliberately violated a requirement that an employee
who smells of alcohol must be tested for alcohol. 
  
  Copyright © 2003 Wisconsin State Journal   
*****************************************************************
 25 Capital Times: Kewaunee nuclear plant down since Friday 

Associated Press January 22, 2004 

Inspectors are trying to figure out how silt and lake weeds 
clogged part of the Kewaunee Nuclear Plant's emergency cooling 
system, causing the plant to shut down last week.

The plant shut down Friday, had not restarted as of Wednesday, 
and it was unclear how long it will remain shut down.

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has started a special 
inspection of the plant, located along Lake Michigan in 
northeastern Wisconsin. Two inspectors arrived Tuesday to examine 
what led to the clogging of the cooling system's heat exchangers.

The heat exchangers are used to cool the oil that lubricates the 
plant's safety injection pumps, which help to provide emergency 
cooling. The problem could prevent proper cooling of the reactor 
in an accident, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission said.

The problem "does not present any public health or safety 
questions," said Maureen Brown, spokeswoman for Hudson-based 
Nuclear Management Co., which operates the plant.

The plant's shutdown was not expected to affect the state's 
electricity supplies. 

Inspectors will look at whether the utility could have identified 
the problem earlier, said Viktoria Mitlyng, a commission 
spokeswoman. The utility found the problem during routine 
maintenance.

"They didn't have an indication that there was clogging until the 
visual inspection took place," Mitlyng said.

The 535-megawatt plant is owned by Wisconsin Public Service Corp. 
of Green Bay and Alliant Energy of Madison. The two utilities 
intend to sell the plant for $220 million to a Virginia-based 
utility. Published: 8:47 AM 1/22/04              

Technical questions and comments may be directed to The Capital
Times . Please state your concern in the subject line. 
Copyright 2003 The Capital Times
*****************************************************************
 26 AP Wire: NRC staff gets mixed reviews on possible second nuclear unit at 
Grand Gulf

 | 01/22/2004 | 

  [sunherald.com - The sunherald home page]       

 Associated Press

PORT GIBSON, Miss. - Opponents of building a second unit at the 
Grand Gulf Nuclear Station have told federal Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission staff that Claiborne County's racial makeup played a 
part in planning for the expansion. 

About 100 people gathered at City Hall for Wednesday night's NRC 
hearing, part of the lengthy process to decide whether to allow 
the second Entergy Nuclear reactor. 

Entergy has not yet decided whether to exercise the option to 
build another plant. 

Grand Gulf, Mississippi's only nuclear-powered electrical 
generating plant, is about 7 miles northwest of Port Gibson and 
24 miles southwest of Vicksburg. 

The session marked the first official NRC public hearing since 
Entergy's October application for permission to expand its 
electricity-generating capacity at the plant. The announced 
purpose was to gather comments on what environmental issues the 
NRC should consider in its review of Entergy's site permit. 

Lawyers representing a coalition that opposes the application, 
argued that since Claiborne County's population is mainly black 
and operating nuclear plants involves safety and environmental 
risks, to add a reactor at Grand Gulf would be "environmental 
racism." 

They contend that hazardous developments are too often placed 
where minorities and poor people live. A group in Louisiana used 
the theory and won a 1998 victory when it opposed location of a 
radioactive waste generating plant between two rural, mainly 
black, communities in northern Louisiana. 

A similar claim against the Entergy application discussed 
Wednesday is "a genuine issue that must be considered," said 
Alexander Martin, district attorney for Claiborne, Copiah and 
Jefferson counties. 

Entergy's top onsite executive at Grand Gulf, George Williams, 
disagreed. 

"If I felt that this was potentially racial in nature, I would 
not be standing here tonight," Williams said. 

He added that most of the nation's 103 nuclear-power plants are 
not located in majority-black areas. 

The county has about 12,000 residents and 84 percent are black. 

Entergy business development manager Ken Hughey said his company 
had addressed the environmental-justice issue in its permit 
application. 

An NRC delegation of about 30 staff members heard comments from 
18 speakers over three hours. Also in attendance were about eight 
Entergy representatives.   

SunHerald.com 

*****************************************************************
 27 Toledo Blade: Utility admits failings in staff accountability

 DAVIS-BESSE
 
Article published Thursday, January 22 2004          
 
By BLADE STAFF WRITER

OAK HARBOR, Ohio - FirstEnergy Corp.’s most critical assessment 
of its Davis-Besse nuclear plant operators is coming from itself.

New Plant Manager Barry Allen told the Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission here last night that Davis-Besse operators did not 
meet his expectations during the facility’s recent heat-up in a 
nonnuclear mode, and "leadership was ineffective in holding 
people accountable for deficiencies cited."

Preshift briefings were erratic, Mr. Allen said. The utility is 
satisfied by the written procedures it has in place, but 
Davis-Besse’s operator performance wasn’t as consistent as it has 
been at other FirstEnergy plants because procedures haven’t been 
adequately explained or followed, he said.

"We had not done as clear of a job of defining our roles and 
responsibilities as our sister stations have done," he said.

FirstEnergy’s other nuclear stations include the Perry facility 
east of Cleveland and the Beaver Valley nuclear plant northwest 
of Pittsburgh.

The utility is so committed to remedial training that it will 
take Davis-Besse operators to each of those two plants to "work 
shoulder-to-shoulder" with operators at them.

"That’s one of the actions we want to complete before we take the 
reactor critical," Kevin Ostrowski, Davis-Besse plant operations 
manager, told the NRC.

FirstEnergy officials cited that as one of many examples by which 
they feel they are on the right path toward correcting problems. 
Another example cited was the latest round of management changes 
the company said were intended to help strengthen its operations 
team.

But unlike some recent meetings, nobody from the company ventured 
a guess as to when the beleaguered plant would be restarted.

The plant was idled in February, 2002, for what was supposed to 
be a month-long shutdown to refuel and conduct plant maintenance. 
It has been idle for nearly two years as a result of numerous 
equipment, performance, and management issues.

The NRC has no more public meetings scheduled until March 9. Its 
latest assessment of FirstEnergy’s efforts to create a workplace 
atmosphere conducive toward reporting problems is not complete. 
FirstEnergy must pass that so-called "safety culture" assessment 
before Davis-Besse is given restart authorization.

Perhaps even a more telling sign of the uncertainty was the 
company’s reluctance to commit itself to a time frame for calling 
back the NRC’s Restart Readiness Assessment Team.

That team told the utility Dec. 19 that Davis-Besse was nowhere 
near ready for restart because of fundamental performance 
violations. The violations were so plentiful the team did not 
provide a number.

NRC officials have said the team will spend more than a week 
doing its follow-up inspection, whenever it occurs.

Lew Myers, chief operating officer of FirstEnergy’s nuclear 
subsidiary, told The Blade it’s important for the utility "to be 
more critical than we expect [the NRC’s Restart Readiness 
Assessment Team] to be."

Bill Ruland, vice chairman of the NRC’s oversight panel, told Mr. 
Myers he was "encouraged" by how much more self-critical the 
utility appears to have become. Agency officials have said they 
expect the company to develop enough of a questioning attitude to 
head off future problems by itself.

Mark Bezilla, Davis-Besse vice president, said nearly all 
remaining equipment issues have been resolved, including a minor 
steam leak in an auxiliary feedwater pump that prompted the 
utility to back the plant down from its optimum temperature and 
pressure levels during the nonnuclear heat-up phase.

The NRC learned of a new problem, though: The possible 
vulnerability of nine turbine building doors. The doors were long 
thought to be robust enough to hold back a major pressure buildup 
if a main steam generator line broke. Advanced computer modeling 
raised concerns about the strength of the doors, Mr. Bezilla 
said.

FirstEnergy is strengthening the doors, he said.

For earlier stories on Davis-Besse, go to 
www.toledoblade.com/davisbesse.

 
*****************************************************************
 28 Advocate: Dominion files to renew licenses for Millstone reactors
 	 	 	
Associated Press
 	 	
January 22, 2004

WATERFORD, Conn. --             Dominion, the company that owns 
Millstone Power Station, has filed an application for a 20-year 
renewal of its licenses to operate the two nuclear reactors.

 Dominion, based on Richmond, Va., filed the application with the 
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Thursday.

 The company is seeking to extend the licenses of the Millstone 2 
reactor to 2035 and the Millstone 3 reactor to 2045. A third 
reactor at the Waterford complex, Millstone 1, is being 
decommissioned.

 "Dominion has a lasting commitment to maintain Millstone as New 
England's leading energy provide," Thoms F. Farrell II, president 
and chief operating officer, said Thursday.

 The company said the NRC is expected to take about two years to 
review the applications.

        Copyright © 2004, The Associated Press [Careerbuilder] 
© 2004, Southern Connecticut Newspapers, Inc.
*****************************************************************
 29 Tribune Democrat: 34-ton dome removed from old nuclear plant
   
  By KATHY MELLOTT, TRIBUNE-DEMOCRAT BEDFORD BUREAU     

January 22, 2004   

  SAXTON – The dome of one of the nation’s first experimental
nuclear reactors was removed yesterday, as residents said a
final goodbye to the plant that defined Saxton since the 1960s –
for good or ill.

 “I think it’s pretty cool. It’s decent,” resident Eric Pawuk
said in an interview at the site. 
“We won’t be able to stand uptown on Church Street and look down
and see that big, green, ugly dome.”

 The Saxton Nuclear Experimental Corp. plant was built in 1962
at a cost of $10 million and operated until 1972 as a training
ground for hundreds of nuclear power plant workers. The
23-megawatt plant in Liberty Township housed a 60-ton reactor
and produced power for 5,000 homes.

 Pawuk was one of a handful of residents who braved the morning
chill to capture the event on film and video. It was one of the
final phases in the plant’s decommissioning.

 Removing the 34-ton dome from the containment building that had
housed the reactor vessel took less than 20 minutes.

 Winds had delayed the dome’s removal on Tuesday, but there was
no breeze yesterday.

 That cleared the way for a $3 million crane operated by Greg
Saylor, owner of Bryce Saylor & Sons Inc., 4235 6th Ave.,
Altoona. The crane lifted the dome and swung it 100 feet to its
temporary home.

 During the next two months the dome will be monitored for
radioactivity and crews will cut it apart, site manager Mike
Williams said.

 “There were times when we didn’t think this would happen,”
Williams said.

 Crews spent the past month using torches to cut the domed
section from the 106-foot-tall containment building. 
Two foot-long bolts had been welded in place to keep the dome
intact until yesterday, Bob Holmes, spokesman for Saxton Nuclear
Experimental Corp., said in an interview at the site.

 “You won’t see anything here but the (First Energy) substation,
and that has been here for many years,” Holmes said of the
traditional power station built in 1922.

 The dome’s removal one was of the more picturesque moments in a
decommissioning that began 20 years ago. Spent fuel was shipped
out in 1974, while the reactor and 27-ton steam generator were
trucked from the site in 1998.

 Decommissioning the plant will cost close to $70 million,
Holmes said.

 Retired borough funeral director Al Masood came early, but
missed all the action when he went home to get film for his
camera.

 “I was here when they built it and I wanted to see them take it
down,” he said in a interview at the site.

 Rodger Grundland, an independent inspector hired by Saxton
Nuclear to look out for the concerns of the local residents for
the past seven years, viewed the lifting of the dome as the end
of an era.

 “It’s nice to see it down. It was nice to see a good calm day,”
Grundland, a retired Penn State nuclear scientist, said in an
interview after the dome was resting on solid ground.

 A small crane used during the plant’s operation to move fuel
rods and other materials inside the building was also removed
yesterday, clearing the way for the reminder of the above ground
part of the building to be demolished.

 The 53 feet portion of the containment building that is
underground will remain, Williams said.

 State Department of Environmental Protection has given its
approval to allow the massive base to remain buried, and steps
have already been taken to bury it with 4,500 tons of crushed
stone and soil. 

Final radiation testing and cleanup may be completed by
mid-summer. 
                                        
©Tribune Democrat 2004                     
*****************************************************************
 30 [du-list] UK: Study Shows Gulf War Veterans Healthy
 
Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2004 19:03:45 -0800

 
<x-flowed>
[Some claim Gulf War Syndrome is caused by DU - JH]

UK: Study Shows Gulf War Veterans Healthy

Wed Jan 21,10:47 AM ET


LONDON (Reuters) - Veterans of the 1991 Gulf War (news - web sites) -- many
of whom complain of "Gulf War Syndrome (news - web sites)" -- are on average
as healthy as soldiers who were not sent to the region, Britain said on
Wednesday.


The Ministry of Defense said latest results from a continuing study also
showed the Gulf veterans were healthier than the public at large.

Britain and the United States deny there is a "Gulf War Syndrome" of
specific symptoms tied to serving in the conflict, although both countries
often pay pensions to sick soldiers who link their illnesses to deployment
in the Gulf.

The ministry said 632 Gulf War veterans had died between April 1, 1991 and
December 2003, slightly fewer than the 643 who died in a similar-sized
control group of soldiers who served at the same time but did not go to the
Gulf.

Approximately 997 deaths would have been expected from a similar sized group
of people drawn from the general population of the same age and gender
profile, the ministry said.

"The statistics continue to demonstrate that Gulf War veterans are as
healthy, or healthier, than the general populace," a Ministry of Defense
spokeswoman said.

Veterans' groups have criticized the methodology of government surveys in
the past.

The study covered more than 53,000 British Gulf War veterans.

Only 265 Gulf War veterans died of disease, compared to 321 in the study's
control group. Of these, 115 Gulf War veterans died from cancer and 88 from
circulatory illnesses, compared to 130 and 113 respectively in the
comparison group.

There were four deaths from Motor Neurone Disease among Gulf Veterans
compared to three in the comparison group, the study found.

That last figure is important because veterans' groups have pointed to
higher figures of the very rare, deadly condition as evidence Gulf War
Syndrome exists. Britain and the United States say the condition is so rare
it is impossible to show a link.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=1896&e=18&u=/nm/health_gulfwar_dc

--
Hold the door for the stranger behind you. When the driver in the adjacent
lane signals to get over, slow down. Smile and say "hi" to the folks you
pass on the sidewalk. Give blood. Volunteer.

_________________________________________________________________
Find high-speed ‘net deals — comparison-shop your local providers here.
https://broadband.msn.com


To unsubscribe from this groups send a message to 
du-list-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com.  In the body of the message type 
unsubscribe and send.

------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
Buy Ink Cartridges or Refill Kits for your HP, Epson, Canon or Lexmark
Printer at MyInks.com. Free s/h on orders $50 or more to the US & Canada.
http://www.c1tracking.com/l.asp?cid=5511
http://us.click.yahoo.com/mOAaAA/3exGAA/qnsNAA/FGYolB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->

Yahoo! Groups Links

To visit your group on the web, go to:
  http://groups.yahoo.com/group/du-list/

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
  du-list-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
  http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ 

</x-flowed>
*****************************************************************
 31 ScienceDaily: Isotope Analysis Shows Exposure To Depleted Uranium 
In Gulf War Veterans
 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 		 		
Date: 2004-01-22                                                    

U.S. veterans who were exposed to depleted uranium during the 
1991 Gulf War have continued to excrete the potentially harmful 
chemical in their urine for years after their exposure, according 
to a new study published in the journal Health Physics.                        
 					     					  
What's Related
 					   							
Study: Tree Coring Seems To Be Quicker, Cheaper Method Of
Measuring Radiation
Gulf War Veterans Have Excessive Rates Of Death,
Hospitalization, Studies Show
Abnormally High Number Of Lou Gehrig's Disease Cases Identified
Among Gulf War Veterans 							> more related stories 							
 							 					   				 				
The study indicates that soldiers may absorb depleted uranium 
particles through inhalation, ingestion, or wound contamination, 
said Roberto Gwiazda, an environmental toxicologist at UC Santa 
Cruz and lead author of the study. 

Fine particles of depleted uranium are created when munitions 
made with the material strike a target. The new study did not 
address the health effects of exposure to depleted uranium, a 
subject of ongoing debate, but focused on a technique for 
detecting past exposure. 

Low concentrations of uranium in the urine are normal due to 
ingestion of naturally occuring uranium in food and water. 
Depleted uranium is a by-product of the enrichment process used 
to make nuclear fuel, in which one isotope of uranium (235U) is 
extracted, leaving behind material depleted in that isotope. 
Depleted uranium is still weakly radioactive and, like other 
heavy metals, can be toxic in high doses. Because of its high 
density and other properties, it has been used in armor-piercing 
ammunition and in armor for fighting vehicles. 

Gwiazda and Donald Smith, professor of environmental toxicology, 
developed a sensitive analytical technique to detect depleted 
uranium in urine samples. By measuring the relative abundances of 
different isotopes of uranium in the urine samples, the 
researchers were able to distinguish between natural and depleted 
uranium. 

"This is the only unambiguous way to determine past exposure and 
uptake of depleted uranium," Gwiazda said. 

The analysis of samples from Gulf War veterans was performed in 
collaboration with the Baltimore Veterans Affairs Depleted 
Uranium Follow-up Program, which is assessing, treating, and 
monitoring veterans who may have been exposed to depleted uranium 
during the war. 

The researchers applied their technique to three different groups 
of Gulf War veterans. The first group of soldiers had shrapnel in 
their bodies as a result of "friendly fire" incidents in which 
their tanks or armored vehicles were hit by munitions containing 
depleted uranium. The second group consisted of soldiers who did 
not have shrapnel in them but were involved in the friendly fire 
incidents to different degrees, either because they were in the 
vehicles that were hit or because they participated in recovery 
operations. The third group was a reference group and consisted 
of soldiers who participated in the war but not in combat 
operations. 

As expected, the soldiers with embedded shrapnel had high 
concentrations of uranium in their urine, and the isotope 
analysis showed that it was depleted uranium, presumably being 
released into their bodies from the shrapnel. 

A more striking finding was the presence of depleted uranium in 
the urine of a significant number of soldiers in the second 
group, without embedded shrapnel but with potential exposure 
through inhalation, ingestion, or wound contamination. The 
uranium concentrations detected in this group were, on average, 
six times higher than in the reference group, but were still 
within the normal range for the U.S. population. Nevertheless, 
Gwiazda said, it was remarkable that the signature of depleted 
uranium could still be detected so many years after the exposure. 

"These samples were taken six to eight years later," he said. The 
Veterans Affairs (VA) monitoring program has not reported any 
findings of clinically significant health effects related to 
exposure to depleted uranium, even in the highly exposed soldiers 
with embedded shrapnel. 

Any health effects of exposure to depleted uranium may not be 
detectable without studying a large number of exposed 
individuals. The technique developed at UCSC could be used to 
screen a large number of people to identify those with past 
exposure to depleted uranium. 

In addition to possible health effects in soldiers exposed during 
combat, concerns about depleted uranium include environmental 
contamination of battlefield sites. Civilian populations may be 
exposed through contact with depleted uranium fragments and dust 
left in the soil or with contaminated military equipment left 
behind after a conflict. 

"We don't know if that kind of exposure will have any health 
effects. But now we have a technique that enables us to detect 
past exposure to depleted uranium," Gwiazda said. 

The paper was published in the January issue of Health Physics. 
The authors include Katherine Squibb and Melissa McDiarmid of the 
University of Maryland School of Medicine, in addition to Gwiazda 
and Smith. 

This story has been adapted from a news release issued by 
University Of California Santa Cruz.                    

*****************************************************************
 32 EUpolitix: EU acts to stop nuclear fall out
 


Europe has promised another â‚¬18 million over the next four
years to stop any possible nuclear radiation escaping from
Chernobyl. 

The money will go to the Chernobyl Shelter Fund, set up to
prevent the broken down reactor from causing any more damage in
the Ukraine or further afield. 

The EU has already contributed over â‚¬150 to the fund since the
accident took place in 1986.     

Published: Thu, 22 Jan 2004 12:21:08 GMT+01

 Emily Smith 


©2004 EUpolitix.com     
About EUpolitix | About the Forum | Contact | Help | Register |
Terms | Accessibility   		 

*****************************************************************
 33 NEWS.com.au: Radiation experts visit outback 

(January 23, 2004)

THE International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) will keep secret 
its team of experts visiting South Australia's proposed site for 
the first national radioactive waste dump.

                                                                  
                               The IAEA has revealed the 
radiation experts who are inspecting the site near Woomera are 
from the United States, the United Kingdom, France and Hungary 
but has not disclosed their itinerary.

 "We don't think that's a necessary bit of information in the 
public domain," an IAEA spokesman told ABC radio.

 "We want these people to be able to work freely and to offer the 
most objective assessment."

 SA Environment Minister John Hill called for the Federal 
Government to lift the secrecy. 

"How can anybody have confidence in the process if those who are 
making determinations and giving advice aren't known?" he said.

 "It's absolutely imperative for the Federal Government to let 
the public know who's going to be on that panel so that we can 
have confidence that they will do a fair job."

 Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency chief 
executive officer John Loy said the panel would provide a report 
on the location, construction and operation of the proposed dump.

 "My Act certainly says I have to take into account international 
best practice so I have to know what it is and obviously the team 
will be in a very good position to advise exactly what 
international best practice is and their view of whether the 
application meets it," Dr Loy said.                                                                         

AAP
 				 							 				 					 						 						
Copyright 2003 News Limited. All times AEDT (GMT+11).                            
*****************************************************************
 34 AU ABC: Nuclear black market 'unsettling'. 

23/01/2004. 

ABC News Online

Australian Broadcasting Corporation Online">   

Update: Friday, January 23, 2004. 9:43am (AEDT) 	 

Nuclear black market 'unsettling'
 
The head of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA),
Mohammad El Baradei, is alarmed at the discovery in Libya of a
set of drawings on how to develop nuclear weapons.

 The drawings were found by an IAEA team that Libya recently
allowed full access to its nuclear facilities.

 Dr El Baradei says it is proof of an underground trade in
nuclear weapons technology.

 "What we have seen [are] some weapon designs, some aspects of
weapon design, which obviously is very unsettling because we
have those kind of drawings circulating around the world," he
said.

 "[That] points to this network of black market proliferators
and that's really the most serious worry right now.

 "That's where we are working full blast, obviously with the
support of the intelligence agencies in the world to try to
understand this network and to try to put a stop to it."

 Mr El Baradei has also expressed concern about the latest
reports of nuclear activity in North Korea and Libya.

 A member of an unofficial US delegation that visited the
nuclear plant at Yongbyon in North Korea recently said that
spent fuel rods had been removed from their cooling ponds,
possibly for reprocessing.

 The delegation was also shown a lump of what they were told was
plutonium, a key ingredient in nuclear weapons.

 Mr El Baradei says North Korea represents the world's greatest
threat to nuclear non-proliferation.

 "I'm very concerned," Mr El Baradei said. "It confirms that
North Korea could possibly have nuclear weapons already
developed, not only the capability, but nuclear weapons.

 "Add to that that North Korea feels very insecure ... that they
need to use nuclear blackmail to achieve their strategic
objectives.

 "Put all that together and that makes North Korea clearly the
most serious threat to non-proliferation as we know it today." 

© 2004 Australian Broadcasting Corporation 
*****************************************************************
 35 Gallup Independent: Navajo EPA clean air meeting Friday

              January 21, 2004 

Kathy Helms Diné Bureau
 
FORT DEFIANCE — The Navajo Nation Environmental Protection Agency 
Air Quality Control Program will hold a public meeting on the 
Navajo Clean Air Act beginning at 4 p.m. Friday at the Shiprock 
Chapter House. 

According to Wilson Laughter of the Navajo Air Quality Control 
Program, the meeting is being held to respond specifically to 
written requests received during the public comment period for a 
public hearing on proposed amendments to the Navajo Clean Air Act 
. 

Stephen B. Etsitty, executive director of Navajo EPA, will 
explain why his agency has decided to host a public meeting 
instead of a public hearing. Navajo EPA will provide the general 
information about the purpose and meaning of the Navajo Clean Air 
Act and will present those sections which are proposed to be 
amended. 

One change proposed is the definition of "air pollutants," which 
has been expanded to mean "any air pollution agent or combination 
of such agents, including any physical, chemical, biological, 
radioactive (including source material, special nuclear material, 
and byproduct material) substance or matter which is emitted into 
or otherwise enters the ambient air ..." 

The meeting will be performed in two segments. The first segment 
will consist of a general overview and background of the Navajo 
Clean Air Act, including the purpose of the act, how it compares 
to the federal Clean Air Act, what the Navajo act will regulate, 
and more. 

The second segment is designed for presentation of those portions 
of the Navajo Clean Air Act which are proposed for amendment. 

As a result of this meeting, the deadline for public comments 
will be extended from Jan. 8 to Jan. 24. 

Persons interested in obtaining more information about the Navajo 
Clean Air Act are urged to call Laughter at (928) 871-7188 or 
Chris Lee, of the Navajo Air Quality Control Program. 

On Jan. 9, U.S. EPA Administrator Mike Leavitt told the nation's 
power company officials their industry must begin investing now 
to reduce emissions of sulfur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen oxides 
(NOx), and mercury from power plants. Several power plants 
regulated by U.S. EPA have the potential to impact air quality on 
certain portions of the Navajo Nation. 

Leavitt said that last month EPA sent letters to the governors of 
31 states affirming that more than 530 counties were unable to 
meet new health-based ozone standards. 

"Many of those counties have unhealthy air through no fault of 
their own," he said. "It's because they live downwind from one or 
more coal-burning power plants." 

In December 2003, EPA proposed an Interstate Air Quality plan to 
reduce power plant emissions through a cap-and-trade program. The 
plan is to cut SO2 emissions by 70 percent and NOx by about 65 
percent from today's levels. 

U.S. EPA's first-ever proposed rule to regulate mercury emissions 
would reduce the estimated 48 tons of mercury emitted each year 
by coal-burning power plants. 

Sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides are key contributors to fine 
particles and ground-level ozone. Fine particles can pose serious 
health risks, especially for people with heart or lung disease, 
including asthma, as well as older adults and children. 
Ground-level ozone can irritate the respiratory system, aggravate 
asthma, reduce lung capacity and increase susceptibility to 
respiratory illnesses such as pneumonia and bronchitis. 

Mercury is a toxic pollutant which Americans are exposed to 
primarily through eating mercury-contaminated fish, according to 
EPA. 

E-mail: <font size="3">gallpind@cia-g.com</font> By mail: The 
Independent PO Box 1210 Gallup, NM 87305 500 N. 9th Gallup, NM 
87301   
  
send any questions or comments to gallpind@cia-g.com  
*****************************************************************
 36 St. Petersburg Time: Bellona Says Watchdog Ignoring Dangers at LAES 

. General news from St.Petersburg and Russia
          
#937, Friday, January 23, 2004   

By Vladimir Kovalev
 STAFF WRITER
 Photo by Sergei kharitonov / BELLONA 

A Finnish monitoring organization tasked with ensuring that the 
Leningrad Nuclear Power Plant is safe has been turning a blind 
eye on corrupt and unsafe practices, international environmental 
organization Bellona says. 

Bellona member Sergei Kharitonov presented the results of a 
Bellona study of plant safety at a news conference on Wednesday. 

Speaking at the Regional Press Institute, he said leaks of spent 
fuel are common and equipment crucial to the safety of the 
reactor is being stolen. Moreover, some staff are drunk on the 
job. 

"Alcoholism thrives [at the plant]," he said. "Staff do not 
undergo drug tests. There is a case detailed in my report of a 
person who had recently been treated for alcoholism being allowed 
to work with nuclear fuel," Kharitonov said. 

For seven years, Kharitonov was in charge of storage of spent 
fuel at the plant. He was fired in November 1997, just three days 
after he published an article in a Sosnovy Bor newspaper that 
criticized the plant's safety procedures and called for the 
suspension of its operating license. 

The Leningrad Nuclear Power Plant, or LAES according to its 
Russian acronym, is located in the town of Sosnovy Bor, 80 
kilometers west of St. Petersburg. 

"[Jukka] Laaksonen, general director of STUK, wrote that the 
state of the plant is no cause for concern, although its own 
specialists had been coming over to Sosnovy Bor since 1997 to fix 
leaking cracks," Kharitonov said. 

"The role of the Finnish organization is very negative," he said. 
"The plant's managers and STUK share common interests." 

He did not reveal what these interests are. 

STUK has invested up to 7 million euros in work and safety 
equipment for the station since it started cooperating closely 
with the plant in 1992, STUK's Laaksonen said Thursday in a 
telephone interview. 

It has never given cash to the station management, he said, but 
had spent about 500,000 euros annually to buy and install various 
types of safety equipment at the station. 

"I don't understand why he [Kharitonov] is criticizing us," 
Laaksonen said. "We have never been involved in any matters 
relating to LAES' operating license and we have never taken a 
position on the safety of the plant itself. 

"Our interest is to influence the improvement of safety, to 
cooperate with the plant on certain technical topics the plant's 
managers think we can support them with and that's all," he said. 
"And we are very satisfied that safety in general is improving, 
mostly thanks to measures taken by the plant itself - I don't 
know why he's blaming us. 

"We have always refused to take any position on whether to 
operate the plant or not to operate the plant and for how long. 
It is completely the matter of the Russian safety authorities," 
Laaksonen added. 

One of the recent incidents Kharitonov mentioned in his report 
occurred in August 2002, when employees installed 241 old 
circulators to regulate the water supply to Reactor No. 3. The 
reactor had just been repaired and was about to be reactivated. 
To conceal the age of the circulators, employees cleaned up the 
radiation in the circulators in a chemical section of the plant, 
a process which made them unusable. On Aug. 5, when the reactor 
was switched on, the circulators started failing one after the 
other. 

"Conditions were created that could have led to a nuclear 
disaster because water supply is an important measure of control 
[in the system]," Kharitonov said in his report. 

"This incident could be treated as an act of terrorism because it 
was done intentionally. ... [It showed] it is not necessary to 
use terrorist methods to commit sabotage. It is enough to install 
old defective equipment in important areas of the plant," he 
said. 

Quoting reports in the local media, Kharitonov drew attention to 
frequent thefts of non-ferrous metals, including sections of 
governmental communication systems and different sorts of pipes, 
sometimes with a total weight of several tons. 

The Russian Nuclear Energy Ministry called Kharitonov a liar. 

"I don't know what has been stolen from there," Nikolai 
Shingarev, spokesman for the Nuclear Power Ministry, said 
Thursday in a telephone interview. "People steal from any plant, 
but I can assure you, people steal much less from a nuclear power 
station than from any other site. Maybe they stole something 
there from storage, but it wouldn't be in such a way that it 
affected security. 

"From our point of view there are no violations [of security] at 
LAES," Shingarev said. "The majority of information [in the 
report] is unfounded. It is difficult, of course, to judge. This 
is specialists' business," he said. 

"I don't agree with allegations that there has been a cover up," 
he added. "This is an outright lie because we are open. The 
Leningrad Nuclear Plant has a web site [www.laes.ru] where anyone 
can check the radiation level there, what accidents have happened 
there, learn about the plant, how it works and its effect on the 
environment," he said. 

LAES managers have accused Bellona of hindering a government 
program to develop nuclear energy systems based on extending the 
operating life of the plant. The environmentalists act in favor 
of Western companies developing the same policy, the power 
plant's management said. 

"All that Kharitonov writes, in Bellona's report especially, 
should be viewed through the spectrum of different parties," LAES 
spokesman Sergei Averyanov said Thursday in a telephone 
interview. 

"Kharitonov is deluding neighboring states, in particular Finland 
and its parliament, in relation to our policy. Bellona is 
deliberately creating opposition to plans to extend the operation 
of block No. 1," Averyanov said. 

The Parliament of Finland plans to discuss the issues mentioned 
in Kharitonov's report on Tuesday. 

Kharitonov sued LAES for illegally firing him and won in December 
1997. 

A 27-year veteran of the plant, and one of those who helped 
contain the 1986 Chernobyl disaster, Kharitonov argued that he 
should not have been fired without at least two months' warning. 
The court agreed, citing the Labor Code, which stipulates that 
because of their exposure to dangerous levels of radiation, those 
who volunteered for the Chernobyl cleanup should be the last in 
line to be sacked. 

After the court hearing, Kharitonov was reinstated, but 
restricted to the plant's locker room for almost two years. 

Kharitonov has been documenting environmental hazards at LAES for 
years. In 1995, Kharitonov and members of another environmental 
organization, Green World Council, protested the plant's attempt 
to cram twice as much waste into its radioactive storage building 
as it was designed to hold. And in 1996, Kharitonov distributed 
photographs of the facility's cracked concrete walls that showed 
ground water seeping through the floor of the storage area. 
Environmentalists say the amount of radioactive material held in 
the storage facility is about 50 times that released in the 
Chernobyl disaster. 

LAES has four RBMK-1,000 Chernobyl-type reactors, including one 
that has been in service for more then 30 years, the operating 
life of which may be extended. More top stories: Davos Eyes on 
Georgia| Victims Say Racism on Rise After Nationalist Elections | 
Something to say? Write to the Opinion Page Editor. E-mailor 
online form: 


[Copyright] copyright The St. Petersburg Times 1993-2004 
*****************************************************************
 37 Nuclear waste official resigns
 
Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2004 19:31:58 -0600 (CST)

 
  45 Las Vegas SUN: Nuclear waste official resigns

Today: January 20, 2004 at 11:28:11 PST

_By Suzanne Struglinski
<suzanne@lasvegassun.com>_

  WASHINGTON -- University of California professor Paul Craig
resigned from the Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board last week,
saying he wanted more time to work on other projects but also
wanted to leave the "enormously stressful" situation.

  Congress created the board in 1987 to review the Energy
Department's plan to store 77,000 tons of nuclear waste at Yucca
Mountain, 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas.

  Former board Chairman Michael Corradini resigned in Dec. 30
after months of conflict-of-interest complaints stemming from his
earlier support of the project. Corradini said he did not believe
he had conflict, but resigned to keep the board's reputation and
work intact.

  "This last year was enormously stressful," Craig said. "The Bush
administration likes to appoint people to committees who are
going to do their bidding. I have no evidence of this, but it
seemed Corradini was there to get Yucca Mountain up and running."

  Craig said the former chairman would never back down from his
thoughts that Yucca Mountain was a good idea, even when the board
had scientific data to the contrary.

  "It was distracting from doing the job I was hired to do," Craig
said.

  But regardless of the problems on the board, Craig said in a
letter to the White House sent on Thursday that there are other
projects he wants to work on, and he needs the time he now
commits to the board.

  Craig said none of his other activities have anything to do with
nuclear waste or nuclear policy, but that is was time for him to
leave. He will still be teaching at the University of California,
Davis, but was not sure what specific other projects in which he
will be involved. His term, which began in 1997, was supposed to
end in April.

  "The secretary of Energy needs to negotiate with Congress and
the nuclear industry to slow this project down," Craig said.
"Will he do that? I'm not holding my breath."

  Craig said corrosion problems the board notified the department
about in October still need to be addressed. The board feels the
most recent design for the repository will not work.

  "They will have to admit this one has a problem," Craig said.

  Craig said he did not see "any possible way" the department will
submit its license application for the project by the end of the
year.

  DOE has always maintained that its final application will not
only be in to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission by December 2004,
but that the project is scientifically sound.

2004 Las Vegas SUN, Inc.
*****************************************************************
 38 Knox News: RNC team gets $3.7M nuclear waste contract

By News Sentinel staff
January 22, 2004

OAK RIDGE - A team headed by RWE NUKEM Corp. has received a $3.7 
million contract to remove and repackage about 20,000 drums of 
radioactive material at two defense storage depots in Maryland 
and Indiana. 

RNC, which is based in Columbia, S.C., maintains an office in Oak 
Ridge and conducts projects for the U.S. Department of Energy. 
The project team also includes Bartlett Nuclear Inc., Waste 
Solutions, RSB Logistic and Alaron Corp. 

 The contract was awarded by UT-Battelle, the manager of Oak 
Ridge National Laboratory, which is managing the activities 
because of its expertise with nuclear materials. 

The work will involve the removal of radioactive thorium nitrate, 
which was stockpiled more than 40 years ago by the Atomic Energy 
Commission, the federal predecessor to DOE. 

The government produced the material for use as a component in 
nuclear reactor fuel. However, there was never a demand for the 
product in the commercial nuclear industry. 

The material currently is stored at two Defense National 
Stockpile Center depots. The team headed by RNC will remove the 
thorium nitrate from storage, inspect it and repackage it for 
disposal at the Nevada Test Site.  

© 2004 The Knoxville News Sentinel Co. All Rights Reserved. 
*****************************************************************
 39 Salt Lake Tribune: Goshutes ask court to deny IRS access 
 
January 22, 2004   
 
 By Judy Fahys 
The Salt Lake Tribune 
 
    Attorneys for the Skull Valley Goshute Band said Tuesday the
Internal Revenue Service has no right to information about a
company partly owned by the tiny Utah tribe and urged a federal
court to reject the agency's request for an enforcement order. 
 
    In the papers filed in the Utah U.S. District Court,
attorney Joseph Thibodeau attacked the government for dragging
the 121-member tribe into a controversy between the tax agency
and a company called Starlike Properties, a limited liability
company in which the Goshutes have an ownership interest. 
 
    One reason: The IRS sought the enforcement order shortly
after "closing" the case against Starlike by sending the company
a bill for $4.4 million in back taxes and $886,523 in penalties. 
 
    Thibodeau also said that after officials reassured Goshute
Chairman Leon Bear last year that he was not a criminal target
in the Starlike probe, the IRS may now be compromising his right
not to incriminate himself in criminal embezzlement and tax
fraud charges filed the day before the enforcement order. 
 
    "That," said the Denver tax lawyer, "is the most shocking
aspect of this proceeding." 
 
    The Goshutes' business enterprises have been a target of
public criticism since the Skull Valley Band signed an agreement
with a consortium of nuclear companies in 1997 to host an
outdoor parking lot for power plant waste on the band's
reservation. The multibillion-dollar project is under
consideration for a license by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission. 
 
    IRS agents have been scrutinizing Starlike for about three
years. Thirteen months ago, they ordered Bear and the Goshutes
to turn over any documents pertaining to the company, which is
operated out of a Manhattan office building by a man who makes
and sells tax shelters. 
 
    The Goshute tribal offices were raided by the investigators
for the Interior Department and the FBI a few months later. And
Bear turned over three of the five documents he said he had on
Starlike last March, Thibodeau insists. 
 
  
 
 
 
  
 
    However, based on the request for an enforcement order that
the IRS and the U.S. Attorney's office made to the court last
month, the government still wants to know what the Goshutes and
their company were doing trading on Japanese yen futures in
1998. 
 
    Among the other objections the Goshutes have with the IRS's
request is that the summonses were not properly served on Bear
and the tribe; that the federal government has seized its
records in the criminal case; and that Starlike and the band
have been cooperating with the government investigation. 
 
    Thibodeau also raised the tribe's status as a sovereign
government, which is beyond the reach of U.S. federal
authorities. 
 
    fahys@sltrib.com
 
    
 
    
 
   
 
   
 
              
 
  
Copyright Salt Lake City Tribune
*****************************************************************
 40 Las Vegas RJ: YUCCA MOUNTAIN: Scientific evidence faulted 
 
Thursday, January 22, 2004
 

Nuclear repository design flawed, ex-member of review panel says
By KEITH ROGERS
REVIEW-JOURNAL
 
Yucca Mountain Project leaders are rushing to complete a nuclear
waste repository design that lacks data and is flawed by weak
science, an engineering professor who recently resigned from a
key review panel said Wednesday.
 
 Paul P. Craig, professor emeritus of engineering at the
University of California, Davis, said big problems loom for the
government's plan to entomb nuclear waste 100 miles northwest of
Las Vegas.
 
 The Department of Energy lacks information about how metal
waste containers will hold up over 10,000 years, and the agency
has failed to collect evidence about the mountain's heat
conductivity, Craig said.
 
 He said the issues are akin to NASA officials failing to
interpret data that showed problems prior to the 1986 shuttle
Challenger tragedy.
 
 "Clearly, the Department of Energy needs to change the
(repository) design because they do not have the confidence of
the scientific community," Craig said.
 
 He resigned last week from the Nuclear Waste Technical Review
Board. The independent board monitors the Energy Department's
performance on technical aspects of the Yucca Mountain Project
and gives Congress its findings.
 
 He was appointed to the nonpartisan panel in 1997 by President
Clinton. His term was set to expire in April.
 
 Craig said Wednesday his claims about the project were not
factors in his resignation. He wanted to pursue other endeavors
related to research and scientific policy issues.
 
 But he also wanted to speak out on the issues, which he
couldn't do on the panel.
 
 Craig said the Energy Department, which has been working for
more than 20 years to develop a single, permanent storage site
for the nation's nuclear waste and has at least another decade
to go, is moving with great haste.
 
 "My reading is the guys at the top at the Department of Energy
are in such a rush to get approval, but the science is weak.
They're rushing ahead. That's a bad idea," he said.
 
 Of particular concern, he said, is Energy Department reluctance
to collect data on how the mountain will be affected by heat
from the 77,000 tons of decaying, spent nuclear fuel and highly
radioactive waste to be entombed there. 
While the Energy Department initially sought a site with
adequate geological properties to isolate the waste, scientists
determined Yucca Mountain alone wouldn't safely contain the
waste. So, late in their studies, they were forced to shift
toward heavy reliance on metal containers to keep the waste from
contaminating the outside environment for at least 10,000 years.
 
 Nevada scientists have been highly critical of that design,
arguing that the alloy in question would be prone to corrosion
and cracking from moisture in the storage area sooner than
scientists anticipate. 
Craig said Energy Department scientists haven't researched the
corrosive metal issue adequately and have little data about heat
conductivity in the repository area.
 
 "If the mountain is a poor conductor of heat, then it's going
to heat up, and that's bad."
 
 Craig said there is a reason energy officials have very little
data about this: "They never bothered to collect it."
 
 He said they need to take measurements in the precise
repository area to fill the data gaps. "I don't see how they can
do a credible design without that data," he said.
 
 An Energy Department spokesman for the Office of Repository
Development in Las Vegas rejected Craig's claims. "We have been
studying Yucca Mountain for many years, and all of the evidence
we have developed is sound. We stand behind our scientific
effort," Allen Benson said.
 
 Craig said Benson's comment makes it clear the Yucca Mountain
Project is schedule-driven, not driven by science.
 
 Attempting to gather more data, as Craig has suggested, would
prevent the Energy Department from submitting a license
application by the end of this year for review by the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission. That, in turn, would throw off the
construction schedule and the government's ability to receive
waste shipments.
 
 Congress approved the project on July 9, 2002, over Gov. Kenny
Guinn's veto.
 
 
Copyright Las Vegas Review-Journal
*****************************************************************
 41 Las Vegas SUN: Editorial: Untenable deadline

Today: January 22, 2004 at 8:51:53 PST 

 This week the Energy Department reaffirmed its commitment to
meet a year-end deadline to submit an application to bury 77,000
tons of high-level nuclear waste in Southern Nevada. But on
Wednesday the Sun reported that the Nuclear Waste Technical
Review Board, which met this week in Las Vegas, is concerned
about the deadline. Some members of the board, an independent
scientific body that offers advice about the Yucca Mountain
project to the federal government, wondered whether the pressure
imposed by the deadline may lead to safety questions being
overlooked. The board's concerns include the possibility of the
waste containers corroding and terrorist threats when the waste
is shipped and after it is on-site.

 The 1986 Challenger disaster, and the subsequent probe that
discovered that political pressure to meet deadlines contributed
to launching the shuttle during unsafe conditions, was on the
mind of board member Mark Abkowitz. He asked W. John Arthur III,
deputy director of repository development at the Energy
Department, about the department's internal communication
policies and whether employees feel free to report concerns they
might have. Arthur said the Energy Department is working to
improve the dialogue about potential problems, including the
creation of a leadership council within the agency.

 It's awfully late in the game to be creating such a "leadership
council" -- that should have happened on day one of the project.
Further, because Yucca Mountain is supposed to safely contain
man's deadliest waste, trying to ram this application through to
completion within a year couldn't be more irresponsible. The
deadline, for safety's sake, should be scrapped. 
 
*****************************************************************
 42 AU ABC: SA Govt angered by waste dump secrecy. 

23/01/2004. ABC News Online
 	
Australian Broadcasting Corporation
 
South Australian Environment Minister John Hill is demanding to
know the identity of what is being described as "an
international panel of experts" who will evaluate the proposed
national nuclear waste dump site near Woomera.

 Australia's chief nuclear body, the Australian Radiation
Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency (ARPANSA), has invited the
group to advise whether the far-north site is suitable.

 The panel includes members of the International Atomic Energy
Agency, but their identity will remain secret.

 Mr Hill says that is not good enough.

 "How can anybody have confidence in the process if those who
are making a determination and giving advice aren't known?" Mr
Hill said.

 "I think it is absolutely imperative for the Federal Government
to let the public know who is going to be on that panel so that
we can have confidence that they will do a fair job." 


© 2004 Australian Broadcasting Corporation 
*****************************************************************
 43 KRNV: DOE plans to submit final licensing application for Yucca in '04

January 22, 2004   

Energy Department officials say they still plan to submit the 
final licensing application for a national nuclear waste dump at 
Yucca Mountain by the end of this year. 

But officials acknowledge the department is only about halfway 
there and still has several safety, design and technical issues 
to work through before submitting the application to the Nuclear 
Regulatory Commission. 

Members of the Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board have 
expressed doubt as to whether the DOE will be able to meet the 
deadline and whether pressure may lead the department to overlook 
safety questions. 

Congress created the 11-member board in 1987 to review plans to 
store 77,000 tons of highly radioactive waste at Yucca Mountain, 
which is about 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas. 

(Copyright 2004 by The Associated Press.  All Rights Reserved.) 
 
      All content © Copyright 2001 - 2004 WorldNow and KRNV. All
*****************************************************************
 44 WIStv.com Columbia, SC: Navy to allow reactor through Chas.
Naval Base en route to Barnwell Co.

   January 22, 2004       

(Charleston-AP) Jan. 22, 2004 - The US Navy says it will allow an 
old nuclear reactor from California to pass through the old 
Charleston Naval Base en route to a disposal site in Barnwell 
County. 

The Navy has agreed that Charleston Marine Manufacturing 
Corporation may handle the 668 ton reactor. 

The plan is to ship the reactor by barge from California about 
11,000 miles around the southern tip of South America to 
Charleston. The trip is expected to take about three months. A 
special train will take the reactor about 90 miles from 
Charleston to Barnwell. 

There are new complications with the plan. An Argentine judge 
last week banned the reactor from passing within 200 miles of 
that country's coastline. Chile also has a law banning nuclear 
shipments within 200 miles of its coast. 

posted 10:53am by Chris   Rees  

All content © Copyright 2000 - 2004 WorldNow and WISTV. All
Rights Reserved.
*****************************************************************
 45 KLAS: State of the Nukes in Nevada

January 22, 2004   

(Jan. 21) -- In his speech Tuesday night, President Bush talked 
making tax cuts permanent. Another issue the President touched 
upon was the future of energy sources, which may include nuclear 
power. Eyewitness News took a closer look at the response from 
Nevada's elected officials. 

President Bush said, "I urge you to pass legislation to modernize 
our electricity system, promote conservation, and make America 
less dependent on foreign sources of energy." 

Nevada Democrats say President Bush is threatening Nevada by 
encouraging the passage of the energy bill. Democrats say the 
fear is that under the bill, building more nuclear power plants 
would generate more nuclear waste -- which would have to be 
stored at Yucca Mountain or somewhere else. 

Nevada's Attorney General (R) Brian Sandoval agrees. "The bottom 
line is that Yucca Mountain is not safe and it will never be 
safe. And in the event it was approved, by the time they build 
Yucca Mountain there would be at least that much waste across the 
country and so it accomplishes nothing and that's part of our 
argument." 

Nevada's Senators from both parties seem confident Yucca Mountain 
will not be built. 

Senator Harry Reid: "No matter what the courts do, they've given 
up on transporting nuclear waste in Europe because people won't 
let it happen. Since 9-11 every shipment, every truckload would 
be a target for terrorists and security in this country." 

Senator John Ensign: "Yucca Mountain, as it stands now, will not 
be able to handle all of the nation's nuclear waste even with the 
current number of power plants in the country." 

Attorney General Brian Sandoval was part of the team that argued 
against Yucca Mountain at the U.S. Court of Appeals last week. 
And while he is at odds with Yucca Mountain, Sandoval is also the 
chairman of President Bush's re-election campaign. 

"I will not back down and we're going to be very aggressive about 
that. And the white house and I agree to disagree about that 
issue," Sandoval stated.  

According to published reports, Congressmen Jon Porter and Jim 
Gibbons support the energy bill and Congresswoman Shelley Berkley 
opposes it.   

      All content © Copyright 2000 - 2004 WorldNow and KLAS. All
*****************************************************************
 46 Albuquerque Tribune: More care urged for WIPP trips                        
                     
By Tribune Reporter

 The thought of a wreck involving nuclear waste shipments along 
I-40 through Albuquerque terrifies Sylviana Diaz-Douville.

 For 24 years, she has lived in a three-bedroom stucco house less 
than a mile from the intersection of I-40 and Coors Boulevard 
Northwest. The is area filled with homes, churches, parks, 
schools and strip malls, Diaz-Douville said.

 "It's only a matter of time before something happens," said 
Diaz-Douville, a retired city employee."This is serious business. 
We're not prepared."

 On Wednesday, the City Council listened to Diaz-Douville and 
about 20 others. The council passed a measure urging the U.S. 
Department of Energy to follow stricter guidelines when shipping 
waste through the city to the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant near 
Carlsbad.

 Councilor Miguel Gomez, who sponsored the measure, said he and 
other councilors are scheduled to meet with a DOE leader Friday 
afternoon in Albuquerque to discuss the council's suggestions.

 They include having the department give the city's chief of 
police advance notification when a shipment would be going 
through the city; restricting shipments to times outside rush 
hour; and requiring safety escorts. 

The first shipments of waste from the Nevada test site began 
passing through Albuquerque on I-40 this month. Low-level waste 
bound for WIPP includes plutonium-contaminated protective gear, 
tools and equipment. 

A few people told the councilors they already feel safe with the 
nuclear waste trucks going through the city.

 One man, who did not give his name for fear of retaliation, said 
he is more concerned with flammable materials and chemicals that 
are shipped on the city's streets each day.

 "They don't know what they're protesting," he said after the 
meeting.

 Gomez said it was "fantastic" the measure was approved. He said 
he has concerns the shipment trucks might wreck in the city or 
terrorists could attack.

 "We don't know what the potentials are for accidents," he said.

 Councilor Debbie O'Malley supported the request.

 "As a governing body, it's important to protect the citizens of 
this city," she told the council.

 In other business, the council in a 4-3 vote approved a memorial 
encouraging the Legislature to pass a bill to help counties 
statewide raise money for the arts by increasing taxes. The bill 
has not been introduced yet.

 The arts bill would allow counties to increase gross receipts 
taxes up to a quarter cent with voter approval.

© The Albuquerque Tribune. 
*****************************************************************
 47 Albuquerque Tribune: Quest to stop cargo to WIPP is irrational                       

EDITORIAL:


Nobody wants radioactive waste stored in his or her back yard. 
Nobody wants it traveling down a highway through his or her 
community. Nobody wants to be driving along a highway next to a 
truck hauling it. And hardly anybody wants it permanently buried 
anywhere near where he or she lives.

 So the recent flap over military nuclear waste traveling through 
Albuquerque on its way to permanent burial in the deep caverns of 
the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant near Carlsbad is understandable.

 But it's hardly rational. And trying to block it is the last 
thing the Albuquerque City Council needs to bother with.

 City Councilor Miguel Gomez's request that the Department of 
Energy halt the shipments is unreasonable. So are Gomez's threat 
to sue DOE over the shipments and his request that the trucks be 
routed around Albuquerque.

 If there were any reasonable safety issue threatening 
Albuquerque residents, Gomez, as well as state officials, would 
be correct in demanding the shipments cease and/or be routed 
around our large city. No good case has been made.

 The shipments are contained in specially designed casks that 
have been harshly tested at Sandia National Laboratories and are 
unlikely to rupture, even in an extreme crash. The shipments are 
inspected before they depart, when they arrive and at various 
state lines along the route for potential leaks or other 
appropriate safety concerns.

 All this costs a heck of a lot of money, which is appropriately 
borne by all federal taxpayers.

 This is not to say that the containers could not possibly leak. 
But even if they did, the risk of death from the radioactivity 
itself is nominal.

 Shipments to WIPP are considerably safer than routine shipments 
along Albuquerque roads of gasoline, chemicals and other 
hazardous wastes. These materials pose far greater risks, yet are 
shipped using far less-rigorous standards. Natural gas pipelines 
have caused far more injuries and deaths in the United States 
than have radioactive materials. Yet nobody has proposed banning 
the shipment of natural gas into Albuquerque or across the state.

 A number of dangerous materials - including radioactive ones 
used in defense, energy and medicine - move through the nation 
routinely and usually safely. When a gap in safety is uncovered, 
it must be addressed.

 Unless Albuquerque officials are prepared to halt every one of 
these hazardous shipments - which would result in local economic 
chaos - there is no logical reason to isolate safely packed and 
shipped radioactive wastes.

 For better or for worse, the United States has produced nuclear 
weapons, a byproduct of which is radioactive waste now destined 
for WIPP. New Mexico is the national host for permanent disposal 
of those wastes, in part because of its long-term atomic history, 
its geology, and the willingness of Carlsbad to embrace both the 
risks and benefits.

 Scientific experts, citizens and their political representatives 
have fashioned the safest solution they could find to the problem 
of military nuclear wastes. It is better than leaving the wastes 
exposed at nuclear weapons facilities in Nevada, Washington, 
Colorado, Tennessee and here in New Mexico.

 Some WIPP wastes will move along federally funded highways 
through Albuquerque. Everybody should get used to it.

© The Albuquerque Tribune.
*****************************************************************
 48 War Wire: Americas nuclear test legacy lingers 50 years after Bravo test

WAR.WIRE

MAJURO (AFP) Jan 22, 2004

 Half a century after the largest ever US hydrogen bomb test in 
the Marshall Islands, the inhabitants of the central Pacific 
Island archipelago are hoping this month's visit by a high-level 
US delegation will revive their stalled bid for two billion 
dollars' compensation.

The mid-January visit by senior administration and US Congress 
members was seen as positive by Marshall Island leaders who more 
than three years ago filed a petition seeking additional 
compensation for the massive damage caused by 67 US nuclear tests 
in the island chain in the late 1940s and 1950s.

Bikini Senator Tomaki Juda, who was a small child when Bikini 
islanders were relocated ahead of the first post-World War II 
nuclear tests in 1946, says the meetings with US Interior 
Secretary Gale Norton and Congress members this month gave 
islanders an opportunity to discuss the issues with key policy 
makers from Washington for the first time in recent years. 

American officials argue that 270 million dollars provided to 
nuclear test victims between 1986 to 2001 represents a full and 
final settlement to compensation claims.

However, Republican California Congressman Richard Pombo, who 
chairs the House Resources Committee which oversees funding to 
the Marshall Islands, admitted during the visit that Washington's 
obligations had not ended.

"Obviously, the United States has an ongoing liability (for the 
nuclear test legacy)," Pombo said in an interview with AFP in 
Majuro.

"This issue is 50 years old. At some point we need to find 
closure."

But as the 50th anniversary looms of the March 1, 1954 Bravo test 
at Bikini -- the largest hydrogen bomb ever tested by the United 
States -- the dissatisfaction of Marshall islanders continues to 
fester.

Rongelap Atoll Senator Abacca Anjain-Maddison and Bikini Council 
official Jack Niedenthal said the closure at the end of this 
month of a special medical program for nuclear test victims 
because of a lack of US funding was a serious concern.

However, Pombo said Washington was prepared to step in to save 
the health project, which was previously funded by the 270 
million dollars.

"One way or another this will be addressed, either 
administratively or through Congressional action," he said.

A US-Marshall Islands agreement, known as the Compact of Free 
Association, ended more than 40 years of American rule of the 
islands as a United Nations Trust Territory in 1986. The Compact 
provided for a compensation package which paid out 270 million 
dollars over the next 15 years.

The money was used for individual compensation, community 
development projects, a special health program for people from 
the four worst affected atolls and to fund a Nuclear Claims 
Tribunal.

A US-funded nuclear clean-up at Enewetak in the late 1970s 
allowed people to return to three southern islands, but most of 
the remaining coral islands, the test site for 43 nuclear blasts, 
are off-limits because of dangerously high radiation levels.

As the compensation package wound up two years ago, the Nuclear 
Claims Tribunal was completing nearly 10 years of judicial 
proceedings on claims by Bikini and Enewetak islanders over land 
damages, clean-up costs and hardship.

The awards, after deducting previously provided compensation, 
amounted to more than one billion dollars but have so far not 
been fully been paid. 

The tribunal has received only 45 million dollars in funding from 
the United States for its operations and paying awards.

The tribunal is now in the final stages of judging similar claims 
from Rongelap and Utrik, which were exposed to high-level fallout 
from the Bravo test and many of the other hydrogen bomb 
explosions in the 1950s.

In addition, the tribunal has approved personal injury claims of 
over 70 million dollars from more than 1,700 Marshall Islanders 
for cancers and related health problems. 

According to statistics provided by the tribunal, more than 
one-third of the claimants have died without receiving their full 
compensation because it has had to make small annual percentage 
payments due to the lack of funding.

In September 2000, the Marshall Islands sent a petition to the US 
Congress seeking two billion dollars, which includes the 
tribunal's unpaid awards. It languished until March 2002, when 
several members of the Congress sent a letter to the Bush 
Administration requesting a review of the petition.

Bush Administration officials have been stating publicly since 
July that the report to Congress was to be issued shortly.

Privately, top Marshall Islands government officials believe the 
Bush Administration review will reject the petition. However, 
officials here want it to issue its report in order to move the 
long-stalled issue forwards.

Pombo said this month's visit would help to speed the process and 
"relay the sense of urgency" to the administration.

  WAR.WIRE
*****************************************************************
 49 Oakland Tribune: Toxic cleanups may be scaled back
 
Article Last Updated: Thursday, January 22, 2004 
 
Department of Energy causes uproar over plan for old nuclear
weapons sites
By Ian Hoffman, STAFF WRITER

Facing a national nuclear cleanup costing at least $220 billion 
and lasting several decades, the U.S. Department of Energy is 
pushing what it believes is a faster, cheaper approach that 
requires setting aside environmental regulations and longstanding 
agreements with states. 

The agency's new "Risk-Based End States Vision" is premised on 
limiting the cleanup of factories and labs contaminated by cold 
war weapons work to no more than is needed to protect humans or 
wildlife. 

Far from being embraced, the Energy Department's idea is forging 
a uniquely broad coalition of opponents. 

Federal and state regulators are up in arms. Traditional Energy 
Department allies in Congress and in the towns that grew up 
around U.S. weapons sites are allying themselves with 
nuclear-disarmament activists and environmentalists. 

New Mexico governor and former Energy Secretary Bill Richardson 
has vowed to "play hardball" with his old agency. 

In California and Ohio, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 
is abandoning its sister federal agency to join state agencies in 
fighting the cleanup plan. 

Kathy Setian, a Superfund cleanup manager for EPA's Region 9, 
headquartered in San Francisco, called the Energy Department's 
latest idea "an extraordinary proposal." 

Taken at face value, DOE's new cleanup plan would require states 
such as California to overlook several environmental regulations. 
It seeks to revamp state-federal-tribal agreements on cleanup 
that took years to negotiate, without offering the kind of 
rationale that regulators legally would demand of a private 
business, federal and state regulators said. 

Livermore lab impact 

At Lawrence Livermore nuclear weapons lab, for example, the 
Energy Department would move the point at which it has to meet 
groundwater cleanup standards from the aquifer itself to the site 
boundary, leaving water under the lab contaminated. 

That would require the state's Water Quality Control Board to 
overlook its "anti-degradation policy" against allowing 
contamination of potential future drinking-water resources. 

"Everyone in the remediation business knows that it is easier to 
clean up the contamination at the source than to let it spread 
and then try to clean it up," EPA's Setian said. "It's kind of 
like being penny-wise and pound-foolish." 

The Energy Department's latest cleanup scheme is the brainchild 
of Assistant Secretary Jessie Roberson, a former cleanup official 
at the Rocky Flats plutonium-pit plant near Boulder, Colo. But 
it's hardly a new idea. 

Federal, state and local regulators heard the phrase "risk-based" 
cleanup repeatedly as Clinton administration officials tried to 
finagle the largest environmental cleanup in history, priced as 
high as $300 billion and estimated to last until late this 
century. 

Talk of cleanup pragmatism and risk-basing keeps arising out of 
sticker shock and political salesmanship. 

Lawmakers may embrace idea 

Congress rarely is enthusiastic about dispensing DOE's cleanup 
money, preferring its other, competing charges -- water projects, 
nuclear weapons, oil and gas markets and defense spending. 
Lawmakers welcome ideas for saving on cleanup. 

But cities and states say they already negotiated "risk-based" 
cleanups with the Energy Department in the late 1980s and 1990s, 
and they're wary of the agency's retreating from its promises. 

"The city of Livermore strongly recommends that now is not the 
time to change the speed or standards for the cleanup of the 
groundwater contamination," City Manager Linda Barton wrote the 
Energy Department last week. 

At Livermore, a plume of chemical solvents and toxic metals has 
tainted an estimated three billion gallons of groundwater, 
reaching past the lab's western fence line and up to 200 feet 
deep. 

Lab and DOE environmental scientists attacked the plume 
aggressively, pulling contaminants out with two dozen pumps and 
treating them. 

They're using intriguing new technologies, such as exposing 
solvents to ultraviolet light or filtering them underground 
through tiny palladium balls. 

In recent years, they stopped the plume's westward march toward 
Livermore's city wells, about a mile and a half away. 

The pumps are pulling the tainted water back toward the lab, 
while siphoning off the original chemical spills that feed the 
plume. 

Regulators see progress 

Federal and state regulators, the city and environmentalists 
acknowledge the cleanup could take 50 years but say they're 
pleased with the progress. 

And the local Energy Department cleanup manager said he's unsure 
whether his agency's revised cleanup "vision" will result in cost 
savings, for example, if pumps have to be relocated. 

"We are already well-developed. We already look at cleanup from a 
risk base," said Roy Kearns, cleanup manager for DOE's Livermore 
Site Office. "We're having great success." 

Contact Ian Hoffman at

ihoffman@angnewspapers.com 
*****************************************************************
 50 DOE: Office of Science Financial Assistance Program Notice DE-FG01-
 
                         FR Doc 04-1372 
[Federal Register: January 22, 2004 (Volume 69, Number 14)] 
[Notices] [Page 3126-3129] From the Federal Register Online via 
GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr22ja04-39]                         
 
04ER04-10; Atmospheric Radiation Measurement Program AGENCY: U.S. 
Department of Energy. ACTION: Notice inviting grant applications.
 
SUMMARY: The Office of Biological and Environmental Research 
(BER) of the Office of Science (SC), U.S. Department of Energy 
(DOE), hereby announces its interest in receiving applications 
for research grants in experimental and theoretical studies of 
the effects of clouds on the atmospheric radiation balance in 
conjunction with the Atmospheric Radiation Measurement (ARM) 
Program as part of the U.S. Global Climate Change Science Program 
(USCCSP). This notice requests new applications and renewal 
applications of grants currently funded by DOE under previous ARM 
Program notices that are relevant to the terms of reference for 
this announcement and responsive to the particular needs defined 
below.
 
 
DATES: Applicants are encouraged (but not required) to submit a 
brief preapplication for programmatic review. The deadline for 
submission of preapplications is March 15, 2004. Early submission 
of preapplications is encouraged to allow time for meaningful 
responses.
 
Formal applications submitted in response to this notice must be 
received by 4:30 p.m., E.D.T., April 9, 2004, to be accepted for 
merit review and to permit timely consideration for award in 
Fiscal Year 2005. Awards are expected to begin on or about 
November 1, 2004.
 
ADDRESSES: Preapplications referencing Program Notice 
DE-FG01-04ER04- 10, may be sent to the program contact, Dr. Wanda 
Ferrell, via electronic mail at: wanda.ferrell@science.doe.gov or 
by U.S. Postal Service Mail at: Dr. Wanda Ferrell, Office of 
Biological and Environmental Research, Climate Change Research 
Division, SC-74/ Germantown Building, U.S. Department of Energy, 
1000 Independence Ave., SW., Washington, DC 20585-1290. 
Electronic mail is recommended to speed up response to 
preapplications.
 
Formal applications referencing Program Notice DE-FG01-04ER04-10, 
must be sent electronically by an authorized institutional 
business official through DOE's Industry Interactive Procurement 
System (IIPS) at: http://e-center.doe.gov/. IIPS provides for the 
posting of solicitations and receipt of applications in a 
paperless environment
 
[[Page 3127]] via the Internet. In order to submit applications 
through IIPS, your business official will need to register at the 
IIPS website.
 
IIPS offers the option of using multiple files, please limit 
submissions to one volume and one file if possible, with a 
maximum of no more than four PDF files. The Office of Science 
will include attachments as part of this notice that provide the 
appropriate forms in PDF fillable format that are to be submitted 
through IIPS. Color images should be submitted in IIPS as a 
separate file in PDF format and identified as such. These images 
should be kept to a minimum due to the limitations of reproducing 
them. They should be numbered and referred to in the body of the 
technical scientific grant application as Color image 1, Color 
image 2, etc. Questions regarding the operation of IIPS may be e- 
mailed to the IIPS Help Desk at: HelpDesk@pr.doe.gov, or you may 
call the help desk at: (800) 683-0751. Further information on the 
use of IIPS by the Office of Science is available at: 
http://www.sc.doe.gov/production/grants/grants.html .
 
If you are unable to submit an application through IIPS, please 
contact the Grants and Contracts Division, Office of Science at: 
(301) 903-5212 or (301) 903-3604, in order to gain assistance for 
submission through IIPS or to receive special approval and 
instructions on how to submit printed applications.
 
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Wanda Ferrell, Office of 
Biological and Environmental Research, Climate Change Research 
Division, SC-74, Germantown Building, U.S. Department of Energy, 
1000 Independence Ave., SW., Washington, DC 20585-1290, telephone 
(301) 903- 0043, fax (301) 903-8519, Internet e-mail address: 
wanda.ferrell@science.doe.gov. Program information is available 
on: http://www.science.doe.gov/ober/CCRD/arm.html.
 
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background Atmospheric Radiation 
Measurement (ARM) Program. Two major scientific objectives of the 
Climate Change Research Division (CCRD) are: (1) To improve the 
performance of predictive models of the Earth's climate, and (2) 
to thereby make more accurate predictions of the response of the 
climate system to increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases. 
The purpose of the ARM Program is to improve the treatment of 
radiation and clouds in the General Circulation Models (GCMs) 
used to predict future climate. This program is one component of 
the U.S. Climate Change Science Program that has the goal to 
improve the capability to accurately simulate and predict climate 
and climate change. The major component of the ARM Program 
involves gathering data for the development and testing of models 
of the atmospheric radiation transfer, properties of clouds, and 
the full life cycle of clouds with the ultimate goal of 
developing cloud system resolving models (CSRM) that directly and 
accurately simulate cloud-scale physical processes and that can 
be incorporated into the Multi-Scale Modeling Framework (MMF), 
also referred to as super parameterization. The ARM program has 
established sites in three climatic regimes where cloud and 
radiation data are collected. The first site, Southern Great 
Plains (SGP), began operation in calendar year 1992, with 
instruments spread over an area of approximately 60,000 sq. km., 
centered on Lamont, Oklahoma. The SGP was chosen as a field 
measurement site for several reasons including its relatively 
homogenous geography, wide variability of climate, cloud type, 
and surface flux properties, and large seasonal variation in 
temperature and specific humidity. The Tropical Western Pacific 
(TWP) site is the area roughly between 10 [deg]N to 10 [deg]S of 
the equator from Indonesia to near Christmas Island. The TWP site 
consists of stations at Darwin, Australia, and on the islands of 
Manus, Papua, New Guinea and the Republic of Nauru, respectively. 
This region was selected as an ARM site because it plays a large 
role in the interannual variability observed in the global 
climate system.
 
The third site, the North Slope of Alaska (NSA), is located at 
Barrow, Alaska, with a secondary, inland site near Atqasuk. The 
NSA site was selected as an ARM site because it provides data 
about cloud and radiative processes at high latitudes, and by 
extension, about cold and dry regions of the atmosphere in 
general. Construction of an ARM Mobile Facility (AMF) was begun 
in late 2003 with the first deployment expected in late 2004. The 
AMF has been designed to address science questions beyond those 
investigated at the current fixed sites.
 
The AMF will deploy instrumentation and data systems similar to 
those at the fixed ARM sites in NSA and TWP. The AMF will be 
deployed to sites around the world in various climatic regimes 
and sites of opportunity for durations of 6 to 18 months to study 
the effects of clouds and other atmospheric conditions and 
properties on radiation. The ARM sites, both mobile and fixed, 
have been designated as a user facility, the ARM Climate Research 
Facility (ACRF). Thus, AMF deployments and campaigns at the fixed 
ARM sites will be determined by a review by the ACRF Science 
Review Board.
 
Request for Grant Applications This notice requests applications 
for grants, both new and renewal that address the broad ARM goal 
of improving the representation of cloud and radiation processes 
in climate models. The research areas of interest include the 
development of algorithms for retrieving the required 
measurements, studies to improve the understanding of cloud and 
radiation physical processes, the translation of process study 
results into process models and parameterizations, and the 
incorporation of the submodels into climate models. ARM data 
consist of time series of vertical profiles of certain 
observables while parameterizations are geared to produce 
statistical cloud and radiation properties on the scale of 
several hundred kilometers. Since the format is not amenable to 
modelers, research is also needed to develop tools and 
methodologies for making ARM data more useful for the development 
and testing of submodels.
 
Specific areas of interest to the ARM program include, but are 
not limited to: [sbull] Developing new techniques to retrieve the 
properties of ice clouds and mixed-phase clouds from ARM data.
 
[sbull] Conducting analyses for improving our understanding of 
cloud and radiation processes including of the 3D cloud-radiation 
process at scales from the local atmospheric column to the GCM 
grid square and the relationship between atmospheric radiation 
and the life- cycle of ice clouds and mixed-phase clouds.
 
[sbull] Developing and testing new cloud and radiation submodels 
for global climate models.
 
[sbull] Incorporating new cloud and radiation submodels into 
global climate models and demonstrating the improved performance 
of the models.
 
[sbull] Developing and applying methodologies to use ARM data 
more effectively in atmospheric models, both at the cloud 
resolving model scale and the global climate model scale.
 
[sbull] Quantifying the effects of aerosols on cloud properties 
and the resulting radiation field, using some combination of ARM 
observations and physical models.
 
Applications are especially encouraged that utilize ARM generated 
data in the above activities.
 
All applications submitted in response to this Notice must 
explicitly state how the proposed research will
 
[[Page 3128]] support accomplishment of the BER Climate Change 
Research Division's (CCRD's) Long Term Measure of Scientific 
Advancement to deliver improved data and models for policymakers 
to determine acceptable levels of greenhouse gases in the 
atmosphere. Submitted proposals that do not contain this 
information will be returned without review.
 
Applications for research to develop new techniques to retrieve 
the properties of ice clouds and mixed-phase clouds using ARM 
data should target their research on methods for deriving 
long-term records of cloud microphysical and macrophysical 
properties at multiple locations. The improved retrieval 
algorithms provide bulk microphysical estimates for clouds at all 
ARM fixed sites and are expected to include uncertainty 
estimates.
 
Applications for cloud and radiation process analyses should 
propose studies that elucidate radiative transfer in cloudy 
atmospheres, including the overlap problem of stratiform cloud 
layers. These studies may include, but are not limited to, 3-D 
radiative transfer, representations of cloud overlap, mixed phase 
clouds, cloud life cycles, feedback processes (especially in the 
Arctic), and other processes important for clouds, such as 
convection and turbulence and their effects on radiative 
transfer. The emphasis on the Arctic feedback is to test the 
hypothesis that links large climate feedbacks with surface and 
tropospheric temperatures, surface albedo, cloud cover, deep 
ocean water production (the global thermohaline ocean circulation 
pump), and the polar atmospheric heat sink.
 
Applications for research to develop and test new cloud and 
radiation process models should focus on investigating the 
validity of assumptions that are associated with such models and 
how well the ensemble of cloud and radiation sub models simulate 
clouds and their effect on radiation fields in the climate 
models.
 
Applications requesting funds to study incorporation of cloud and 
radiation parameterizations into global climate models and 
demonstrating the improved performance of the models are expected 
to provide a clear plan describing the method to be used to 
quantify the model improvement. Applicants are strongly 
encouraged to utilize the tools that have been developed for this 
purpose in the Climate Change Prediction Program--ARM 
Parameterization Testbed (CAPT) (http://www-pcmdi.llnl.gov/capt/ 
) effort at DOE's Program for Climate Model Diagnosis and 
Intercomparison (PCMDI).
 
Applications for research to develop and apply methodologies to 
use ARM data more effectively in atmospheric models should focus 
on converting ARM data that usually consist of time series of 
vertical profiles of certain observables into a form that is of 
improved utility by climate modelers. This research area also 
includes techniques for converting model output to a form that is 
equivalent ARM measurements, thus, enabling the direct comparison 
of model-produced cloud properties with ARM observations.
 
Applications for research to quantify the effect of aerosols on 
the radiation field should focus on both the indirect and direct 
role of aerosols on radiative transfer and cloud properties.
 
Specifically the research should relate observations of radiative 
fluxes and radiances to the atmospheric composition and use these 
relations to develop and test parameterizations and/or process 
models to accurately predict the atmospheric radiative 
properties. Note, that the DOE Atmospheric Science Program (ASP) 
is being reconfigured in Fiscal Year 2004, to focus on aerosol 
radiative forcing with new research to be funded early in Fiscal 
Year 2005, and will support aerosol research on aerosol processes 
and resulting properties that influence radiation fields. A joint 
ARM-ASP working group will be formed to foster and facilitate 
collaborations between the two programs.
 
Applications that require a special field campaign, which has not 
already been planned and approved by the ARM Program Manager, 
will not be accepted for consideration.
 
To ensure that the program meets the broadest needs of the 
research community and the specific needs of the DOE CCRD, 
successful applicants are expected to participate as ARM Science 
Team members in the appropriate working group(s) relevant to 
their efforts. Costs for participation in ARM Science Team 
meetings and subcommittee meetings should be based on two trips 
of 1 week each to Washington, DC, and two trips of 3 days each to 
Chicago, Illinois.
 
Program Funding It is anticipated that approximately $3 million 
will be available for awards in Fiscal Year 2005, contingent upon 
the availability of appropriated funds. Multiple-year funding of 
awards is expected, with out-year funding also contingent upon 
the availability of appropriated funds, progress of the research, 
and programmatic needs. The allocation of funds within the 
research areas will depend upon the number and quality of 
applications received. Awards are expected to begin on or about 
November 1, 2004. Equal consideration will be given to renewal 
and new applications. DOE is under no obligation to pay for any 
costs associated with the preparation or submission of 
applications if an award is not made.
 
Collaboration Applicants are strongly encouraged to collaborate 
with researchers in other institutions, such as: universities, 
industry, non-profit organizations, federal laboratories and 
Federally Funded Research and Development Centers (FFRDCs), 
including the DOE National Laboratories, where appropriate, and 
to include cost sharing wherever feasible. Additional information 
on collaboration is available in the Application Guide for the 
Office of Science Financial Assistance Program that is available 
via the World Wide Web at: 
http://www.sc.doe.gov/production/grants/Colab.html .
 
Preapplications Potential applicants are strongly encouraged to 
submit a brief preapplication that consists of two to three pages 
of narrative describing the research objectives and methods of 
accomplishment. These will be reviewed relative to the scope and 
research needs of the ARM Program. Principal Investigator (PI) 
address, telephone number, fax number and e-mail address are 
required parts of the preapplication. A response to each 
preapplication discussing the potential program relevance of 
research that would be proposed in a formal application generally 
will be communicated within 15 days of receipt. Use of e-mail for 
this communication will decrease the possibility of a delay in 
responses to the preapplication. The deadline for the submission 
of preapplications is March 15, 2004. Applicants should allow 
sufficient time so that the formal application deadline is met. 
SC's preapplication policy can be found on SC's Grants and 
Contracts Web site at: 
http://www.sc.doe.gov/production/grants/preapp.html. Please 
contact Dr. Wanda Ferrell (wanda.ferrell@science.doe.gov). Merit 
Review Applications will be subjected to formal merit review 
(peer review) and will be evaluated against the following 
evaluation criteria which are listed in descending order of 
importance codified at 10 CFR 605.10(d): 1. Scientific and/or 
Technical Merit of the Project;
 
[[Page 3129]] 2. Appropriateness of the Proposed Method or 
Approach; 3. Competency of Applicant's Personnel and Adequacy of 
Proposed Resources; 4. Reasonableness and Appropriateness of the 
Proposed Budget. The evaluation process will include program 
policy factors such as the relevance of the proposed research to 
the terms of the announcement and the agency's programmatic 
needs. Note, external peer reviewers are selected with regard to 
both their scientific expertise and the absence of 
conflict-of-interest issues. Both Federal and non-Federal 
reviewers will often be used, and submission of an application 
constitutes agreement that this is acceptable to the 
investigator(s) and the submitting institution.
 
The Application Information about the development and submission 
of applications, eligibility, limitations, evaluation, selection 
process, and other policies and procedures may be found in the 
Application Guide for the Office of Science Financial Assistance 
Program and 10 CFR Part 605. Electronic access to SC's Financial 
Assistance Application Guide and required forms is made available 
via the World Wide Web: 
http://www.sc.doe.gov/production/grants/grants.html .
 
The technical portion of the application should not exceed 
twenty- five double-spaced pages and should include detailed 
budgets for each year of support requested. Applicants are asked 
to use the following ordered format: [sbull] Face Page (DOE F 
4650.2 (10-91)) In block 15, also provide the PI's phone number, 
fax number and e-mail address.
 
[sbull] Project Abstract Page; single page only, should contain 
title, PI name, and abstract text [sbull] Budget pages for each 
year and a budget summary of project period (using DOE F 4620.1) 
[sbull] Budget Explanation [sbull] Project Description: [sbull] 
Long Term Measure: All applications submitted in response to this 
Notice must explicitly state how the proposed research will 
support accomplishment of the BER Climate Change Research 
Division's (CCRD's) Long Term Measure of Scientific Advancement 
to deliver improved data and models for policy makers to 
determine acceptable levels of greenhouse gases in the 
atmosphere. Submitted proposals that do not contain this 
information will be returned without review.
 
[sbull] Literature Cited [sbull] Collaborative Arrangements (if 
applicable) [sbull] Facilities and Resources [sbull] Biographical 
Sketches should be submitted in a form similar to that of NIH or 
NSF (two to three pages).
 
[sbull] Current and Pending Support [sbull] Letters of 
Collaboration (if applicable) [sbull] Renewal applications should 
include a special section entitled ``Accomplishments Under 
Previous Support.'' (See 
http://www.science.doe.gov/production/grants/App.html. ) This 
section shall address the following: (a) continued relevance of 
their work to the goals of the ARM Program; and (b) the 
contribution of work conducted under previous support to the 
goals of the ARM Program, including a listing of publications and 
presentations.
 
For researchers who do not have access to the World Wide Web 
(WWW), please contact Karen Carlson, Office of Biological and 
Environmental Research, Climate Change Research Division, 
SC-74/Germantown Building, U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 
Independence Ave., SW., Washington, DC 20585-1290, phone: (301) 
903-3338, fax: (301) 903-8519, e-mail: 
karen.carlson@science.doe.gov; for hard copies of background 
material mentioned in this solicitation.
 
The Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance number for this 
program is 81.049, and the solicitation control number is ERFAP 
10 CFR part 605.
 
Issued in Washington, DC, January 14, 2004.
 
John A. Alleva, Director, Grants and Contracts Division, Office 
of Science.
 
[FR Doc. 04-1372 Filed 1-21-04; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450-01-P

 
*****************************************************************
 51 Tri-Valley Herald: Lab expert speaks about security
 
Article Last Updated: Thursday, January 22, 2004 -
 		   	 	
Livermore Rotarians hear of anti-terrorism strategies at luncheon
By Jeanine Benca, STAFF WRITER

LIVERMORE -- The U.S. is slowly fortifying itself against threats 
of terrorism, but stronger efforts must be made, a top national 
securities expert from the Lawrence Livermore Laboratory said 
Wednesday. 

Page Stoutland -- a former high-ranking Department of Energy 
official who now heads the Lab's nuclear and biological response 
programs -- joined the Livermore Rotarians at their weekly 
luncheon. 

During a brief speech, he discussed several of the country's post 
Sept. 11 anti-terrorism strategies and answered select questions 
about the nation's security programs. 

"There are things going on. I think we really are making 
progress," said Stoutland -- a trained chemist with a doctoral 
degree from the University of California, Berkeley. "We're very 
optimistic at (Lawrence Livermore) that we're making a 
contribution." 

He described Homeland Security's approach as twofold -- to both 
"delay the inevitable" and "goal tend" when harmful agents "get 
through." 

The first method is really the only one suitable for nuclear 
threats, said Stoutland. 

"It's all about prevention and detection of things being shipped 
... are there nuclear materials coming into our country?" 

Stoutland pointed to radiation and X-ray detection devices used 
to scan cargo, but he could not specify their volume. 

One audience member asked for the percentage of containers that 
are actually screened with such technological methods. 

"We're looking at every (container) -- we're just not screening 
everything," Stoutland replied. "(The devices) are not all major 
shipping ports in the U.S. ... how broadly those are distributed 
I don't know. The goal is to propagate (them) so everyone can use 
them." 

Stoutland also offered few comments on some reports that the West 
Coast is more vulnerable to terrorism than other parts of the 
country. 

"The East Coast ports and cities -- because of Sept. 11 -- have 
been kind of 'the starting point,' (for anti-terrorism efforts)," 
he remarked. 

Meanwhile, bio-detection systems and medical surveillance of 
suspicious new diseases are the best weapons scientists have 
against biological terrorism, Stoutland said. 

"People think Homeland Security is a new thing -- it's not a new 
thing," he added. 

The chemical attacks in 1995 "galvanized" the country to ask if 
U.S. officials were doing enough to prevent terrorism. 

Immediately following Sept. 11, Livermore Lab officials were 
asked to deploy the bio-terrorism detection device they had 
originally designed for use during the 2002 winter Olympics in 
Utah. 

"For those of us at the Lab, I think (Sept. 11) gave us a new 
purpose for some what we were working on," said Stoutland. "I 
don't know how much (security) is enough, but I know we're not 
doing enough right now." 

About $100 million of the Lab's $1 billion budget will go toward 
anti-terrorism efforts this year. 

"We definitely spent a lot of time (after Sept. 11) defining what 
the role of Lawrence Livermore would be ... what we can do to 
help Homeland Security."                             
 		   			 		   	 	
©1999-2003 by MediaNews Group, Inc. and ANG Newspapers
*****************************************************************
 52 Google News Alert - nuclear
 
Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2004 13:26:27 -0800 (PST)

 
US Upbeat North Korea Nuclear Arms Talks to Resume
Wired News
... The US point man on North Korea said on Thursday he was "very hopeful"
six-nation talks on dismantling the reclusive communist state's suspected
nuclear arms ...
<http://wireservice.wired.com/wired/story.asp?section=Breaking&storyId=816432&tw=wn_wire_story>
See all stories on this topic:
http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=utf8&client=google&num=30&newsclusterurl=http://wireservice.wired.com/wired/story.asp%3Fsection%3DBreaking%26storyId%3D816432%26tw%3Dwn_wire_story

NORTH Korea's nuclear taunts
Economist (subscription)
... Its answer to American doubts about its nuclear boasts was to invite
a private group of Americans earlier this month to view what it said was
a lump of ...
<http://www.economist.com/opinion/displayStory.cfm?story_id=2367768>
See all stories on this topic:
http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=utf8&client=google&num=30&newsclusterurl=http://www.economist.com/opinion/displayStory.cfm%3Fstory_id%3D2367768

IAEA fears nuclear 'black market'
Al-Jazeera
The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has said efforts to stop
countries from acquiring nuclear arms were under great stress because
of a "black-market ...
<http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/8E79FD61-8111-4825-92B8-C11C13AEFBA6.htm>
See all stories on this topic:
http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=utf8&client=google&num=30&newsclusterurl=http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/8E79FD61-8111-4825-92B8-C11C13AEFBA6.htm

NRC probes Kewaunee nuclear plant
Wisconsin State Journal
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has begun a special inspection into problems
that led to the shutdown of the Kewaunee nuclear power plant, which has
been out ...
<http://www.madison.com/wisconsinstatejournal_biz/65747.php>
See all stories on this topic:
http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=utf8&client=google&num=30&newsclusterurl=http://www.madison.com/wisconsinstatejournal_biz/65747.php

EXPERT handles nuclear threat
Melbourne Herald Sun
WASHINGTON -- A top US scientist gave a dramatic account yesterday of how
he held a lump of North Korean plutonium during a tour of its nuclear
factory. ...
<http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5478,8464508%255E663,00.html>
See all stories on this topic:
http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=utf8&client=google&num=30&newsclusterurl=http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5478,8464508%25255E663,00.html

ENTERGY Considering New Nuclear Reactor
WLBT-TV
By Joanna Gaitanoglou. The Grand Gulf nuclear power plant in Port Gibson
is currently the home of one nuclear reactor. Now Entergy ...
<http://www.wlbt.com/Global/story.asp?S=1611426&nav=2CSfKLH8>
See all stories on this topic:
http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=utf8&client=google&num=30&newsclusterurl=http://www.wlbt.com/Global/story.asp%3FS%3D1611426%26nav%3D2CSfKLH8

CLOCK ticking on halting North Korea's nuclear abilities
Seattle Times
LONDON — North Korea's nuclear arsenal could reach four to eight bombs
during the next year and increase by up to 13 additional bombs a year
by the end of ...
<http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2001841456_nkorea22.html>
See all stories on this topic:
http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=utf8&client=google&num=30&newsclusterurl=http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2001841456_nkorea22.html

PAKISTANI nuclear weapons under strict control
ITAR-TASS
DAVOS /Switzerland/, January 22 (Itar-Tass) - Pakistani President Pervez
Musharraf stated on Thursday that the strategic nuclear weapons his country
possessed ...
<http://www.itar-tass.com/eng/level2.html?NewsID=338300&PageNum=0>
See all stories on this topic:
http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=utf8&client=google&num=30&newsclusterurl=http://www.itar-tass.com/eng/level2.html%3FNewsID%3D338300%26PageNum%3D0

N.KOREA may have nuclear weapons, UN agency says
Reuters
LONDON (Reuters) - The UN's nuclear watchdog said on Thursday North Korea
may already have developed nuclear weapons and that the reclusive Stalinist
state ...
<http://www.reuters.com/locales/newsArticle.jsp?type=worldNews&locale=en_IN&storyID=4189261>

N . Korea may have nuclear weapons , UN agency says
Reuters AlertNet
LONDON, Jan 22 (Reuters) - The UN's nuclear watchdog said on Thursday North
Korea may already have developed nuclear weapons and that the reclusive
Stalinist ...
<http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/L22196101.htm>

This daily-once News Alert is brought to you by Google News (BETA)...
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
Remove this News Alert:
http://www.google.com/newsalerts/remove?s=682e52ddd0720101&hl=en

Create another News Alert:
http://www.google.com/newsalerts?hl=en

Try Google News:
http://news.google.com/
    
*****************************************************************

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> 
    
*****************************************************************