*****************************************************************
03/11/04 **** RADIATION BULLETIN(RADBULL) **** VOL 12.61
*****************************************************************
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 IAEA: New Life for Research Reactors?
2 Hi Pakistan: Iraqi scientists pressurised over WMDs -
3 Khaleej Times: IAEA finds traces of highly enriched uranium in Iran
4 Hi Pakistan: Iran threatens to end cooperation with IAEA -->
5 Hi Pakistan: Row between IAEA, Iran over nuclear issue persists
6 Hi Pakistan: Threat to restart enriching uranium: Iran slams IAEA, E
7 Khaleej Times: Iran admits military produced nuke centrifuges, says
8 Las Vegas SUN: Iran's Enrichment Plans Elicits Dismay
9 Las Vegas SUN: IAEA Debates How Harshly to Censure Iran
10 US: Las Vegas RJ: Bill introduced on resuming nuclear tests
11 US: Tri-Valley Herald: 'Bunker buster' budget raises questions Weapo
12 US: Helena Independent Record: Nuclear worries
13 US: GSN: U.S. Bunker-Buster Program More Robust Than Expected
14 Washington Times: Leaker of nuke secrets curbed
15 Hi Pakistan: Govt amends Ord to control N-material exports -->
16 IAEA: Introductory Statement to the Board of Governors
17 IAEA: IAEA Seminars Promote Vital Role of Nuclear Safeguards
18 IAEA: Libya Signs Additional Protocol on Nuclear Safeguards
19 Las Vegas SUN: Dossier on Libya Nuclear Program to Close
NUCLEAR REACTORS
20 US: NRC: NRC, PSEG to Discuss Work Environment at Salem, Hope Creek
21 AFP: China brings homemade nuclear power plant online
22 US: NRC: Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collecti
23 US: AJC: Environmental lobby's efforts backfire
24 US: lancaster eagle gazette: Davis-Besse Staff Should Get Tougher -
25 US: toledoblade.com: Davis-Besse faces long road back
26 Guardian Unlimited: Electricity users may face £1bn penalty
NUCLEAR SAFETY
27 US: Seattle Times: Weapons crew at Bangor damaged nuclear missile
NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE
28 US: [NukeNet] Savannah River: An Effort on Atomic Waste Is Called
29 US: Deseretnews: Environmentalists want Bramble off task force
30 US: NYT: An Effort on Atomic Waste Is Called a Failure
31 Las Vegas RJ: Scientist: No proof dump won't leak
32 Las Vegas SUN: Editorial: More reason to question Yucca safety
33 Las Vegas SUN: Yucca water studies show safe storage less likely
34 US: The State: Nuclear waste increase proposed
35 CNS News: Green Groups Worry Russia May Become World's Nuclear Waste
36 Las Vegas SUN: Lawsuit claims workers at nuke dump in Nevada hurt
NUCLEAR WEAPONS
37 US: Progress: Nuclear Weapons Are Immoral, Say Religious, Scientific
US DEPT. OF ENERGY
38 DOE: Health Effects Subcommittee (SRSHES)
39 DOE: transuranic (TRU) radioactive waste at the Rocky Flats
40 DenverPost: Seeing into Rocky Flats' future
41 Tri-City Herald: Energy Northwest announces job cuts
42 Tri-Valley Herald: Settlement taken by lab security officers
43 Cincinnati Enquirer: Fernald cleanup firm cited
OTHER NUCLEAR
44 Google News Alert - nuclear
45 Ithaca Journal: High-energy neutrons or protons can split atoms -
*****************************************************************
*****************************************************************
FULL NEWS STORIES
*****************************************************************
*****************************************************************
1 IAEA: New Life for Research Reactors?
+ [IAEA.ORG :: Atoms for Peace]
Bright Future But Far Fewer Projected
Staff Report
8 March 2004 [Research Reactor Core]
Looking down a research reactor core, where the fuel elements
and control rods hang in a water pool. (Credit: K. Hansen/IAEA)
+ Story Resources
+ Research Reactors &Security
+ Overview of Research Reactors [pdf]
+ Research Reactor Database
[http://www.iaea.org/worldatom/rrdb/]
+ Benefits from Research Reactors
[http://www.ornl.gov/info/ornlreview/rev27-12/text/ansside4.html]
Researchers have long used small nuclear reactors as engines of
discovery for everything from lifesaving cancer treatment to
electronic gadgetry. Along the way they have revolutionised the
plastics industry to make once fragile material lighter and
stronger than steel. But the use and future of research reactors
is radically changing in a more economically competitive, and
safety-conscious, marketplace. The IAEAs Crosscutting
Co-ordinator for Research Reactors, Mr. Iain Ritchie, describes
the landscape to come.
The future is bright. But in the next 15 years rather than
having the 272 research reactors operational today, it will be
more like 30-40. Research reactors have contributed to the
development of nuclear science and technology for the past 50
years. But we are at the point where the discoveries and
innovations that can be made by most of todays research
reactors have already been made. New innovations and discoveries
need newer tools and more powerful reactors with special
attributes, he said.
The mixed picture has social and economic repercussions,
especially in developing countries where tools of nuclear
science and technology help raise levels of health care, food
production, and industrial efficiency. A key application of
research reactors is the production of medical radioisotopes, a
multi-billion dollar global industry today centered in a few
countries.
Future Reactors
Over two-thirds of todays research reactors are pushing past 30
years of age close to the end of their typical 40-year
lifespan. In most cases, these reactors are not really old
from a safety point of view, since most have been refurbished so
that they meet or exceed modern safety standards, Mr. Ritchie
said.
Many of these aging reactors, whose primary purpose was to
provide a neutron source for research and other purposes, will
be shut down or decommissioned this decade. In their stead will
come new, technologically advanced reactors that can meet
multiple needs or those built for a dedicated commercial purpose
such as to produce medical radioisotopes, or for silicon
doping to enhance the conductivity of electronic components.
Canada, for example, has built two new reactors that are
essentially commercial isotope factories, devoted entirely to
producing isotopes for medical diagnosis and treatment.
Australia on the other hand, is building a multipurpose reactor
to benefit the countrys agriculture, mining, energy, and
environmental sectors. Importantly it also guarantees
Australias supply of medical radioisotopes, according to the
Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation (ANSTO).
Radioisotopes with short half-lives could not be imported,
ANSTO reports. If Australia were reliant on overseas stocks, we
would be on the end of very long supply lines from North
America, South Africa and Europe. Some medical procedures that
are available at present would become unavailable because the
radioisotopes could not be imported.
Australias replacement reactor is one of nine research reactors
under construction throughout the world, with another eight
currently planned. Since the 1970s worldwide, many more reactors
have been shut down than have been commissioned.
Whats Causing the Shut Down?
Factors contributing to shutdown and decommissioning of research
reactors include:
+ Aging materials and equipment in aging facilities, run by
aged staff;
+ Underutilization the original mission of some facilities
may have been accomplished or is no longer needed;
+ Inadequate funding, as fiscal realities force governments to
cut back support;
+ Stagnation of nuclear power in many industrialized
countries; and
+ Unavailability of suitable high-density low-enriched uranium
fuels.
New Research Reactors Commissioned VS Old Reactors Shut Down
Decade 1955 - 1964 1965 - 1974 1975 - 1984 1985 -
1994 1996 -2000
Commissioned 299 187 74 38 12
Shut down 29 78 90 100 47
Source: Perspectives on Research Reactor Utilization, IAEA
Its the universities that are doing most of the closing of
reactors, says Allan Krass, Physical Science Officer, US State
Department. They are expensive to run. The former university
professor says nuclear science is no longer a popular career
path and the lack of demand to use reactors for education,
training and research is one of the reasons they are closing.
Students going into nuclear energy will have many fewer
facilities. Research reactors will be concentrated more in
wealthier countries. They are likely to be more sophisticated
and certainly more expensive so they will tend to be located in
rich countries not poorer ones. To the extent that they are in
developing countries, they will be regional 'centres of
excellence'," Mr Krass said.
Status of Research Reactors
Developed Countries Developing Countries
188 In Operation 84 In Operation
187 Shut Down 27 Shut Down
154 Decommissioned 14 Decommissioned
3 Planned 5 Planned
4 Under Construction 5 Under Construction
Source: IAEA Research Reactor Database, September 2003
Adapting to New Times
But for some research reactors of old, the outlook is far from
gloomy. Many countries have shaped their reactors to remain
relevant. Finland, for example, has adopted an innovative
approach to use its research reactor for pioneering brain cancer
treatment. The FiR 1 reactor a 250 kW Triga rector operating
since 1962 is used for onsite treatment of patients using a
new type of radiation therapy called boron neutron capture
therapy (BNCT).
A special treatment facility was built at FiR 1 to allow
patients to participate in the BNCT trials, and the reactor
generates the neutrons necessary for treatment.
Still in trial stages, BNCT offers a number of potentially
significant advantages compared to traditional radiation
therapy. Treatment is better targeted to cancerous cells so that
when a tumour is irradiated with neutrons, the damage to normal
tissue is respectively less. It is also less demanding for the
patient as treatment is only one to two sessions, compared to
conventional radiation therapy where patients can be treated up
to 30 times.
Mr. Iiro Auterinen, BNCT chief at the Technical Research Centre
of Finland, describes the treatment environment at the reactor
as world top quality . Close to 30 patients have been treated
at FiR since it started in May 1999, he said.
Becoming a commercial operation is another way countries have
responded to keep their reactors viable. In the face of funding
cut backs to reactors worldwide, countries like Argentina and
South Africa responded by becoming as self-supporting as
possible. South Africas research reactor now generates upwards
of 66% of it own income through radioisotope production and
silicon doping.
A self supporting, profit making research reactor is still a
dream, says Mr. Krass. But if you look to South Africa they
are making steps toward it, he said.
A Move to Centres of Excellence
To survive in todays difficult environment, research reactors
must be actively managed: planned, researched, financed and
marketed, says Mr. Ritchie. The IAEA is helping countries do
just that.
According to IAEA Head of Nuclear Safety and Security, Mr.
Tomihorio Taniguchi, many research reactors that are in
operation, or are being proposed for operation, seem to have
neither realistic utilization plans nor solid decommissioning
plans .
The Agency is assisting countries to develop strategic plans for
the long-term sustainability (and eventual decommissioning) of
their research reactors. This includes helping countries
identify their reactors present and potential future
capabilities.
Through strategic planning and other support, the IAEA is also
encouraging facilities that have become, or are developing into,
regional centers of excellence, where a single reactor can
service a number of neighboring countries. The research reactor
at Pitesti in Romania, for example, is used for co-operative
research programmes and training within the region, in addition
to carrying out its own training and research on the
development, safety and reliability of fuel for its nuclear
programme.
Many aging research reactors, however, will not survive in this
tough new environment. Reluctance to shut down and decommission
is understandable, says Mr. Ritchie. But sooner or later it
has to be done and the Agency stands ready to help, especially
in the area of planning. -- Kirstie Hansen, IAEA Division of
Public Information
Next: Research Reactors & Security » Copyright 2003-2004,
International Atomic Energy Agency, P.O. Box 100, Wagramer
Strasse 5, A-1400 Vienna, Austria
Telephone (+431) 2600-0; Facsimilie (+431) 2600-7; E-mail:
Official.Mail@iaea.org [Official.Mail@iaea.org]
Disclaimer
*****************************************************************
2 Hi Pakistan: Iraqi scientists pressurised over WMDs -
By Joelle Bassoul
March 11 2004
BAGHDAD: A year after US forces invaded Iraq on the pretext that
the country was developing weapons of mass destruction,
Washington has kept pressure on Iraqi scientists to help find the
ever-elusive WMD programme.
"We have repeatedly told them that the WMDs were destroyed, but
they are just not listening," said a physics researcher at
Baghdad University.
And scientists here aren’t the only ones in a dialogue of the
deaf. The expert tasked by US President George W. Bush with
finding them, David Kay, repeated this month: "I was convinced
and still am convinced that there were no stockpiles of weapons
of mass destruction at the time of the war."
In the face of subsequent criticism, the United States, Britain
and Australia have all launched inquiries into how intelligence
about biological, chemical and nuclear weapons was used in making
the case for war. But in Iraq there has been no let-up, and
Washington has alternately used the carrot and the stick on
scientists and researchers, and some have even fled into exile.
In December, the United States announced a 22-million-dollar
programme to rehabilitate scientists, researchers and technicians
who worked on arms development under former president Saddam
Hussein. Under the programme, an office charged with identifying
those who qualify was due to be set up in Baghdad in February,
though no scientist, university chair or Iraqi professor
questioned by AFP recently was aware of any date.
"No one here seems to be knowledgeable about the programme," said
an official from the US-led Coalition Provision Authority, who
added that it was an issue for the US State Department. Yet these
funds would be welcomed with open arms by those who worked in
Iraq’s prolific military industry, a sector that collapsed with
the fall of Saddam last April.
"The state was militarised and the whole country worked on
armaments," said the Baghdad University physicist on condition
that he not be named. "We were not happy just to teach, we were
conducting research. The military industrial departments had the
best equipment, so we worked there for the experience," he said.
"After the war, scientists who were important members of the
ruling Baath party were removed, while others returned to their
old jobs at universities," said Wael Nurreddin al-Rifai, chairman
at Baghdad University of Technology.
But as US forces struggled to find evidence on the arms, the
researchers lived in constant fear of being arrested.
"There have been arrests and scientists held without charge
because they pose an imperative threat to security, either
because of what they’ve done or what they know," US Major Michael
Pierson claimed. "Some scientists who were in the former regime’s
military are being held as prisoners of war," he said, without
providing details or numbers.
The families of these experts claim their loved ones are being
persecuted. "If the Americans have something to accuse them of,
they should set up courts and judge them in public," said the
wife of Ali Abdelrahman al-Zaak, a 49-year-old genetics expert at
Baghdad University, who has been held twice.
Before he was arrested a second time in January, Zaak released a
statement denouncing harassment and rights violations against
some Iraqi scientists and professors by American forces
investigating WMDs.
He said any specialisation in the domains of biology, chemistry
and physics is now dangerous for scientists under the occupation
by US-led troops. Zaak is qualified as a ‘high value detainee’ on
the American prisoner list. The wife of Sobhi Said al-Rawi,
59-year-old head of the women’s information technology department
at Baghdad University, tells a similar story. "Under Saddam
Hussein, my husband refused to be a member of the Baath party and
he was never promoted because he took that stand. Now he has been
held for months by the Americans," she said.
Some scientists who took part in weapons development and have so
far escaped arrest have joined the new industry, and science and
technology ministries.
But others have fled into hiding abroad. The physics department
and science faculty have lost three professors in this manner
-two have taken refuge in Yemen, the third in Libya. "In all, the
scientists have paid the price and the country is going through a
troubling brain drain," Rifai said.
Copyright 1996-2002 . Hi Pakistan. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
3 Khaleej Times: IAEA finds traces of highly enriched uranium in Iran
report
[http://www.khaleejtimes.com
(AFP)
11 March 2004
WASHINGTON - The IAEA has found traces of highly enriched uranium
in Iran, raising concerns that the country’s alleged nuclear
weapons program is much more advanced than suspected, The New
York Times said Thursday quoting US and European diplomats.
The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) had previously
reported finding “weapons grade” traces of uranium, but had not
revealed that some were from uranium refined to 90 percent of
the rare 235 isotope.
Iran has argued that the traces of highly-enriched uranium was
from contamination that occurred before imported equipment
arrived in the country, the daily said.
Iranian officials, the daily added, said they could not trace
the origin of the contamination since they imported their
equipment from middlemen in five countries.
IAEA officials, The Washington Post said, raised the possibility
the contamination may have originated in Pakistan, whose top
nuclear scientist Abdul Qadeer Khan recently admitted having
supplied uranium enriched samples from facilities in Pakistan to
see if the traces match those found in Iran.
“Pakistan could let Iran off the IAEA hook,” a European diplomat
was quoted as saying in Vienna, where the UN agency is
headquartered.
US officials maintain that the weapons-grade traces in Iran
provide insight to Iran’s goals.
“What it shows is that they have a system that is capable of
producing weapons grade uranium,” said an unnamed US official
speaking in Washington.
“If it’s an assembly that was removed from Pakistan or
elsewhere, it’s already battle tested,” he said.
Iran on Wednesday criticized European states for bowing to US
pressure to condemn Tehran’s atomic program before the UN
nuclear watchdog and threatened to cut cooperation with the
IAEA.
Iranian ambassador Pirooz Hosseini told reporters at a meeting
of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).
The IAEA’s 35-nation board of governors was Thursday still
debating a resolution on Iran, with a vote expected later in the
week.
A draft resolution lists Iranian failures to report sensitive
nuclear activities, despite Tehran’s claim to have fully
disclosed its nuclear program in a declaration to the IAEA last
October.
But the draft resolution puts off any immediate reaction, such
as declaring Iran to be in non-compliance with the international
nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), a move that would mean
the issue would be taken up by the UN Security Council which
could pave the way towards possible sanctions.
© 2003 Khaleej Times All Rights Reserved.
*****************************************************************
4 Hi Pakistan: Iran threatens to end cooperation with IAEA -->
March 11 2004
TEHRAN: Iran sought to raise the stakes in its dealings with the
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) on Wednesday,
threatening to stop cooperating with the UN’s nuclear watchdog
unless it stopped being "influenced by the Americans".
Talking to reporters here, Foreign Minister Kamal Kharazi said
Iran was impatient to resume uranium enrichment - a key step in
producing both nuclear weapons and atomic energy. "Unfortunately,
the agency allows itself to be influenced by the Americans,"
Kharazi said, as the IAEA’s board of governors in Vienna mulled
over a tough draft resolution, condemning Iran’s failure to
declare the full scope of its atomic programme. "We are engaged
in cooperation (with the IAEA), and for this to continue the
cooperation has to be bilateral. If one side does not respect its
obligations, the cooperation will end," he added, speaking after
the weekly cabinet meeting.
The foreign minister asserted that he expected European states,
which have brokered Iran’s continued cooperation with the IAEA,
to counter mounting US pressure. "We advise the Europeans to
respect their obligations and to resist American pressure,
otherwise there is no reason for cooperation to continue,"
Kharazi warned.
The minister also suggested that his country was determined to
resume its work of making its own enriched uranium instead of
importing it. "In order to build confidence we decided to
voluntarily suspend, for a limited time, our enrichment
activities. When relations with the IAEA are normalised, we will
resume enrichment," Kharazi said.
Reacting to Iran’s threat, the IAEA urged Iran not to renew its
uranium enrichment activities. "Confidence will take time at
least and I think the suspension (of uranium enrichment
operations) is an important thing for continuing to create that
confidence," said IAEA director-general Mohamed ElBaradei. "Iran
has been in breach of its (nuclear non-proliferation) obligations
for many years and we need to build confidence," ElBaradei added.
"I think suspension is a confidence-building measure and, as I
said, Iran needs to do everything possible right now to create
the confidence required."
Also the European Commission issued a veiled warning in Brussels
to Iran not to cut cooperation with the IAEA, noting that
Europe’s trade dialogue with Tehran was linked to the nuclear
issue. "Iran, (which) has taken such major steps so far to
cooperate with the IAEA, should pursue that policy ... which is
the one that will lead to acceptance by the international
community and which will be in the interests of Iran itself,"
said a commission spokeswoman, Emma Udwin.
For his part, President Muhammad Khatami spoke of a mystery
"event" relating to the nuclear issue and said he had to
immediately talk to Russian President Vladimir Putin. "An event
is foreseen, and I have to immediately negotiate with President
Putin," he said, only adding that this even concerned the IAEA
meeting. "I hope I can speak to you again at the end of the year
(March 19 in the Iranian calendar), or at the beginning of next
year," Khatami said.
The comments came after the United States and western European
countries reached tentative agreement on a draft resolution
criticising Iran for failing to declare sensitive parts of its
nuclear programme, but putting off seeking any sanctions until at
least June.
Defence Minister Ali Shamkhani told reporters the Iranian
military had built nuclear centrifuges for civilian use. It was
the first time that Iran has acknowledged that its military had
been involved in the nuclear programme.
Shamkhani said Iran has no plans at present to increase the range
of its missiles. Replying to a question about this possibility,
Shamkhani said, "Our needs are assured in the ballistic field
and, for the moment, we do not feel the need to change anything."
In Vienna, the 35-nation board of governors of the International
Atomic Energy Agency prepared for Thursday’s debate on Iran’s
declared commitment to full transparency on its nuclear
programme. The United States, which suspects Iran is building
nuclear arms, wants a draft resolution on Iran to take a tough
line because of evidence of secrecy. But the Europeans want to
acknowledge that Iran has made substantial, if not complete,
steps toward openness.
The draft that was obtained by The Associated Press said the
agency noted "with the most serious concern" that Iran’s
declarations "did not amount to the correct, complete and final
picture of Iran’s past and present nuclear programme." But it
also praised Iran for signing an agreement that granted a free
hand to IAEA inspectors. Iran regarded the draft unsatisfactory.
Iran’s chief delegate to the IAEA, Pirouz Hosseini, told
reporters outside the board of governors meeting that the United
States was pressurising the Europeans to harden the resolution.
"We have never been involved in any nuclear weapons program ...
and the Americans don’t want to accept the fact," Hosseini said.
And in Tokyo a newspaper reported on Wednesday that Pyongyang and
Tehran were working on a project to build an underground factory
in North Korea to produce machinery for enriching uranium. The
two countries have agreed to jointly build a plant to make a
centrifugal separator in Kusong, 40 kilometres northwest of Anju,
a site known for nuclear development by Pyongyang, the Sankei
Shimbun said, citing an unnamed military source.
Under the accord, reached during the visit by a senior Iranian
military officer to Pyongyang in late January, both nations will
use the machinery, with Iran planning to import it as "industrial
goods" through a third country, the Sankei said. South Korea
detected more than 70 test explosions by the North at Kusong, the
paper said.
Copyright 1996-2002 . Hi Pakistan. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
5 Hi Pakistan: Row between IAEA, Iran over nuclear issue persists
March 11 2004
TEHRAN, IRAN: Nothing has yet settled down with the International
Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) over country’s civil nuclear
programme, said a report on Thursday.
Talking to reports in Tehran Iran's Defence Minister said Ali
Shamkhani said: “Teharan shall resume Uranium enrichment by
terminating cooperation with the IAEA.”
He justifiably said the work of the military in the country's
civil nuclear programme by asserting that the armed forces also
manufactured parts for televisions.
The comments by Ali Shamkhani came after Iran was criticised in a
report from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), which
noted that "most of the workshops used in Iran's centrifuge
enrichment program are owned by military industrial
organisations."
Shamkhani said there were "thousands of manufacturers in the
defence industry, and out of them only eleven make parts for the
national atomic energy organisation."
Earlier, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) ElBaradei
said, "Iran has been in breach of its (nuclear non proliferation)
obligations for many years and we need to build confidence,"
ElBaradei said.
"I think suspension is a confidence-building measure and, as I
said, Iran needs to do everything possible right now to create
the confidence required."
Iran on Wednesday had threatened to stop cooperating with the
IAEA unless it stopped being "influenced by the Americans".
Speaking to reporters in Tehran, Foreign Minister Kamal Kharazi
also said Iran was impatient to resume uranium enrichment -- a
key step in producing both nuclear weapons and atomic energy.
Copyright 1996-2002 . Hi Pakistan. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
6 Hi Pakistan: Threat to restart enriching uranium: Iran slams IAEA, Europeans
for bowing to US pressure -->
March 11 2004
VIENNA: Iran criticized European states on Wednesday for bowing
to US pressure to condemn Tehran's atomic programme before the UN
nuclear watchdog and threatened to cut cooperation with the
international agency.
Britain, France and Germany "have tried their best, but we
expected more from our European colleagues," over a draft
resolution that lists Iranian failures to report sensitive
nuclear activities, Iranian ambassador Pirooz Hosseini told
reporters at a meeting of the International Atomic Energy Agency
(IAEA).
The IAEA's 35-nation board of governors was on Wednesday still
debating at its Vienna headquarters the resolution on Iran, with
a vote expected later in the week.
Mr Hosseini said there was "too much pressure, unconstructive
pressure, by the Americans" and accused them of "bullying." In
Tehran, Iranian Foreign Minister Kamal Kharazi said the Islamic
Republic could end cooperation with the IAEA unless it stopped
being "influenced by the Americans".
He said that Iran intended to end its suspension of uranium
enrichment once relations with the International Atomic Energy
Agency (IAEA) were "normalized". But US ambassador to the IAEA
Kenneth Brill told reporters the nuclear watchdog had identified
"significant concerns" about Iran's programme.
"We look forward to the agency getting complete cooperation from
Iran so that it can truly get to the bottom of the Iranian
nuclear programme," Brill said. IAEA chief Mohamed ElBaradei said
Iran should keep on cooperating.
"Iran has been in breach of its (nuclear non-proliferation)
obligations for many years and we need to build confidence," Mr
ElBaradei said. The IAEA has been verifying since February 2003
whether Iran's nuclear programme is peaceful, as Iran claims.
Mr ElBaradei urged Iran not to renew its uranium enrichment
activities, as Kharazi threatened on Wednesday. Iran's resumption
of enriching uranium would not be constructive, Mr Brill said.
He said the United States, which claims Iran is secretly
developing nuclear weapons, understood that an agreement Britain,
France and Germany worked out last year with Iran was on "how to
suspend and to build on the suspension of enrichment and not how
to end the suspension of enrichment activities."
The US, which wants to take Iran to the UN Security Council for
possible sanctions, agreed on the compromise text on Tuesday with
Britain, France and Germany, which have stressed the need to get
Iran to cooperate with the international community over
non-proliferation.
The text condemns Iran for failing to report such crucial
technologies as advanced P-2 centrifuge designs for enriching
uranium, possibly to weapons grade, despite having claimed to
have fully disclosed its nuclear programme in a declaration to
the IAEA last October.
But the draft resolution puts off any immediate reaction, such as
declaring Iran to be in non-compliance with the Non-Proliferation
Treaty (NPT), a move that would mean the issue being taken up by
the UN Security Council and pave the way towards possible
sanctions.
The 13 non-aligned states on the IAEA board said they would be
proposing amendments to the text on Thursday. A NAM diplomat said
they wanted to "soften the tone" to avoid condemning Iran.
US REACTION: Responding quickly to Iranian assertions, Kenneth
Brill, US ambassador to the Vienna-based UN nuclear watchdog,
said Iran's decision to resume uranium enrichment, would not be
constructive.
Mr Brill said the United States understood that an agreement
Britain, France and Germany worked out last year with Iran was on
"how to suspend and to build on the suspension of enrichment and
not how to end the suspension of enrichment activities".
LIBYA: Meanwhile, Libya took a further step towards cooperation
with the IAEA, by signing an additional protocol to the NPT which
allows IAEA inspectors to carry out wider, unannounced
inspections of its nuclear facilities.
This came after the IAEA board adopted a resolution to notify the
UN Security Council that Tripoli had violated its nuclear
non-proliferation commitments but had since cooperated in
remedying this, so that sanctions would not be called for.
Copyright 1996-2002 . Hi Pakistan. All rights reserved. No part
*****************************************************************
7 Khaleej Times: Iran admits military produced nuke centrifuges, says it will
resume uranium enrichment (AP)
[http://www.khaleejtimes.com
11 March 2004
TEHERAN - Iran said it would resume uranium enrichment and warned
it may quit cooperating with the International Atomic Energy
Agency, which it accused of kowtowing to the United States at a
crucial meeting in Vienna.
Separately, Defence Minister Ali Shamkhani told reporters on
Wednesday the Iranian military had built nuclear centrifuges for
civilian use - the first time Iran has acknowledged its military
was involved in the country’s nuclear program.
IAEA Director General Mohamed ElBaradei warned that Iran risked
undermining its efforts to convince the world its nuclear
intentions are peaceful.
“I think suspension is ... a good confidence-building measure,
and Iran needs to do everything possible right now to create the
confidence required,” ElBaradei said Wednesday in Vienna,
Austria, where the UN atomic agency’s board of governors was
meeting.
The agency’s 35-nation board of governors was preparing for a
debate Thursday on whether Iran is living up to its pledge to
full transparency on its nuclear program.
The United States, which suspects Iran is building nuclear arms,
wants a draft resolution on Iran to take a tough line because of
evidence of secrecy. But the Europeans want to acknowledge Iran
has made substantial, if not complete, steps toward openness.
An American official told The Associated Press Wednesday that
the United States has struck a compromise with European nations
that defers a showdown with Iran at the United Nations on its
nuclear programs yet deplores its failure to come clean with the
IAEA.
A draft obtained by the AP said the agency noted “with the most
serious concern” that Iran’s declarations “did not amount to the
correct, complete and final picture of Iran’s past and present
nuclear program.”
The draft also praised Iran for signing an agreement that
granted a free hand to IAEA inspectors.
The US administration had hoped the current IAEA conference in
Vienna would wind up with the agency referring Iran’s activities
to the UN Security Council, where economic sanctions could be
imposed to punish Iran.
But the administration decided on a compromise approach that
defers action at the United Nations, in the hopes of attracting
wider support from the Europeans as well as other countries, the
official said.
Iran’s chief delegate to the IAEA, Pirouz Hosseini, told
reporters outside the board of governors meeting that Iran was
unhappy with the draft and accused the United States of putting
pressure on the Europeans.
“We have never been involved in any nuclear weapons program ...
and the Americans don’t want to acknowledge it,” Hosseini said.
In Teheran, Foreign Minister Kamal Kharrazi accused the world
body of failing to reciprocate.
“We told (the IAEA) that cooperation should be bilateral. We
take steps and expect the other side to take steps,” Kharrazi
said. “It can’t go one-sided.”
Kharrazi warned Britain, France and Germany - whose foreign
ministers visited Teheran last year to discuss the nuclear issue
- that Iran will stop cooperating with them if they fail to
resist US pressure at the Vienna meeting.
“We recommend that the three European countries RAarily. Later,
when our relations with the IAEA return to normal, we will
definitely resume (uranium) enrichment,” Kharrazi said.
One of the reasons for the recent IAEA inspections of Iran’s
nuclear facilities was last year’s discovery of undeclared
uranium enrichment.
Kharrazi accused the IAEA of giving in to US pressure.
“Unfortunately, the agency is sometimes influenced by the United
States, while it should maintain its technical and professional
identity,” Kharrazi said.
Defence Minister Shamkhani said the military industries had
produced P-1 centrifuges, which are used for low-grade
enrichment, not the P-2 models used for weapons-grade enriched
uranium.
“We have produced P-1, not P-2, contrary to US allegations,”
Shamkhani said.
“It’s natural in the world that Defence industries produce
civilian parts,” Shamkhani said, adding the industries also
produce televisions and parts for civilian planes and vehicles.
The IAEA has questioned Iran about blueprints for the more
advanced P-2 centrifuges. Iran says the blueprints never got
beyond the research stage.
A leading Iranian hard-line editor, Hossein Shariatmadari, urged
the government on Wednesday to give the IAEA an ultimatum.
“Iran has to set a deadline,” Shariatmadari wrote in the
newspaper Kayhan. “If Iran’s nuclear dossier is not removed from
the agency’s agenda, Iran must not only stop allowing unfettered
inspections of its nuclear facilities, it must resume uranium
enrichment and, possibly, even withdraw from the Nuclear
Nonproliferation Treaty.”
The treaty commits its members to peaceful use of nuclear power.
© 2003 Khaleej Times All Rights Reserved.
*****************************************************************
8 Las Vegas SUN: Iran's Enrichment Plans Elicits Dismay
By GEORGE JAHN ASSOCIATED PRESS
VIENNA, Austria (AP) -
Closing the books on Libya, a key U.N. atomic agency meeting
turned to Iran Thursday as it debated how harshly to censure
Tehran for failing to fully expose its nuclear activities and
dispel suspicions it wanted to make weapons.
The United States has compromised with Britain, France and
Germany on a draft resolution that toned down criticism of
Iran's continued nuclear secrecy and offered some praise of
Tehran's record in opening activities to outside perusal.
But European diplomats said they were hopeful the final version
to be adopted by the board of governors of the International
Atomic Energy Agency would be even less critical.
"We think the Americans are putting a lot of pressure on
Europe," a European diplomat said on condition of anonymity.
A U.S. official, meanwhile, said even that draft was not as
tough as what the Americans had hoped for.
"It is a compromise," said the U.S. official, who spoke to The
Associated Press on condition of anonymity. "But it deplores
Iran's behavior, and it notes with serious concern that what
Iran said ... did not amount to the correct and full picture of
their past and present nuclear program."
The United States, which insists the Islamic Republic has a
nuclear arms program, has held of the example of Libya as a
nation whose openness has reaped international rewards.
On Wednesday, the IAEA board passed a resolution praising
Tripoli for scrapping its nuclear weapons.
"A country that truly comes clean with the agency and truly
cooperates ... gets a constructive response," chief U.S.
delegate Kenneth Brill said Wednesday. "Countries that seek to
avoid providing the kind of cooperation that Libya has continue
to be the subjects of intensified ... scrutiny."
Iran asserts its nuclear programs are peaceful and has promised
to cooperate with IAEA inspectors to dispel suspicions prompted
by revelations last year that traces of uranium enriched to 90
percent, or weapons grade, had been found in the country.
However, new discoveries by IAEA inspectors of undeclared items
and programs have cast doubt on Tehran's assertions that it has
no more nuclear secrets. Inspectors found that Tehran had plans
to enrich uranium and had secretly conducted other tests with
possible weapons applications.
The United States, along with Canada and Australia, wants strong
condemnation of Iran. But the Europeans and nonaligned nations
at the meeting seek to focus more on Tehran's cooperation with
the U.N. atomic agency.
An IAEA report last month accused Tehran of hiding evidence of
nuclear experiments and noted the discovery of traces of
radioactive polonium, which can be used in nuclear weapons. The
report also expressed concern about the discovery of a
previously undisclosed advanced P-2 centrifuge system for
processing uranium.
Iran asserts its now suspended enrichment plans are geared only
toward generating power. But on Wednesday, Iran announced plans
to resume enrichment, eliciting a negative response from Mohamed
ElBaradei, the IAEA chief, who said it would hurt Tehran's
chances of proving that it has no interest in nuclear weapons.
"I think suspension is ... a good confidence-building measure,
and Iran needs to do everything possible right now to create the
confidence required," ElBaradei told reporters.
---
On the Net:
International Atomic Energy Agency: http://www.iaea.org
[http://www.iaea.org]
--
*****************************************************************
9 Las Vegas SUN: IAEA Debates How Harshly to Censure Iran
By GEORGE JAHN ASSOCIATED PRESS
VIENNA, Austria (AP) -
Closing the books on Libya, a key U.N. atomic agency meeting
turned to Iran on Thursday as it debated how harshly to censure
Tehran for failing to fully expose its nuclear activities and
dispel suspicions it wanted to make weapons.
The United States has compromised with Britain, France and
Germany on a draft resolution that toned down criticism of
Iran's continued nuclear secrecy and offered some praise of
Tehran's record in opening activities to outside perusal.
But European diplomats said they were hopeful the final version
to be adopted by the board of governors of the International
Atomic Energy Agency would be even less critical.
"We think the Americans are putting a lot of pressure on
Europe," a European diplomat said on condition of anonymity.
A U.S. official, meanwhile, said even that draft was not as
tough as what the Americans had hoped for.
"It is a compromise," said the U.S. official, who spoke to The
Associated Press on condition of anonymity. "But it deplores
Iran's behavior, and it notes with serious concern that what
Iran said ... did not amount to the correct and full picture of
their past and present nuclear program."
The United States, which insists the Islamic Republic has a
nuclear arms program, has held up the example of Libya as a
nation whose openness has reaped international rewards.
Organizers said that the next full session of the conference
would likely be postponed until Friday to give delegates time to
meet informally and shape a resolution all can agree on.
On Wednesday, the IAEA board passed a resolution praising
Tripoli for scrapping its nuclear weapons.
"A country that truly comes clean with the agency and truly
cooperates ... gets a constructive response," chief U.S.
delegate Kenneth Brill said Wednesday. "Countries that seek to
avoid providing the kind of cooperation that Libya has continue
to be the subjects of intensified ... scrutiny."
Iran asserts its nuclear programs are peaceful and has promised
to cooperate with IAEA inspectors to dispel suspicions prompted
by revelations last year that traces of uranium enriched to 90
percent, or weapons grade, had been found in the country.
However, new discoveries by IAEA inspectors of undeclared items
and programs have cast doubt on Tehran's assertions that it has
no more nuclear secrets. Inspectors found that Tehran had plans
to enrich uranium and had secretly conducted other tests with
possible weapons applications.
The United States, along with Canada and Australia, wants strong
condemnation of Iran. But the Europeans and nonaligned nations
at the meeting seek to focus more on Tehran's cooperation with
the U.N. atomic agency.
An IAEA report last month accused Tehran of hiding evidence of
nuclear experiments and noted the discovery of traces of
radioactive polonium, which can be used in nuclear weapons. The
report also expressed concern about the discovery of a
previously undisclosed advanced P-2 centrifuge system for
processing uranium.
Iran asserts its now suspended enrichment plans are geared only
toward generating power. But on Wednesday, Iran announced plans
to resume enrichment, eliciting a negative response from Mohamed
ElBaradei, the IAEA chief, who said it would hurt Tehran's
chances of proving that it has no interest in nuclear weapons.
"I think suspension is ... a good confidence-building measure,
and Iran needs to do everything possible right now to create the
confidence required," ElBaradei told reporters.
---
On the Net:
International Atomic Energy Agency: http://www.iaea.org
[http://www.iaea.org]
--
*****************************************************************
10 Las Vegas RJ: Bill introduced on resuming nuclear tests
Thursday, March 11, 2004
Measure would require government to meet additional requirements
before blasts at test site By TONY BATT
STEPHENS WASHINGTON BUREAU
WASHINGTON -- Worried by a reduction in the time it would take
to resume nuclear blasts at the Nevada Test Site, a Utah
congressman introduced a bill this week that would require the
government to meet additional environmental and safety
requirements before conducting another test.
Democrat Jim Matheson said he acted primarily because of the
Bush administration's efforts to develop new tactical nuclear
weapons.
In particular, Matheson cited the administration's request for
$27 million in the 2005 budget to continue research on a new
earth-penetrating weapon known as a bunker buster.
"My concern is that when new weapons are developed, testing is
part of the overall scheme of development," Matheson said.
The bill, which Matheson introduced Tuesday night, would
require the government to prepare an environmental impact
statement before resuming nuclear tests.
Other provisions in the bill would require:
• At least one week public notice before each new nuclear test.
• The government to conduct an environmental impact statement
before resuming nuclear testing.
• A halt in testing if any radiation leaks from the test site,
65 miles northwest of Las Vegas.
• The National Cancer Institute to provide Congress with
estimates of radioactivity dosages resulting from new tests.
The National Nuclear Security Administration, which oversees the
test site, also is asking for $30 million in the 2005 budget to
complete a three-year program to reduce the preparation time for
new tests to 18 months. Before the program began, it would have
taken up to three years to get the test site ready for another
nuclear blast.
There has not been a nuclear test at the test site since Sept.
23, 1992. The last nuclear blast into the atmosphere at the test
site occurred in 1962.
NNSA chief administrator Linton Brooks, Defense Secretary
Donald Rumsfeld and other Bush administration officials have
said there are no plans to resume nuclear testing. The
preparation time is being lowered, administration officials say,
in case there is a serious defect in the nuclear weapons
stockpile.
Calls to the NNSA on Wednesday were not returned.
The Nevada congressional delegation had a mixed reaction to the
bill. Rep. Shelley Berkley, D-Nev., was the most enthusiastic
supporter.
"Our nation must never again sacrifice the health of our
citizens in the name of nuclear testing and this legislation
will create important new safeguards to protect our communities,
including proper monitoring in the event of testing and a
comprehensive study into the health effects of radiation
exposure," Berkley said in a statement.
Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., said Matheson's bill had merit. Sen.
John Ensign, R-Nev., said he has not seen the legislation and
declined to comment.
Matheson acknowledged this is a personal issue with him. His
father, former Gov. Scott Matheson, D-Utah, died at the age of
61 in 1990 from a cancer associated with exposure to radioactive
fallout.
"When my father was governor in the late 1970s, relatives would
bring him yellow legal pads of name after name of relatives who
had died of cancer," Matheson said.
"He went to the Pentagon, and got documents declassified that
verified the fact that the government knew the risk to citizens
from testing even though they told them there was no risk," he
said. "In fact, the government lied."
Copyright Las Vegas Review-Journal
*****************************************************************
11 Tri-Valley Herald: 'Bunker buster' budget raises questions Weapons budget
Article Last Updated: Thursday, March 11, 2004 -
By Paul Richter, Los Angeles Times
WASHINGTON -- A report by a nonpartisan congressional research
group says sharp increases in the proposed budget to build a
"bunker buster" nuclear bomb raises questions about whether the
controversial program is only a study, as U.S. officials have
contended.
Last year, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said the effort
was "a study. It is nothing more and nothing less." But a report
from the Congressional Research Service said the five-year, $485
million budget proposal "seems to cast serious doubt on
assertions that the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator is only a
study." Congressional opponents of the program have tried several
times to cut funding and restrict its pace. Last year, opponents
succeeded in requiring the administration to win special
congressional approval to move from research into the development
phase of the program.
But one opponent, Rep. Ellen O. Tauscher, D-Tassajara, said the
budget figures showed "they've been slow-walking us on the
details, but fast-tracking money in order to go full steam ahead
if they find themselves with a Republican House and Senate" after
the November elections.
The report noted that the program, budgeted for $7.5 million in
the current fiscal year, would grow to $27.6 million in fiscal
2005, under the budget proposal. Spending would rise to a peak
of$128 million in fiscal 2008, followed by $88 million in 2009.
By the end of that period, according to this schedule, the Energy
Department would have a bomb design and would develop a process
for building it.
Advocates say a nuclear bomb with a special hardened shell could
burrow underground before exploding and destroy buried structures
that conceal arsenals and command centers.
Countries around the world, including North Korea and several
nations in the Middle East, have built extensive underground
military facilities, hoping to elude the long reach of American
conventional military power. Advocates argue such a weapon would
enable the United States to deter future underground projects.
Foes argue that its use could devastate nearby populations and
set off a new nuclear arms race.
The Congressional Research Service report, issued to Congress on
Monday, was not intended for public distribution. But the
Federation of American Scientists, an arms control advocacy
group, obtained a copy and displayed the report on it's Web site.
Brian Wilkes, a spokesman for the Energy Department's National
Nuclear Security Administration, insisted Wednesday that
policy-makers have not decided to build the bomb; rather, he
said, the budget figures were developed only to fulfill the
congressional requirement to have a five-year budget plan.
"This is a placeholder budget," Wilkes said. "We have to plan for
every contingency."
Steven Aftergood, of the Federation of American Scientists, said
the government does not propose five-year budgets for every
research program that might be approved for development.
"If they had placeholders for every funding scenario, they'd have
to request an infinite amount of money," Aftergood said. "This is
an expression of intent to move ahead with an expanded program; I
think that's the only way to understand it."
©1999-2003 by MediaNews Group, Inc. and ANG Newspapers
*****************************************************************
12 Helena Independent Record: Nuclear worries
By Nicholas Kristof - 03/11/04
A 10-kiloton nuclear bomb (a pipsqueak in weapons terms) is
smuggled into Manhattan and explodes at Grand Central. Some
500,000 people are killed, and the U.S. suffers $1 trillion in
direct economic damage.
That scenario, cited in a report last year from the John F.
Kennedy School of Government at Harvard, could be a glimpse of
our future. We urgently need to control nuclear materials to
forestall that threat, but in this war on proliferation, we're
now slipping backward. President Bush (after ignoring the issue
before 9/11) now forcefully says the right things - but still
doesn't do enough.
''I wouldn't be at all surprised if nuclear weapons are used over
the next 15 or 20 years,'' said Bruce Blair, president of the
Center for Defense Information, ''first and foremost by a
terrorist group that gets its hands on a Russian nuclear weapon
or a Pakistani nuclear weapon.''
One of our biggest setbacks is in North Korea. Thanks to the
ineptitude of hard-liners in Bush's administration, and their
refusal to engage in meaningful negotiations, North Korea is
going all-out to make warheads. It may have just made six new
nuclear weapons. Then there's Iran, which has sought nuclear
weapons since the days of the shah, and whose nuclear program
seems to have public support. ''I'm not sure there is a way to
get an Iranian government to give it up,'' a senior American
official said.
Finally, there's the real rogue nation of proliferation,
Pakistan. We know that Abdul Qadeer Khan, the Islamist father of
Pakistan's bomb, peddled materials to Libya and North Korea, and
we don't know who else.
''It may be that A.Q. Khan &Associates already have passed
bomb-grade nuclear fuel to the Qaida, and we are in for the
worst,'' warns Paul Leventhal, president of the Nuclear Control
Institute.
It's mystifying that the administration hasn't leaned on Pakistan
to make Khan available for interrogation to ensure that his
network is entirely closed. Several experts on Pakistan told me
they believe that the administration has been so restrained
because its top priority isn't combating nuclear proliferation -
it's getting President Pervez Musharraf's help in arresting Osama
bin Laden before the November election.
The steps that are needed, like negotiating seriously with North
Korea and securing sites in Russia, aren't as dramatic as bombing
Baghdad. But unless we act more aggressively, we will get a
wake-up call from a nuclear explosion or, more likely, a ''dirty
bomb'' that uses radioactive materials routinely lying around
hospitals and factories. To clarify the stakes, here's a scenario
from the Federation of American Scientists for a modest terrorist
incident:
A stick of cobalt, an inch thick and a foot long, is taken from
among hundreds of such sticks at a food irradiation plant. It is
blown up with just 10 pounds of explosives in a ''dirty bomb'' at
the lower tip of Manhattan, with a one-mile-per-hour breeze
blowing. Some 1,000 square kilometers in three states is
contaminated, and some areas of New York City become
uninhabitable for decades.
NICHOLAS KRISTOF is a columnist for the New York Times.
Copyright © Helena Independent Record; a division of Lee
Enterprises
Copyright © 2003 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This
*****************************************************************
13 GSN: U.S. Bunker-Buster Program More Robust Than Expected
Global Security Newswire is produced independently for the
Nuclear Threat Initiative by National Journal Group, Inc. Global
Security Newswire is published Monday thru Friday by 2 pm and is
available exclusively on the NTI website, www.nti.org.
Wednesday, March 10, 2004
By David Ruppe Global Security Newswire
WASHINGTON A Bush administration program to study a
controversial new earth-penetrating nuclear weapon is much more
ambitious than previously indicated, according to a congressional
analysis released Monday (see GSN, Jan. 23).
A report by the Congressional Research Service says the Energy
Departments Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator (RNEP) program is
projected to proceed beyond the study phase and cost as much as
$485 million over the next five years.
Senior administration officials previously tried to dismiss
criticism of the program by saying it only involves a three-year
study projected to cost just $45 million.
The program is a study. It is nothing more and nothing less,
said Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld during a May 2003 press
briefing.
The congressional analysis of the Energy Departments fiscal 2005
budget request documents says the study is now projected to run
four years, from fiscal 2003 to 2006, and cost $71 million
between those years.
Furthermore, the budget documents project $484.7 million in
program costs through fiscal 2009 with post-study development
work, for which specific congressional approval is required.
The Energy request seems to cast serious doubt on assertions
that RNEP is only a study, says the report, authored by analyst
Jonathan Medalia.
The program is controversial, with congressional critics charging
that U.S. interest in new nuclear weapons capabilities undermines
efforts to persuade other countries to forgo nuclear weapons and
raises questions about an international commitment the United
States made in 2000 to move toward eventual disarmament.
A manager for the Energy Departments National Nuclear Security
Administration, the CRS report says, dismissed the budget
projection as a placeholder to protect the option of proceeding
with the program for avoiding any future delay in funding. The
official said no decision had been made on whether to proceed
beyond the study phase.
Congress appropriated $15 million for the study in fiscal 2003
and $7.5 million in fiscal 2004, following criticism by
congressional Democrats. The administration is seeking $27.6
million for next year and is planning to extend the study through
fiscal 2006.
NNSA attributed the increases to the need for an additional
participant in the study, additional project management
requirements, better definition of the studys requirements and
costs and an increase in safety of the proposed weapon. About
Newswire | Contact National Journal | Re-Use Guidelines HOME
| CONTACT US | GET INVOLVED | SITE MAP © Copyright by
National Journal Group, Inc. The material in this section is
produced independently for NTI by National Journal Group, Inc.
Any reproduction or retransmission, in whole or in part, is a
violation of federal law and is strictly prohibited without the
consent of the National Journal Group, Inc. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
14 Washington Times: Leaker of nuke secrets curbed
March 11, 2004
JERUSALEM Nuclear whistleblower Mordecai Vanunu, who will
complete his 18-year prison sentence in April for having
revealed some of Israel's nuclear secrets, will be denied a
passport in order to prevent him from ever leaving the country,
Israel Radio reported yesterday.
The decision was said to have been made at a meeting of
senior officials called by Prime Minister Ariel Sharon Tuesday
night.
Mr. Sharon, however, rejected a request by the head of the
Defense Ministry's security department, Yehiel Horev, to keep
Vanunu locked up even after completion of his sentence. Mr.
Horev asked that Vanunu be placed under administrative
detention, which would permit his incarceration indefinitely
without trial.
Instead, it was decided to use "certain supervisory means"
to keep track of him, according to a statement by the prime
minister's office. There have been unconfirmed reports that
Vanunu will be kept under semi-house arrest, denied use of
telephones and kept under constant guard.
Vanunu, who had worked as a minor technician at the Dimona
nuclear plant, left for Australia after his dismissal from the
job in 1986 and converted to Christianity. He then flew to
London for interviews with the Sunday Times about the nuclear
plant, where he had secretly made numerous photographs. The
articles and photographs led to estimates that Israel had about
200 nuclear warheads.
The U.S. government does not acknowledge publicly that
Israel has a nuclear arsenal. But in his new book, "Rumsfeld's
War," Rowan Scarborough, Pentagon correspondent for The
Washington Times, reveals a Defense Intelligence Agency report
that says Israel has about 82 deployable nuclear bombs and
missiles.
A few days before the London Sunday Times story went to
press, the Israeli Mossad had a female agent lure Vanunu to Rome
where he was kidnapped, sedated and transported to Israel for
trial. His confinement was mostly in solitary and the only
visitors he has been permitted are first-degree relatives, his
lawyer and a clergyman.
Security officials have recently met with Vanunu to sound
out his intentions. According to reports in the Israeli media,
he refused to answer most of their questions. However, family
members have said that he told them he would not leak any more
information.
During his interviews with the Sunday Times he had declined
to give the names of co-workers, saying he did not want to
endanger them and that the information was irrelevant.
A former senior official of the Shin Bet Security Services,
Haim Ben-Ami, told Israel Television on Tuesday that Vanunu
might be abducted if he left the country and forced to tell all
he knew.
Most of Vanunu's family is said to have severed ties with
him for having abandoned the Jewish faith. However, two brothers
have remained in contact. One of them, Meir, is said to be
living in Australia.
Tuesday's meeting on Vanunu, chaired by Mr. Sharon, was
attended by senior legal and security officials, as well as a
top official of Israel's Atomic Energy Commission.
*****************************************************************
15 Hi Pakistan: Govt amends Ord to control N-material exports -->
March 11 2004
ISLAMABAD – Pakistan has brought amendments in the Export Policy
and Procedures Order 2000 in order to control exports of nuclear
substances, radioactive materials, equipments used for nuclear
production, use or application of nuclear energy or activity
including generation of electricity and related spares. The
exports of nuclear substances, radioactive materials and some
other equipments have been excluded from the purview of the
Ministry of Commerce through an SRO and matters related to this
effect had been given to Pakistan Nuclear Regulatory Authority
(PNRA).
Ministry of Commerce has issued SRO 111 (I)/2004 in order to
bring certain changes in the Order with immediate effect.
Pakistan imposed ban on exports of nuclear substances,
radioactive materials, equippment used for nuclear production and
any other substance or item covered by Pakistan Nuclear
Regulatory Authority Ordinance, 2001 (III of 2001).
The government also imposed ban on exports of equipment used for
production, use or application of nuclear energy or activity
including generation of electricity and spares related to these,
as per procedure notified by the PNRA.
Through the SRO issued by Commerce Ministry, the government has
notified the name of PNRA as competent authority related to
exports of nuclear substances instead of Pakistan Atomic Energy
Commission (PAEC).
According to the SRO issued by the ministry concerned in exercise
of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 3 of the
Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1950 (XXXIX of 1950), the
Federal Government is pleased to direct that the following
further amendment shall be made in the Export Policy and
Procedures Order, 2000:
In the aforesaid Order, in Schedule-III, for S.No.7 and 8 in
column (1) and the entries relating thereto in columns (2) and
(3) the following shall be substituted, namely:- 7. “Nuclear
substances, radioactive materials and any other substance or item
covered by Pakistan Nuclear Regulatory Authority Ordinance, 2001
(III of 2001). As per procedure notified by the Pakistan Nuclear
Regulatory Authority.”
8.”Equipment used for production, use or application of nuclear
energy or activity including generation of electricity and spares
related to these.-do-”, the S.R.O concluded.
The government is quite conscious over the nuclear proliferation
issue and Islamabad is making all out efforts to control
proliferation and assurances have given to IAEA and international
community in this regard.
The controversy related to transfer of nuclear technology was
finally ended during last month when General Musharraf had
granted conditional pardon to father of Pakistan’s nuclear bomb
Dr Abdul Qadeer Khan.
“Yes, the government has amended ban on exports of all such
materials which are being used for nuclear arsenals and now
exports of these items will not come under the purview of the
Ministry,” a high-level official said while talking to The Nation
here on Wednesday.
The official said that Pakistan had already imposed ban on export
of nuclear substances and now Pakistan Nuclear Regulatory
Authority had been authorised to look into affairs of exports
related to nuclear arsenals.
Copyright 1996-2002 . Hi Pakistan. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
16 IAEA: Introductory Statement to the Board of Governors
+ [IAEA.ORG :: Atoms for Peace]
8 March 2004 | Vienna, Austria
IAEA Board of Governors
Introductory Statement to the Board of Governors
by IAEA Director General Dr. Mohamed ElBaradei
Our agenda for this meeting covers a broad range of issues, once
again touching on all three Agency pillars technology, safety
and verification. I will discuss a number of topics related to
each of these pillars, as well as a number of management issues.
Nuclear Technology
You have before you the 2004 Nuclear Technology Review (NTR)
the third comprehensive edition of this new review. NTR-2004
covers the fundamentals of nuclear technology development,
including: power applications; applications for food, water and
health; and applications for environmental and industrial
processes.
As can be seen from the Review, medium term projections for the
future of nuclear power remain cautious. Current expansion and
growth prospects are still centred in Asia, including 18 of the
31 plants now under construction. Five new plants are expected to
be connected during the course of this year: two in China, one in
Japan, one in the Republic of Korea, and one in the Russian
Federation.
In North America, the focus continues to be more on the restart
of shutdown units and the extension of licences for existing
plants. These trends reflect a more positive climate for nuclear
power. Nine additional 20-year licence extensions were approved
in the United States of America in 2003, and 17 more applications
are in the queue.
As I reported last week at a conference of the European
Parliament on "Energy Choices in Europe", the case for nuclear
power in Western Europe may be gaining new ground due, in part,
to the decision Europe has taken to reduce greenhouse gas
emissions, as well as concerns about the security of energy
supply. In Finland, the contract has been signed for a new 1600
megawatt European Pressurized Water Reactor.
Energy decisions, however, cannot be made on a
"one-size-fits-all" basis. Each country and region faces a
different set of variables when choosing its energy strategy.
Despite engineering analyses showing that public health risks
from nuclear power are among the lowest of any energy technology,
public perceptions of risk in many countries continue to be
influenced by the memory of Chernobyl. How countries balance the
risk of a nuclear accident against other factors such as
climate change, air pollution, dammed rivers, mining accidents,
or dependency on foreign fuel supplies are matters of
complexity and legitimate debate.
The Agency continues to work to provide the most objective
information possible to support a countrys decision on energy
supply, to ensure that the risks and benefits of nuclear
technology are clearly and fairly understood, and to assist those
countries that choose nuclear power in operating their facilities
safely and securely. We also continue to encourage, through our
innovation activities, the development of new reactor and fuel
cycle technologies that would ensure future cost competitiveness
while incorporating, among other things, a greater reliance on
passive safety features, enhanced control of nuclear materials
through new fuel configurations, and design features that allow
reduced construction times and lower operating costs.
Waste Management and Disposal The demonstration of effective,
long term solutions to the management and disposal of spent fuel
and high level radioactive waste remains the most significant
hurdle for the nuclear power industry. Current technology is
fully capable of stabilizing nuclear waste in the form of glass
or ceramic, encasing it further in corrosion resistant packages,
and isolating it geologically in underground repositories.
The selection and construction of geological repository sites,
however, are by their very nature slow processes. Progress is
continuing on the Yucca Mountain repository in the USA and the
Olkiluoto repository in Finland, as well as on the site selection
process in Sweden. And Russia has passed legislation that would
make possible the hosting of an international spent fuel storage
facility a welcome step that could have positive implications
related to safety, economics and non-proliferation. Still, we
expect it will be at least the end of the decade before the first
civilian repository is ready to begin receiving waste.
As reflected in a conference in which I participated last
December in Stockholm, an increasing number of countries are
interested in ensuring waste retrievability for future
flexibility and also interested in the feasibility of longer
term surface storage meaning, for example, up to 100 years.
These issues are already prompting additional technological
research, and in all likelihood will also require considerable
policy and safety work. Research is also progressing on
complementary technology such as the use of accelerator driven
systems to reduce waste volume and radio-toxicity.
Food and Agriculture In the area of food and agriculture, nuclear
techniques continue to play a significant role in improving crop
production. Radiation has long been used to speed up conventional
breeding; in addition, the latest advances in molecular
techniques allow systematic screening to identify specific gene
functions. Rice mutant strains with high tolerance to salinity
are now targeted for over 4.3 million hectares of harsh
environment in Asia; a mutant variety of breadwheat with improved
nutrition and better performance during drought conditions is
being cultivated extensively in Kenya; and many other radiation
induced plant mutations are being used for increased yield,
nutritional value or suitability for harsh environments.
A number of other developments are also relevant to the use of
nuclear techniques for improved food safety and productivity. The
biotechnology advances that allow gene identification are
revolutionizing our research on livestock and draft animals with
better resistance to disease. The development of genetic sexing
strains that can produce male-only insects have greatly reduced
the cost and increased the effectiveness of the sterile insect
technique. And food irradiation continues to gain greater
acceptance, with 70 irradiation facilities now in operation in 33
countries.
Human HealthM Nuclear techniques related to medicine are also
advancing. In the area of preventive health care, the Agency has
been collaborating extensively with the World Health Organization
(WHO) on building programmes to reduce malnutrition, particularly
in children. Positron emission tomography (or PET) has emerged as
a powerful although still expensive diagnostic tool.
Molecular nuclear medicine is finding extensive application in
rapid disease screening and, together with PET, guiding
therapeutic decisions.
For the past six months, the Secretariat has been working on a
new approach that would raise public awareness of the impending
crisis of cancer in developing countries, due to the rapid
increase in cancer rates and the relative scarcity of
radiotherapy equipment and expertise. This approach would also
seek to increase our capacity, working together with WHO, for
assisting Member States in providing cancer treatment and care
in part by expanding our fundraising efforts with non-traditional
donors. In the coming weeks, we will be holding a round table
discussion with potential donors to provide seed money for this
project. The Agency taskforce will provide a proposal for
discussion for the June meeting of the Board.
Environmental Applications The Nuclear Technology Review also
describes how isotopic techniques are playing an increasing role
in our understanding of the atmosphere and marine and terrestrial
environments. A focus of coastal zone management has been on
countering the harmful health effects of the spread of algae
blooms in developing countries, by transferring technology that
enables more rapid, sensitive and inexpensive assay techniques.
Electron beam treatment of flue gases has now proven to be
successful on an industrial scale, and we are using similar
technologies to decontaminate and disinfect wastewater. And data
on the isotopic composition of precipitation from global
monitoring networks are helping scientists to understand
atmospheric circulation, which in turn is enhancing our
understanding of climate change.
IAEA Collaborating Centres The Secretariat has recently begun the
use of "IAEA Collaborating Centres" an approach that has been
used successfully by WHO and the Food and Agriculture
Organization of the United Nations. The approach is relatively
simple: a participating institution, such as a laboratory or
industrial facility, agrees to a work plan that supports the
Agencys programme activities but is cost free, and in return is
designated an IAEA Collaborating Centre. This approach, which we
are testing with ten institutions for an initial three years, is
intended to leverage our programmatic resource base.
Nuclear Safety, Radiation Safety, and Waste and Transport Safety
The Nuclear Safety Review for 2003, which you have before you,
provides an overview of current and emerging nuclear safety
trends and issues. Nuclear power plant safety, as well as
radiation safety in both power and non-power nuclear activities,
has shown strong performance worldwide; however, I will highlight
a number of areas that continue to need improvement.
International conventions are an important mechanism for the
adoption and implementation of high safety standards worldwide.
Unfortunately, many of these conventions are not widely adhered
to; for example, the Joint Convention on the Safety of Spent Fuel
Management and on the Safety of Radioactive Waste Management
which held its first Review Meeting last November, still has only
33 members, despite the fact that nearly all countries have
radioactive waste, and could benefit from participation in the
Convention.
Safety Standards The Agency, with the assistance of the
Commission on Safety Standards, has been making every effort to
raise awareness of Agency safety standards. We continue to
promote the acceptance of the entire corpus of Agency standards
as the global reference for protecting people and the environment
against the harmful effects attributed to radiation exposure.
The same objective has driven the Agencys recent efforts to
support the establishment of regional safety networks such as
the Asian Nuclear Safety Network and the Ibero-American Radiation
Safety Network which will focus on promoting the use of
international safety standards and the sharing of expertise on a
more regional basis.
Safety Missions The Agencys safety missions and peer reviews
continue to be in high demand. We are still assisting some Member
States with safety upgrades at older installations with design
vulnerabilities. In addition, as more Member States consider the
extension of licences beyond original design lifetimes, we are
giving increased attention to identifying and addressing a broad
range of equipment ageing issues. And in a number of cases, we
have identified the need for more thorough seismic reviews an
area in which the application of universally accepted standards
has not been consistent.
In terms of operational safety, we remain concerned that, in some
cases, events with similar root causes continue to recur, even in
countries with well established nuclear programmes and extensive
experience. For example, insights from events at nuclear power
plants in 2003 reflect weaknesses in safety management related to
human and organizational factors such as practices during
in-service inspection or maintenance, or the planning associated
with minor plant modifications.
These problems can be compounded by a lack of transparency on the
part of operators or Member States. The effective use of
operational experience requires candid feedback and broad
participation in information sharing systems. Both the IAEA and
the OECD/NEA have expressed increasing concern that, worldwide,
there has been a substantial decrease in the use of the Incident
Reporting System (operated jointly by the two organizations) to
provide details on significant events at nuclear power plants.
The insights gained through incident reports as well as through
associated safety missions are of value to all. For example,
Agency safety assistance missions to Hungary, following the
incident last April at the Paks nuclear facility, gained insights
that were relevant to many other facilities. These insights were
greatly enhanced by a willingness to share experience on the part
of the plant operators and the Hungarian regulators. Similar
insights and benefits continue to accrue from our OSART missions,
including our most recent OSARTs to Pakistan and China. By
contrast, a reluctance to entertain peer review, on the part of
an operator or a Member State, is counterproductive. Transparency
is an essential ingredient of an effective nuclear safety
culture. I urge all Member States therefore to fully support the
Incident Reporting System and likewise, to avail themselves of
the benefits of the Agencys review services, by integrating
these reviews into their performance assessment programmes.
Research Reactor Safety The safety of research reactors and the
management of research reactor fuel continue to be areas of
Agency emphasis. Last November, at an international conference on
research reactors in Santiago, Chile, the Agency heard from
research reactor designers, users and regulators on ways to
strengthen physical security, improve the sharing of expertise,
and enhance the Agencys research reactor safety assistance
missions. Strong support was expressed for adoption of the draft
Code of Conduct on this topic, as part of an international effort
to harmonize the laws, policies and safety practices related to
research reactor management and operation. The Code, which has
been discussed extensively with Member States over the past year,
is before the Board for approval.
Transport Safety Another area of Member State concern has been
the safety of transport of radioactive material. The action plan
before you for approval, as requested by last years General
Conference, gives attention to concerns expressed regarding
denial of shipments, transport of orphaned sources, emergency
response to transport incidents, communication and liability, and
other issues.
The Agency continues to assist individual Member States in
evaluating and strengthening their transport safety programmes.
TranSAS missions to Turkey and Panama were completed in 2003, and
a TranSAS mission to France is scheduled for the end of this
month. More Member States are also providing data to transport
databases, as a mechanism for evaluating the effectiveness of
their programmes.
Nuclear Verification
The past year has been a challenging period for the nuclear
non-proliferation regime. Current challenges include: the
continuing refusal by the Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea
to submit its nuclear activities to international verification;
our ongoing efforts to verify the nuclear activities of Iran and
Libya; the discovery of a sophisticated black market in nuclear
technology and materials; the failure of some countries to fulfil
their legal obligations to conclude and bring into force
safeguards agreements; and slow progress on the conclusion and
entry into force of additional protocols. For the nuclear
non-proliferation regime to maintain its integrity, we must find
a way to make tangible progress on all these fronts in the near
future.
Status of Safeguards Agreements and Additional Protocols Since my
last report to the Board, the Secretariat has continued its
intensified efforts to promote the conclusion of safeguards
agreements and additional protocols, including two outreach
seminars one last November here in Vienna, and the other last
week in Burkina Faso and expanded consultations on the Model
Additional Protocol with representatives from a number of
governments.
Despite these efforts, progress remains limited. Since my last
report, one safeguards agreement has entered into force, for the
Republic of Kyrgyzstan, and one additional protocol, for the
Republic of Korea. Additional protocols were also signed by
Kazakhstan and the Islamic Republic of Iran. In the European
Union, all 15 Member States have now notified the IAEA of their
ratification of the additional protocol, but entry into force
will occur only when the European Commission has notified us that
the acceptance procedure by EURATOM, which is also party to the
protocol, has been completed which I hope will occur without
delay.
Overall, 44 States have yet to fulfil their obligations under the
NPT to bring safeguards agreements with the Agency into force,
and even counting the addition of the European Union, additional
protocols will have entered into force for only 54 States. I
would reiterate my call on all States that have not done so to
conclude and bring into force their respective safeguards
agreements and additional protocols.
Implementation of Safeguards in the Democratic Peoples Republic
of Korea The nuclear activities of the Democratic Peoples
Republic of Korea (DPRK) and its notice of withdrawal from the
NPT, have set a dangerous precedent and thus remain a threat to
the credibility of the nuclear non-proliferation regime. Since 31
December 2002, when at the request of the DPRK the Agencys
onsite verification activities were terminated, the Agency has
been unable to draw any conclusions regarding the DPRKs nuclear
activities.
Last month, the second round of six-party talks took place in
Beijing, with the participation of China, Japan, the Republic of
Korea, Russia, the USA and the DPRK. The agreement to continue
these talks is a welcome development. The Agency is not party to
these talks, however, and I am therefore not in a position to
report on their outcome. The Secretariat nonetheless remains
ready to work with all parties towards a comprehensive solution
that strikes a balance between the security needs of the DPRK and
the need of the international community to gain assurance,
through international verification, that all nuclear activities
in the DPRK are exclusively for peaceful purposes.
Implementation of Safeguards in the Islamic Republic of Iran You
have before you a detailed progress report on the Agencys
verification work in the Islamic Republic of Iran. I will limit
myself, therefore, to a few broad observations.
First, I would like to note with satisfaction the marked progress
in cooperation on the part of Iran since last October in
particular, by providing Agency inspectors access to requested
sites, documentation and personnel, and by suspending
reprocessing and uranium enrichment related activities, as a
confidence building measure.
Second, I am seriously concerned that Irans October declaration
did not include any reference to its possession of P-2 centrifuge
designs and related R, which in my view was a setback to Irans
stated policy of transparency. This is particularly the case
since the October declaration was characterized as providing "the
full scope of Iranian nuclear activities", including a complete
centrifuge R chronology .
Third, it is vital that, in the coming months, Iran ensures full
transparency with respect to all of its nuclear activities, by
taking the initiative to provide all relevant information in full
detail and in a prompt manner.
Fourth, it is essential that the Agency receive full cooperation
on the part of those countries from which nuclear technology and
equipment originated. This cooperation has already been
forthcoming, and I hope it will continue and expand. This is
particularly the case with respect to the major outstanding issue
regarding the low and high enriched uranium contamination found
at the Kalaye Electric Company workshop and Natanz. Hopefully,
with no new revelations, and with satisfactory resolution of
these and other remaining questions, we can look forward to a
time when the confidence of the international community has been
restored.
Implementation of Safeguards in the Socialist Peoples Libyan
Arab Jamahiriya On 19 December 2003, the Socialist Peoples
Libyan Arab Jamahiriya announced its decision to eliminate all
materials, equipment and programmes leading to the production of
internationally proscribed weapons including nuclear weapons.
In the months since, we have been working closely with the Libyan
authorities to gain a complete picture of Libyas nuclear
programme. The report before you summarizes the details of those
efforts.
Libyas failure, over many years, to declare to the Agency its
nuclear material and activities represents a breach of its
obligation to comply with the provisions of its safeguards
agreement, and its acquisition of a nuclear weapon design is
clearly a matter of utmost concern.
Following the disclosure of its undeclared nuclear activities,
Libya has granted the Agency unrestricted access to all requested
locations, responded promptly to the Agencys requests for
information, and assisted the Agency in gaining a full picture of
its nuclear programme. Libya also agreed to conclude an
additional protocol, and to act in the meantime as if the
protocol is in force. I will be signing this additional protocol
with Libya this week. This active cooperation and openness is
welcome, and will facilitate the Agencys ability to complete its
verification of Libyas past nuclear activities. As in the case
of Iran, the Agency also requires the full cooperation of the
countries from which the nuclear technology and material
originated.
Implications for the Non-Proliferation Regime, and Additional
Measures As part of verifying the nuclear programmes and
activities of Libya and Iran, the Agency has been investigating
the supply routes and sources of nuclear technology, including
related equipment, materials and expertise. As mentioned in our
reports, we have found increasing evidence of a complex black
market network. We are working with many governments, both to
bring relevant findings to their attention and to request
assistance in our further investigation. An important part of our
investigation is to find out whether the sensitive nuclear
technologies in question have been spread to any other countries
or end-users. I will continue to keep the Board informed of
developments.
In my view, one of the most important outcomes of our
verification work in recent months is the lessons we have learned
on measures that must be taken to adapt the nuclear
non-proliferation regime to the new challenges.
First, it should by now be obvious that the additional protocol
is a sine qua non for effective verification. Without an
additional protocol in force, the IAEA has little prospect of
uncovering the increasingly sophisticated clandestine nuclear
weapons programmes. I believe that, for the Agency to be able to
fulfil its verification responsibilities in a credible manner,
the additional protocol must become the standard for all
countries that are party to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty
(NPT).
Second, it is clear that the system in place to control the
export of sensitive nuclear technology must be broadened in its
reach and tightened in its controls. A system that aims to strike
proper balance between necessary controls against abuse, on the
one hand, and the importance of assured access to peaceful
technology, on the other is in the interest of all, and should
command global support. While many aspects of export controls are
not managed by the Agency, they are clearly of direct relevance
to our verification mandate, and we should put in place
mechanisms to ensure that the IAEA is informed of all sensitive
nuclear or nuclear related technology exports.
Third, as I first outlined at last years General Conference, it
is clear that the wide dissemination of the most
proliferation-sensitive parts of the nuclear fuel cycle the
production of new fuel, the processing of weapon-usable material,
and the disposal of spent fuel and radioactive waste could be
the Achilles heel of the nuclear non-proliferation regime.
Here again, it is important to tighten control over these
operations, which could be done by bringing them under some form
of multilateral control, in a limited number of regional centres.
Appropriate checks and balances could be used to preserve
commercial competitiveness, to control proliferation of sensitive
information, and to ensure supply of fuel cycle services. I am
aware that this is a complex issue, and that a variety of views
exist on the feasibility or possible modalities of such a
multilateral approach. However, I believe that we owe it to
ourselves to examine all possible options available to us. For
that reason I will soon appoint a group of experts to examine in
depth the feasibility of moving forward with such measures, and I
will naturally share their findings with you.
In the meantime, existing facilities that use high enriched
uranium (HEU) applications for example, to produce medical
radioisotopes should continue, gradually but irreversibly, to
be converted to low enriched processes. In this respect, I am
pleased to note continued progress with Agency support on
converting research reactors to use low enriched fuel.
Naturally, we must continue also to press for a more effective
global regime for the physical protection of nuclear and
radioactive materials and nuclear facilities, particularly in
regions that remain vulnerable.
Finally, I hope that, at next years NPT Review Conference,
parties to the Treaty will consider some of these urgently needed
measures and agree on a specific course of action that will help
re-engineer the non-proliferation regime and revive the stalling
nuclear arms control and disarmament process.
Financing of the Technical Cooperation Fund
As I reported to you in February, we experienced a serious
shortfall in contributions to the Technical Cooperation Fund
(TCF) in 2003, resulting in a rate of attainment of only 77% for
the year, well below the 90% minimum set by the General
Conference. As outlined in my report on this subject, the
Secretariat has had to take the unprecedented step of cutting the
2004 TC programme by $5 million as an immediate response to this
shortfall.
The Secretariat remains hopeful that additional payments will be
made to the 2003 TCF so that the rate of attainment for that year
can be reached. Nonetheless, the current situation deserves the
Boards serious attention.
The TC programme is a major part of the Agencys mandate. As such
it should be a matter of concern for all Member States and I hope
in that regard that the symbiotic nature of all parts of our
mandate is understood by those who are not paying their target
share. I should also remind all Member States that the TCF target
and the rate of attainment were part of a good faith agreement
that aimed to remove the shielding of safeguards expenses in the
regular budget and ensure adequate funding for the TC programme,
through the TCF. When Member States fail to contribute their
dues, either to the regular budget or the TCF, the balance in
Agency activities, as well as the bargains inherent in the
non-proliferation regime, are placed in jeopardy at a time when
we can all ill afford it.
Poor payment records are not limited to one geographic region.
The failure of large donor States to meet their contributions may
have a more sizeable impact on the TCF, but the failure by large
numbers of recipient States to contribute their share in some
cases paying nothing at all has an equally detrimental effect
on the programme and its objectives.
We are presently engaged in appraising all the project requests
that have been submitted for the 20052006 TC cycle. The ability
to reliably plan and deliver an effective programme and to help
Member States meet their developmental priorities is dependent
on whether all countries contribute their full share.
Naturally, the Secretariat remains committed to efficiency and
effectiveness in carrying out the TC programme. In that regard,
we have continued to benefit from the assistance and advice of
the Standing Committee on Technical Assistance and Cooperation
(SAGTAC). I should note that during its meeting last week, SAGTAC
referred to the significant progress already achieved within the
TC Department in redirecting the Agencys technical cooperation
programme since 1997. Today this programme operates with
significantly improved efficiency and more effectively addresses
the identified priority needs of its Member States. SAGTAC also
noted that this progress had been achieved despite human and
financial resource restraints. I should also mention that the
Agencys Office of Internal Oversight Services has also been
carrying out a review of TC processes and needs, and a report on
that review will be made available to the Board in June.
Security Upgrades at the Vienna International Centre
I should take this opportunity to inform the Board that,
following the bombing of the UN offices in Baghdad last August, a
global threat assessment was initiated by the UN Security
Coordinators office. The UN Secretary-General will be submitting
a comprehensive report to the General Assembly this month, with a
request for the resources required to ensure that adequate
security measures are in place.
The Agency and the other organizations in the Vienna
International Centre are now also reviewing measures to improve
physical security on our premises, as well as consulting with our
Austrian hosts. A more detailed briefing, including implications
for the Agency, will be provided at the upcoming Workshop on
Financial and Administrative Matters in April, as well as at the
next session of the Programme and Budget Committee.
Conclusion
The Agencys verification role continues to be in the spotlight;
the nuclear non-proliferation regime remains under stress, and a
range of measures will be needed to restore confidence in its
effectiveness. We have made solid progress in building an
effective nuclear safety regime but pockets of weakness remain,
in both the nuclear and the radiation safety areas. Nuclear
technologies provide significant opportunities for economic and
social development but we must work together to maximize their
benefits and minimize their risks. And our effectiveness in
delivering peaceful nuclear technologies to address development
needs is dependent on all Member States contributing their
financial share. I look forward to your continued support on all
these fronts.
More DG Statements » Copyright 2003-2004, International Atomic
Energy Agency, P.O. Box 100, Wagramer Strasse 5, A-1400 Vienna,
Austria Telephone (+431) 2600-0; Facsimilie (+431) 2600-7;
E-mail: [Official.Mail@iaea.org] Disclaimer
*****************************************************************
17 IAEA: IAEA Seminars Promote Vital Role of Nuclear Safeguards
+ [IAEA.ORG :: Atoms for Peace]
Regional Seminars for Countries in Africa, Europe and Latin
America
Staff Report
10 March 2004 [Minister Alphonse Bonou]
Burkina Faso hosted the latest IAEA safeguards seminar. (Credit:
J. Lodding/IAEA)
+ Story Resources
+ Department of Safeguards
+ Safeguards Legal Framework
+ Additional Protocols
+ Safeguards &Additional Protocols
+ NPT Text/Status
+ IAEA Meetings/Seminars
[http://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/Meetings/Meetings2004.asp]
+ Previous Story
A series of IAEA regional seminars for governmental
decision-makers is encouraging more countries to place all their
nuclear activities and materials under strengthened safeguards,
a step that would enable the IAEA to verify their commitments
against the further spread of nuclear weapons. In late February,
a seminar was held for African countries in Burkina Faso, and
more seminars are scheduled in Namibia, Vienna, and Jamaica.
The seminars aim to deepen understanding about safeguards, and
how and why agreements are concluded, in the context of peaceful
nuclear cooperation, security, and non-proliferation. Sessions
typically include expert overviews and panel discussions on the
role of safeguards and how they have been strengthened through
additional protocols and other measures. Most IAEA safeguards
agreements are concluded pursuant to the Treaty on the
Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT). The Treaty obligates
States to conclude comprehensive safeguards agreements with the
IAEA covering all their nuclear material and activities. The
Agency's safeguards system is also foreseen as the means of
verifying compliance with regional Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zone
(NWFZ) Treaties, including the one in Africa known as the
Pelindaba Treaty.
The seminar in Burkina Faso was held in Ouagadougou, with
financial support from France and Japan, for States of the
Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS), plus
Equatorial Guinea and Gabon. More than 25 participants from 10
West African countries participated. Minister Alphonse Bonou of
Burkina Faso called on all States of ECOWAS to bring into force
and implement the instruments that would strengthen the
non-proliferation regime, in particular the Pelindaba Treaty and
the necessary IAEA safeguards agreements and additional
protocols. The Minister recalled the importance of South-South
cooperation and the participants' recommendation that the ECOWAS
Secretariat, in addition to its responsibilities with regard to
stemming the spread of small arms, play a greater role in
promoting the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons among its
members.
Over the past year, IAEA safeguards agreements and additional
protocols in the African region entered into force for Burkina
Faso, Madagascar, and the Democratic Republic of the Congo. In
addition, such legal instruments were submitted by Gabon, Togo,
and Niger for approval of the IAEA Board. It is expected that a
number of countries of West Africa - an important uranium
producing region - will follow these steps to bring their own
safeguards agreements and additional protocols into force in the
near future. All African States are NPT Parties and 50 of them
have signed the Pelindaba Treaty. Most of them use peaceful
nuclear applications to address development problems in
agriculture, health, water resources and other fields. Copyright
2003-2004, International Atomic Energy Agency, P.O. Box 100,
Wagramer Strasse 5, A-1400 Vienna, Austria
Telephone (+431) 2600-0; Facsimilie (+431) 2600-7; E-mail:
Official.Mail@iaea.org [Official.Mail@iaea.org]
Disclaimer
*****************************************************************
18 IAEA: Libya Signs Additional Protocol on Nuclear Safeguards
+ [IAEA.ORG :: Atoms for Peace]
Signing Ceremony Takes Place at IAEA Headquarters
Staff Report
10 March 2004 [Libya: Signing of the Additional Protocol]
Signing ceremony of the Additional Protocol. (Credit: D.
Calma/IAEA)
Libya today signed an Additional Protocol to its Nuclear
Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) safeguards agreement, giving IAEA
inspectors greater authority in verifying the countrys nuclear
programme. Mr. Matooq Mohamed Matooq, Assistant Secretary for
Services Affairs of the General Peoples Committee of the
Socialist Peoples Libyan Arab Jamahiria, and IAEA Director
General Mohamed ElBaradei signed the Protocol that requires
Libya to provide expanded declaration of its nuclear activities.
The Protocol grants IAEA inspectors broader rights of access to
sites in the country allowing them to provide assurance about
both declared and possible undeclared activities. Libya has
stated its intention to act as if the protocol is already in
place, pending its formal entry into force.
On 19 December 2003, Libya announced its decision to eliminate
all materials, equipment and programmes leading to the
production of internationally proscribed weapons - including
nuclear weapons. Since then the IAEA has been working closely
with the Libyan authorities to gain a complete picture of
Libyas nuclear programme and history.
Dr. ElBaradei said signing the Protocol was an indication of
Libyas commitment to move away from weapons of mass
destruction. It will allow the Agency to verify that nuclear
activities in Libya are used only for peaceful purposes. Libya
would continue to reap the full benefits of nuclear applications
for peaceful uses such as energy, agriculture and medicine, he
said.
In his March report to the IAEA Board, Dr. ElBaradei stated
"following the disclosure of its undeclared nuclear activities,
Libya has granted the Agency unrestricted access to all
requested locations, responded promptly to the Agencys requests
for information, and assisted the Agency in gaining a full
picture of its nuclear programme... This active cooperation and
openness is welcome, and will facilitate the Agencys ability to
complete its verification of Libyas past nuclear activities. As
in the case of Iran, the Agency also requires the full
cooperation of the countries from which the nuclear technology
and material originated."
To date Additional Protocols are in force in only 54 States. "I
reiterate my call on all States that have not done so to
conclude and bring into force their respective safeguards
agreements and additional protocols," Dr. ElBaradei said.
Copyright 2003-2004, International Atomic Energy Agency, P.O.
Box 100, Wagramer Strasse 5, A-1400 Vienna, Austria
Telephone (+431) 2600-0; Facsimilie (+431) 2600-7; E-mail:
Official.Mail@iaea.org [Official.Mail@iaea.org]
Disclaimer
*****************************************************************
19 Las Vegas SUN: Dossier on Libya Nuclear Program to Close
By GEORGE JAHN ASSOCIATED PRESS
VIENNA, Austria (AP) - Preparing to close the books on Libya,
the U.N. atomic agency on Wednesday urged the Security Council
to note the country's past attempts to produce nuclear weapons
but praised it for making good on a pledge to abandon its
weapons program.
The International Atomic Energy Agency's 35-member board of
governors adopted the resolution unanimously. U.S. chief
delegate Kenneth Brill said countries like Iran, whose nuclear
agenda also is under investigation, should follow Tripoli's
example.
"A country that truly comes clean with the agency and truly
cooperates ... gets a constructive response," Brill told
reporters. "Countries that seek to avoid providing the kind of
cooperation that Libya has continue to be the subjects of
intensified ... scrutiny."
Iran asserts its nuclear programs are peaceful and has promised
to cooperate with IAEA inspectors to clear away suspicions
prompted by revelations last year of uranium enrichment and
other activities that could be used to make weapons. Since then,
however, new finds by IEAE inspectors of undeclared items have
cast doubt on Tehran's assertions that it has no more nuclear
secrets.
Libya signed an agreement Wednesday opening up its nuclear
activities to pervasive IAEA perusal, a step that both agency
Director General Mohamed ElBaradei and Libyan Science Minister
Matouq Mohamed Matouq said reflected Tripoli's commitment to
scrap its weapons of mass destruction.
The agreement gives IAEA inspectors broad rights to oversee all
nuclear programs and make sure they remain peaceful. Inspectors
had already gone to Libya to make sure it dismantles its nuclear
weapons program.
Diplomats said Libya has nothing to fear from the Security
Council. But reporting Libya for violating the Nuclear
Nonproliferation Treaty sets a possible precedent to do the same
with Tehran if the board decides in a June meeting that it
violated the treaty. That could lead to Security Council censure
or sanctions.
"Everyone knows what the meaning of this is," a U.S. official
told AP, speaking on condition of anonymity. "If this can pass
for Libya, it can pass for Iran."
A draft being discussed by the board contains harsh language on
Iran's lapses in reporting all suspicious nuclear activities. In
contrast, the Libyan resolution was lavish in praise,
"applauding" Tripoli's decision to give up its nuclear weapons
ambitions; "commending" it for cooperating with the IAEA; and
"welcoming" its decision to agree to pervasive agency
inspection.
Progress on Libya has been rapid since it announced in December
that it had programs for weapons of mass destruction and pledged
to scrap them. A ship left the country for the United States on
the weekend carrying 500 tons of cargo - the last of the
equipment that Moammar Gadhafi's government had used for its
nuclear program.
The decision to give up such programs is part of Gadhafi's
effort to end his country's international isolation, restore
diplomatic relations with the United States and attract foreign
investment.
--
*****************************************************************
20 NRC: NRC, PSEG to Discuss Work Environment at Salem, Hope Creek Nuclear Power Plants
News Release - Region I - 2004-00
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
Office of Public Affairs, Region I
No. I-04-008 March 11, 2004
CONTACT: Diane Screnci (610) 337-5330
Neil A. Sheehan (610) 337-5331 E-mail: opa1@nrc.gov
[opa1@nrc.gov]
Service Enterprise Group (PSEG) managers on March 18 to discuss
the environment for raising and addressing safety issues at the
Salem and Hope Creek nuclear power plants. PSEG Nuclear operates
the plants, which are located in Hancocks Bridge, N.J.
The meeting will begin at 2 p.m. at the Holiday Inn Select
Bridgeport, which is located off Exit 10 of Interstate 295 in
Swedesboro, N.J. It will be open to the public for observation
and there will be an opportunity for members of the public to
ask questions of NRC staff after the business portion of the
meeting is concluded but before the session is adjourned.
On January 28, the NRC sent a letter to PSEG regarding the
plants safety conscious work environment, which refers to an
openness to safety concerns and effectiveness in dealing with
them. In order to better assess the state of the plants work
environment, the letter asked PSEG to conduct its own in-depth
assessment, with a plan of action requested within 30 days.
PSEG provided a response on February 27, noting it had formed an
Independent Assessment Team, whose fieldwork is expected to be
completed by mid-April.
Last revised Thursday, March 11, 2004
*****************************************************************
21 AFP: China brings homemade nuclear power plant online
spacewar.com
BEIJING (AFP) Mar 11, 2004
China brought online its third domestically built nuclear
reactor Thursday, reflecting efforts at localizing technology and
design in the nation's growing nuclear power industry, state
press said.
The 600 megawatt reactor in eastern Zhejiang province joins a
similar reactor that went online in April 2002 and forms the 1.8
billion dollar second phase project of the Qinshan nuclear
facility, the China Daily said.
The two reactors will supply some 16 billion kilowatt-hours of
electricity to energy-short east China during their 40-year
lifespan, the newspaper said.
A Chinese designed 300 megawatt reactor known as the Qinshan No.
1 reactor went online in May 1994 and is the first-ever Chinese
designed presurized light water reactor.
A phase three project at Qinshan includes a pair of Canadian
built pressurized heavy water reactors which are currently under
construction.
China's nuclear power industry, although only providing a small
percentage of its overall energy, is expected to be one of the
world's fastest growing in the coming years.
In December, the China National Nuclear Corp (CNNC) and the
Guangdong Nuclear Power Corp drafted tender documents for an
additional four 1,000 megawatt nuclear reactors.
Foreign companies such as Electricite de France, Westinghouse of
the United States and Japan's Mitsubishi have been scrambling for
a piece of the action as Beijing works to meet rising energy
needs.
The four 1,000 megawatt pressurized water nuclear power
facilities will be located in Sanmen, in eastern Zhejiang
province, and Lingdong, in southern Guangdong province in 2005.
The country has set an ambitious goal of having a nuclear
capacity of 36,000 megawatts by the year 2020 -- four times its
current level.
Nuclear power currently accounts for just 1.3 percent of China's
electricity supply.
Eight of the 11 nuclear power plants currently operating or being
constructed in China have been built by foreign companies.
At present, China has four French-made nuclear power reactors
running in southern Guangdong province and an additional two
other Russian-made reactors under construction in eastern Jiangsu
province.
WAR.WIRE
*****************************************************************
22 NRC: Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection;
FR Doc 04-5434
[Federal Register: March 11, 2004 (Volume 69, Number 48)]
[Notices] [Page 11668-11669] From the Federal Register Online via
GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr11mr04-162]
Comment Request AGENCY: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC).
ACTION: Notice of pending NRC action to submit an information
collection request to OMB and solicitation of public comment.
SUMMARY: The NRC is preparing a submittal to OMB for review of
continued approval of information collections under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C.
Chapter 35). Information pertaining to the requirement to be
submitted:
1. The title of the information collection: NRC Forms 540 and
540A, ``Uniform Low-Level Radioactive Waste Manifest (Shipping
Paper) and Continuation Page;'' NRC Forms 541 and 541A, ``Uniform
Low-Level Radioactive Waste Manifest, Container and Waste
Description, and Continuation Page;'' NRC Forms 542 and 542A,
``Uniform Low-Level Radioactive Waste Manifest, Index and
Regional Compact Tabulation.''
2. Current OMB approval number: 3150-0164 for NRC Forms 540 and
540A; 3150-0166 for NRC Forms 541 and 541A; and 3150-0165 for NRC
Forms 542 and 542A.
3. How often the collection is required: Forms are used by
shippers whenever radioactive waste is shipped. Quarterly or less
frequent reporting is made to NRC depending on specific license
conditions.
4. Who is required or asked to report: All NRC-licensed low-level
waste facilities. All generators, collectors, and processors of
low- level waste intended for disposal at a low-level waste
facility must complete the appropriate forms.
5. The number of annual respondents: NRC Forms 540 and 540A:
2,500 licensees.
NRC Forms 541 and 541A: 2,500 licensees.
NRC Forms 542 and 542A: 22 licensees.
6. The number of hours needed annually to complete the
requirement or request: NRC Forms 540 and 540A: 10,050 (.75 hours
per response). NRC Forms 541 and 541A: 44,341 (3.3 hours per
response). NRC Forms 542 and 542A: 567 (.75 hours per response).
7. Abstract: NRC Forms 540, 541, and 542, together with their
continuation pages, designated by the ``A'' suffix, provide a set
of standardized forms to meet Department of Transportation (DOT),
NRC, and State requirements. The forms were developed by NRC at
the request of low-level waste industry groups. The forms provide
uniformity and efficiency in the collection of information
contained in manifests which are required to control transfers of
low-level radioactive waste intended for disposal at a land
disposal facility. NRC Form 540 contains information needed to
satisfy DOT shipping paper requirements in 49 CFR part 172 and
the waste tracking requirements of NRC in 10 CFR part 20. NRC
Form 541 contains information needed by disposal site facilities
to safely dispose of low-level waste and information to meet NRC
and State requirements regulating these activities. NRC Form 542,
completed by waste collectors or processors, contains information
which facilitates tracking the identity of the waste generator.
That tracking becomes more complicated when the waste forms,
dimensions, or packagings are changed by the waste processor.
Each container of waste shipped from a waste processor may
contain waste from several different generators. The information
provided on NRC Form 542 permits the States and Compacts to know
the original generators of low-level waste, as authorized by the
Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1985, so
they can ensure that waste is disposed of in the appropriate
Compact.
Submit, by May 10, 2004, comments that address the following
questions:
1. Is the proposed collection of information necessary for
the NRC
to properly perform its functions? Does the information have
practical
utility?
2. Is the burden estimate accurate?
3. Is there a way to enhance the quality, utility, and
clarity of
the information to be collected?
4. How can the burden of the information collection be
minimized,
including the use of automated collection techniques or other
forms of
information technology?
A copy of the draft supporting statement may be viewed free of
charge at the NRC Public Document Room, One White Flint North,
11555 Rockville Pike, Room O-1 F21, Rockville, MD 20852. OMB
clearance requests are available at the NRC worldwide Web site:
http://www.nrc.gov/public-involve/doc-comment/omb/index.html
[http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/leaving.cgi?from=leaving
FR.html&log=linklog&to=http://www.nrc.gov/public-involve/doc-comm
ent/omb/index.html] .
The document
will be available on the NRC
[[Page 11669]]
home page site for 60 days after the signature date of this
notice.
Comments and questions about the information collection
requirements may be directed to the NRC Clearance Officer, Brenda
Jo. Shelton, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, T-5 F52,
Washington, DC 20555-0001, by telephone at 301-415-7233, or by
Internet electronic mail to INFOCOLLECTS@NRC.GOV
[INFOCOLLECTS@NRC.GOV] . Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 5th
day of March 2004.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission Brenda Jo. Shelton, NRC
Clearance Officer, Office of the Chief Information Officer.
[FR Doc. 04-5434 Filed 3-10-04; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
*****************************************************************
23 AJC: Environmental lobby's efforts backfire
[http://www.ajc.com]
By STAN WISE Special to the Atlanta Journal-Constitution
Published on: 03/11/2004
Stan Wise is a member of the Georgia Public Service Commission
and president of the National Association of Regulatory
Commissioners.
In an attempt to shut down coal-fired power plants and make us
feel bad about driving our SUVs, the environmental lobby would
have us believe that smog and pollution are hitting record highs
and shortening our lives.
Science tells us, however, that sulfur dioxide in metro Atlanta
has decreased 75 percent since the 1970s, even though the
population has more than doubled and the number of cars has
quadrupled during this same period. Since 1990, Georgia Power Co.
has decreased sulfur dioxide emissions by 42 percent and nitrogen
oxide by 38 percent, while increasing power generation by 21
percent.
Although we have abundant coal resources and cleaner technologies
available for its use in generating power, the environmental
lobby has stymied attempts to expand and has all but eliminated
any attempt to construct new, coal-fired electric generators.
Nuclear power -- one of the cheapest, cleanest and safest ways to
produce electricity and protect our environment -- has suffered
the same fate. This industry was in the midst of a comeback until
the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, when environmentalists
used the tragic events of that day to inject paranoia into the
debate.
Unfortunately, the power industry now relies on one primary
alternative -- natural gas. Almost every electric generating unit
in this country that has gone on line in the past five years is
fueled by natural gas. This overreliance on a single fuel source
has caused prices for natural gas to fluctuate as much as 300
percent in recent years, leaving our more vulnerable residents at
risk.
The latest energy source to be hijacked by the environmental
lobby is green power, a term used to describe electricity
produced by more environmentally friendly means such as solar,
wind power, geothermal and biomass, and small hydroelectric
sources.
This emerging source of energy provides the benefits of renewable
resources, less air pollution, less fuel exploration and less
dependence on foreign fuel. Energy derived from green sources is
not specifically delivered to the customers who choose it, but to
the power grid, which displaces power that would have otherwise
been produced from traditional generating sources.
Only a few thousand customers have taken advantage of green power
purchase plans offered by several electric membership
cooperatives in our state. Georgia Power Co. has a plan before
the Georgia Public Service Commission to initiate a similar
program for its customers, but the environmental lobby is pushing
its own agenda.
The current costs of producing green power are significantly
greater than through traditional means. To encourage its use,
some states subsidize these costs. The environmental lobby wants
Georgia to follow this same misguided path.
Though I am committed to expanding the development and
procurement of green energy, I will not ask ratepayers of Georgia
to pay more so that a select few can feel good about what powers
their light bulb. This fiscally conservative approach has served
us well in Georgia, where we enjoy power rates far below the
national average. Consumers who want to purchase green power do
so at a premium so as not to put others at risk. Georgia Power is
not permitted to make a profit on the program; excess earnings
are used to expand the program or lower the cost.
Like the EMC providers, Georgia Power will use landfill gas to
generate green energy. The environmental lobby is objecting to
Georgia Power's plan because they do not consider it to be a "new
source" and they are preoccupied with whether the program meets
"Green-E" accreditation by the Center for Resource Solutions
based in California.
The only criterion that was not met by this resource was the date
the resource was developed. It didn't matter that the actual
results of using the resource would accomplish every single
environmental concern listed by the accreditation process;
because it was not "new" it could not get accredited. There are
many successful green energy programs across the country that are
not accredited.
As an elected official, it is my duty to make decisions that are
best for Georgia consumers. I applaud the efforts of the Green-E
certification process and will vote to include certified
contracts every time they make sense for Georgia.
However, I will not have the environmental lobby dictate that I
must turn down an otherwise good program simply because a company
in San Francisco has not recognized it. Efforts to develop new
resources are admirable and worthwhile, but Georgia should not
tie its hands to a single group's agenda. The issues of fuel
diversity and green power are too important to be held hostage by
turf wars and hidden agendas.
Stan Wise is a member of the Georgia Public Service Commission
and president of the National Association of Regulatory
Commissioners.
© 2004 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution [http://www.ajc.com/]
*****************************************************************
24 lancaster eagle gazette: Davis-Besse Staff Should Get Tougher -
lancastereaglegazette.com
Thursday, March 11, 2004
EDITORIAL
Atoms again are being split inside the reactor core at the
Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station, something that hasn't happened
for about 25 months.
This is good economic news for Ottawa County, and it's a positive
development for 800 workers at the plant and their families.
The past two years cannot have been easy for the workers and
families. There must have been tremendous frustration and even
anger over the harsh words spoken about the operation of the
plant and the pace of repairs. There also must have been major
worries about whether jobs at the plant were secure.
So, there is reason for celebration today at Davis-Besse and its
parent company, FirstEnergy, but the revelry must be tempered by
the awesome responsibility of operating a nuclear power plant.
Overall, the commercial nuclear power industry in the United
States has been a safe enterprise, but a severe accident could
have catastrophic consequences.
Over the two years of the shutdown, we have been highly critical
of FirstEnergy and the federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission. In
fact, we have argued that FirstEnergy's performance demonstrates
that it should not be allowed to operate Davis-Besse, and we have
said that we don't trust the NRC to protect the public's
interests over those of the utilities that operate the nation's
nuclear plants.
We still have difficulty believing that FirstEnergy and the NRC
can be trusted, but we are encouraged by the words of David
Lochbaum, a nuclear safety engineer affiliated with the Union of
Concerned Scientists. Lochbaum and his organization are critics
of nuclear power in general and have been critical of Davis-Besse
in particular. So, when Lochbaum says he thinks that Davis-Besse
is safe to restart, that carries a lot of weight.
"A lot of things have been fixed at the plant over the last two
years," Lochbaum told the Fremont News-Messenger on Monday in an
interview from Washington. "The thing that gets a lot of
attention is the nuclear reactor head. But they fixed the
high-pressure injection pumps. They fixed the containment sump
screens, containment air coolers, and they also upgraded a lot of
the coatings and insulation inside (the containment building) to
lessen debris (in the containment building) in case of an
accident. Also, literally hundreds of procedure changes and
enhancements were made."
We are encouraged that the restart has Lochbaum's endorsement,
but the proof will be in the way that FirstEnergy operates the
plant.
More than two years ago, the NRC staff recommended that
Davis-Besse be shut down for an inspection, about two months
before its scheduled refueling outage. FirstEnergy lobbied the
NRC and convinced NRC leaders to allow it to stay online,
maintaining that the plant was safe. It was a month into the
refueling outage that severe corrosion was found on the reactor
head. The corrosion was caused by the problem that led NRC
staffers to recommend the earlier shutdown.
So, what is the lesson learned from that and the two-year
shutdown that followed? Certainly, there are many lessons, but
here's our advice to FirstEnergy:
Be tougher on yourselves than the NRC would ever think of being.
Think safety first and make sure that every executive, manager,
supervisor, operator and worker understands that. Tell the NRC
that you're shutting the plant down unexpectedly because you want
to inspect equipment rather than waiting for the NRC to order a
shutdown. And if the NRC staff recommends a shutdown, stop
operation immediately.
Davis-Besse will continue to be under tremendous scrutiny in the
coming months and years. FirstEnergy should vow that it will be
the industry model of a safe nuclear plant and never let go of
that goal.
-- Fremont News-Messenger
Originally published Thursday, March 11, 2004
Copyright ©2004 Lancaster Eagle-Gazette. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
25 toledoblade.com: Davis-Besse faces long road back
Thursday, March 11, 2004
Extra safety precautions to remain 3-5 years, regulator says
By TOM HENRY [thenry@theblade.com] BLADE STAFF WRITER
WASHINGTON - Extraordinary safety inspections imposed for
Monday’s restart of the Davis-Besse nuclear plant will remain in
place for at least three to five years - if not longer, the
nation’s top nuclear regulator told The Blade yesterday.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Chairman Nils Diaz told the
newspaper that his agency will not tolerate having history repeat
itself at Davis-Besse.
In addition to the just-completed, two-year shutdown for reactor
lid corrosion and other safety problems, he cited Davis-Besse’s
18-month shutdown that began in June, 1985, when a failure of
reactor pumps and other equipment halted the flow of cooling
water to the reactor.
Asked when he thought the NRC would scale back the additional
inspections and treat Davis-Besse with the same trust as one of
the nation’s 102 other nuclear plants again, Dr. Diaz responded:
"Not anytime soon."
His interview followed the morning session of the NRC’s 16th
annual Regulatory Information Conference at the Capitol Hilton
just north of the White House. More than 1,300 government
officials, utility executives, and technical experts from several
countries have gathered for three days to discuss nuclear issues
that included the Aug. 14 blackout, terrorism threats, and
Davis-Besse.
During his keynote speech, Dr. Diaz said the corrosion and other
problems at Davis-Besse have marred the nuclear industry’s
generally favorable safety record in the 25 years since the
meltdown at the Three Mile Island plant in Pennsylvania in March,
1979.
Dr. Diaz said Davis-Besse stands out as a "prime example" of what
can happen when the NRC and the nuclear industry let down their
guard.
The plant’s reactor head was so corroded that a pineapple-sized
hole was found through six inches of carbon steel and only a
cracked and buckling layer of stainless steel as thin as a pencil
eraser had prevented a rupture that would have allowed
radioactive steam into the reactor’s containment building.
Investigators determined that the emergency water supply system
that was in place at the time to cool down the reactor was so
poorly designed it might not have worked.
Davis-Besse’s close call "should not have been possible," Dr.
Diaz told the conference attendees.
The NRC typically has two resident inspectors at each nuclear
plant. At Davis-Besse, a third was added months ago. For the next
several weeks, it will have as many as seven. Three to four
others have been brought in from other plants. At least two
inspectors will be on duty for every shift at the plant until
further notice, said NRC spokesman Jan Strasma.
Among the conditions set down for the plant’s restart, parent
company FirstEnergy Corp. has agreed to an unprecedented measure:
Paying thousands of dollars to have outside experts audit the
company’s findings for at least five years.
FirstEnergy also agreed to bare-metal inspections of both the
reactor head and bottom during upcoming, scheduled outages - the
most expensive form of examination and the one with the most
radiological risk to workers.
The reactor has been refueled to last years, but the utility
plans to have its next outage in a year to do more maintenance.
Dr. Diaz said a higher level of evaluations are in the works for
Davis-Besse in several areas, including engineering. He said the
utility must work hard for at least three to five years before
the NRC will agree to allow the heightened scrutiny to be scaled
back.
"They’re going to have to earn it. They won’t be given that," he
said.
Gary Leidich, president of FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Co., the
subsidiary which operates the plant, told The Blade that he
believes Dr. Diaz was "right on target" with his comments.
"This is an industry that requires constant vigilance," Mr.
Leidich said.
FirstEnergy is slowly restarting the reactor and expects to begin
generating electricity for the power grid by Monday.
Dr. Diaz said during his speech that the nuclear industry should
be proud of its safety record in the 50 years since former
President Dwight Eisenhower’s famous "Atoms for Peace" speech,
the benchmark for the industry’s roots.
But Jim Dyer, NRC nuclear reactor regulation chief, said he is a
little uncomfortable by recent data which shows a slight increase
in the frequency of unplanned emergency shutdowns - known as
"scrams" - as well as other reportable events at the nation’s
nuclear plants.
Tom Henry can be reached at thenry@theblade.com or 419-724-6079.
For earlier stories on Davis-Besse, go to
www.toledoblade.com/davisbesse.
2004 The Blade. The Toledo Blade Company, 541 N. Superior St.,
Toledo, OH 43660 , (419) 724-6000
*****************************************************************
26 Guardian Unlimited: Electricity users may face £1bn penalty
Terry Macalister
Thursday March 11, 2004
The Guardian [http://www.guardian.co.uk]
Householders were told yesterday that they will have to stump up
£1bn through higher electricity prices to prevent blackouts and
rebuild an energy supply infrastructure which is nearing the end
of its life.
The claim from a trade and industry committee came as the prime
minister was forced to defend the government's energy policy amid
claims that the supply infrastructure was "clapped out".
The cross-party committee said it had been given the £1bn figure
by power companies which were accused of putting "insufficient
investment" into a system that was hit last year by power
failures.
The committee also believed that skills shortages in the industry
were a growing problem. It was also critical of the fact that
reports by the Department of Trade and Industry and the regulator
Ofgem into last year's blackouts in London and Birmingham took so
long to complete and had not been made public.
Martin O'Neill, the committee chairman, said suppliers had
calculated the additional bill to residential customers at £5 a
year for 10 years.
He said the supply system had been "gold-plated" before
privatisation but companies had been living off that cushion for
too long.
"The lights are not going to go out quickly but they could go out
slowly," the Labour MP said, dismissing the chances of dramatic
and unpredicted failures like those seen recently in North
America and Italy.
The committee said firms had been under pressure to minimise
operational expenditure on maintenance and repair. It might
require a change in the regulatory framework to enable them to
plan long-term investment to prepare the system for the next 20
years.
The £1bn increase in consumers' bills would be in addition to the
burden on industrial customers, and further expenditure would be
needed to connect renewable energy plants to the national grid.
Industry regulator Ofgem needed to change its focus from driving
down electricity prices to taking a wider view that ensured
security of supply, said the committee.
MPs were scathing about the fact that Ofgem had still not
reported on the power blackouts nine months after they had
happened and criticised the DTI for not making its findings
public.
"The lack of transparency in the process raises suspicions among
the public that the companies may be let off lightly ... The lack
of transparency coupled with the length of the process may
undermine confidence that the authorities are effective in
ensuring a reliable electricity supply," it said.
The report, Resilience of the National Electricity Network, was
released on the same day as a BBC programme claimed there could
be power cuts "within two years".
The television programme, titled If the Lights Go Out, included a
contribution from government energy adviser Dieter Helm arguing
that the infrastructure was "clapped out".
"If you want the lights to stay on, if you want security of
supply, if you want what a modern economy needs, you have to be
absolutely clear what your priorities are, who has the right
powers and how they will be exercised - then the market works.
But we're a long way from that," he told the BBC.
The energy issue surfaced in the House of Commons, where the
prime minister defended the government's "balanced" energy policy
and dismissed suggestions that Britain could face electricity
shortages.
"As well as maintaining a coal industry, we are also maintaining
the nuclear industry and we are importing energy where we can
from secure sources," said Tony Blair.
"That is why it is important that people's beliefs about
electricity supply are not ruined by programmes that, let us say,
are being a little speculative about what may happen over the
next few years," the prime minister added.
Sign up for the Backbencher Our free weekly insider's
guide to Westminster
Special report Green politics
Useful link Green party of England and Wales
[http://www.greenparty.org.uk]
politics.editor@guardianunlimited.co.uk]
[UP]
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2004
*****************************************************************
27 Seattle Times: Weapons crew at Bangor damaged nuclear missile
Thursday, March 11, 2004 - Page updated at 09:37 A.M.
By Ray Rivera, Mike Carter and Christine Clarridge
Seattle Times staff reporters
The Trident I C-4 missile
[http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/news/local/links/trident.html]
A Navy crew late last year accidentally damaged a Trident I
nuclear missile while offloading it from a submarine at Naval
Submarine Base Bangor, according to military and civilian sources
familiar with the incident.
Within weeks the Navy relieved the entire command group in charge
of handling the weapons at the Strategic Weapons Facility,
Pacific (SWFPAC), located at Bangor.
Sources said no radioactive material was released in the November
incident, and military experts said the chances of a nuclear
explosion were extremely remote.
The accident involved a Trident I C-4 missile being unloaded from
a missile tube on the USS Georgia submarine, according to the
sources.
The nose cone of the 34-foot missile was damaged as it was being
hoisted into a protective canister by the weapons handling crew,
the sources said.
Yesterday, the Navy would neither confirm nor deny that any such
accident took place. However, Pamela Sims, a spokeswoman for the
Navy Strategic Systems Programs Office in Washington, D.C., said
that four senior Navy personnel, including three officers, were
reassigned due to a "loss of confidence."
Keith Lyles, commanding officer of SWFPAC; his executive officer,
Phillip Jackson; weapons officer Marshall Millett; and command
master chief Steven Perry were relieved of duty, Sims said.
She said she could not comment on the reassignments, or what led
to the sweeping personnel action.
"Safety is paramount in everything we do in the Navy and a
primary focus for our leadership at every level of command," Sims
said.
"Navy leadership is continuously engaged in the performance of
all commands, their missions and those responsible for the
performance of those missions. When necessary, appropriate
actions are taken to ensure that the highest Navy standards are
upheld."
When contacted this week, Lyles, Jackson and others involved with
incident declined to comment.
Emergency-management officials in Kitsap County say Navy protocol
requires they be contacted if an accident at the base posed a
health or safety threat. Phyllis Mann, the emergency-management
director, said her office was not notified.
A spokesman for U.S. Rep. Norm Dicks, D-Bremerton, said the
congressman, whose district includes the base, has contacted the
Navy and is looking into the matter.
The Trident I is an intercontinental ballistic missile armed with
up to eight warheads, each with a yield of about 100 kilotons.
One kiloton is equivalent to the explosive force of 1,000 tons of
TNT. Safeguards built into nuclear weapons make an atomic
explosion extremely unlikely.
However, a fire, the detonation of the missile's rocket fuel, or
a blast involving conventional explosives inside the warhead
could spread radioactive material and contaminate a wide area,
according to several weapons experts.
There have been at least three other accidents — all minor —
involving Trident missiles at Bangor since 1991, according to
Navy documents provided to peace activist Glen Milner as part of
an ongoing federal environmental lawsuit filed against the base.
Prior to the November incident, the last occurred on Nov. 2,
2001, when it was discovered that a cover on a first-stage motor
of a Trident missile had been damaged.
Milner did not know if any crew members or officers were fired or
disciplined as a result of the mishaps.
Dr. Sidney Drell, professor emeritus of theoretical physics at
Stanford University and the former chairman of the House Armed
Services Committee's Panel on Nuclear Weapons Safety, said the
risk of a nuclear detonation would be extremely remote because of
safeguards built into the design of the weapon. Nonetheless, he
said he would consider any incident damaging a missile to be
"serious" and worthy of strong action by the Navy.
"It shows they're being responsible, which is what we want them
to be," Drell said.
Ray Rivera: 206-464-2926 or
Mike Carter: 206-464-3706 or
Copyright © 2004 The Seattle Times Company
*****************************************************************
28 [NukeNet] Savannah River: An Effort on Atomic Waste Is Called
Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2004 14:06:57 -0800
As one example of the problems cited by the
institute, based here, its report says the amount
of radioactive cesium that the Energy Department
now plans to leave behind in a single tank is five
times as large as the amount it planned two years
ago to leave in all 51 tanks combined.
http://www.nytimes.com
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/11/politics/11DUMP.html
An Effort on Atomic Waste Is Called a Failure
By MATTHEW L. WALD
Published: March 11, 2004
ASHINGTON, March 10 - A multibillion-dollar
program to deal with millions of gallons of
high-level radioactive waste at a nuclear weapons
plant in South Carolina is failing because
technicians cannot get the waste out of the tanks
where it has been stored for the last
half-century, an influential environmental group
says.
Advertisement
The failure raises the likelihood that the wastes
will cause further contamination of the Savannah
River, which separates South Carolina from
Georgia, and underground water supplies, says a
report due to be issued Thursday by the group, the
Institute for Energy and Environmental Research.
The Energy Department, however, maintains that all
is going according to plan, despite the fact that
a factory built to package the wastes in glass has
produced nearly a third of the packages and that
they contain only about 3 percent of the
radioactivity at most.
The wastes are left over from production of
plutonium and tritium for nuclear weapons. For
years the wastes were poured into giant
underground tanks and mixed with chemicals to
reduce the acidity and protect the tank walls. The
result is that the tanks now hold a mixture of
sludges, salts and liquids.
The Energy Department's intention was to
concentrate the radioactive components and mix
them with molten glass. The material would then be
shaped into logs that would be carefully sealed in
stainless steel containers so they could be buried
deep beneath the earth at Yucca Mountain, near Las
Vegas, and remain isolated for 10,000 years. The
remaining, less radioactive material was to be
left behind at the South Carolina plant after
being mixed with cement, into a mixture called
"saltcrete" that would keep it from spreading.
But the chemical process chosen to wash the most
radioactive material out of the tanks also created
benzene, an explosive gas, and had to be scrapped.
The Energy Department is still working on a
replacement process.
As one example of the problems cited by the
institute, based here, its report says the amount
of radioactive cesium that the Energy Department
now plans to leave behind in a single tank is five
times as large as the amount it planned two years
ago to leave in all 51 tanks combined.
A different environmental group, the Natural
Resources Defense Council, won a suit against the
Energy Department in a federal court in Idaho last
year over the department's plan to leave large
amounts of radioactive material not only in South
Carolina but in Idaho and Washington State as
well. The department has appealed.
The new report's principal author, Arjun
Makhijani, president of the institute, said the
Energy Department was turning the South Carolina
plant, the Savannah River Site, into a "de facto
high-level radioactive waste dump."
But Charles Hansen, assistant manager for waste
disposal at Savannah River, said in a telephone
interview that the glass factory there was dealing
with waste from the oldest, most leak-prone tanks
first and that these had less radioactivity in
them than the newer tanks.
Jessie Roberson, the assistant secretary of energy
for environmental management, said no tanks would
be considered closed until outside regulators had
concluded that the amount of radioactive material
remaining inside did not pose a threat. She said
plans were to remove 95 percent of the
radioactivity.
The Savannah River Site has already leaked
radioactive isotopes and chemical poisons into the
water, although contamination remains well below
the levels allowed by federal drinking water
standards.
_______________________________________________________________________
Subscribe/Unsubscribe Here: http://www.energyjustice.net/nukenet/
Change your settings at:
http://chrome.nocdirect.com/mailman/listinfo/nukenet_energyjustice.net
*****************************************************************
29 Deseretnews: Environmentalists want Bramble off task force
[deseretnews.com]
Thursday, March 11, 2004
By Jerry Spangler Deseret Morning News
Environmental activists are calling on state Sen. Curt Bramble,
R-Provo, to resign his position as co-chairman of a legislative
task force studying waste issues after he reportedly made
disparaging comments about waste opponents while attending a
function sponsored by Envirocare of Utah, a private low-level
radioactive waste facility in Tooele County.
Sen. Curt Bramble, R-Provo, is under fire from Healthy
Environment Alliance of Utah for criticizing waste opponents at
Envirocare function.
Michael Brandy, Deseret Morning News
The organization Healthy Environment Alliance of Utah
(HEAL) has formally requested that Senate President Al Mansell
ask for Bramble's resignation.
"Not only were Sen. Bramble's comments demeaning,
disrespectful and unbecoming of an elected official, they also
reflect a total bias (in favor of) the nuclear waste industry,"
said Jason Groenewold, director of HEAL.
The Tooele Transcript Bulletin reported that Bramble
attended a March 5 gathering of Envirocare employees and
supporters where he made the comment that HEAL was an acronym
for "Help Educate Anal Liberals."
Bramble and Mansell did not return Deseret Morning News
calls.
According to the Tooele newspaper account, Bramble said
the acronym comment was a joke. "I may make jokes about
acronyms, but I wouldn't shut down their right to exercise free
speech," the paper reported.
Claire Geddes with Utah Legislative Watch wonders why a
Utah County senator was in Tooele County helping employees
organize to become party delegates.
"I can think of only one reason: So Envirocare can
manipulate the political process," she said. "They obviously
have one Utah senator in their pocket."
Bramble co-chairs the Hazardous Waste Regulation and Tax
Policy Task Force that is considering all waste issues in the
state, including the taxation of companies that accept waste.
But among the most contentious issues is whether or not
Envirocare should be allowed to accept hotter radioactive wastes
than their current state and federal licenses allow.
The task force is supposed to make recommendations to the
2005 Legislature.
Bramble's presence at the meeting and his comments about
opponents of hotter waste cast doubts on his objectivity, Geddes
said. "His comments taint the credibility of the entire task
force."
"If he can be that blatant (about his biases) publicly
and not be removed from the task force, then we have a much
bigger problem on Capitol Hill than I ever thought we did," she
added.
E-mail: spang@desnews.com [spang@desnews.com]
© 2004 Deseret News Publishing Company
*****************************************************************
30 NYT: An Effort on Atomic Waste Is Called a Failure
[http://www.nytimes.com/] [The New York Times Washington]
By MATTHEW L. WALD
Published: March 11, 2004
[W] ASHINGTON, March 10 — A multibillion-dollar program to deal
with millions of gallons of high-level radioactive waste at a
nuclear weapons plant in South Carolina is failing because
technicians cannot get the waste out of the tanks where it has
been stored for the last half-century, an influential
environmental group says.
The failure raises the likelihood that the wastes will cause
further contamination of the Savannah River, which separates
South Carolina from Georgia, and underground water supplies, says
a report due to be issued Thursday by the group, the Institute
for Energy and Environmental Research.
The Energy Department, however, maintains that all is going
according to plan, despite the fact that a factory built to
package the wastes in glass has produced nearly a third of the
packages and that they contain only about 3 percent of the
radioactivity at most.
The wastes are left over from production of plutonium and
tritium for nuclear weapons. For years the wastes were poured
into giant underground tanks and mixed with chemicals to reduce
the acidity and protect the tank walls. The result is that the
tanks now hold a mixture of sludges, salts and liquids.
The Energy Department's intention was to concentrate the
radioactive components and mix them with molten glass. The
material would then be shaped into logs that would be carefully
sealed in stainless steel containers so they could be buried deep
beneath the earth at Yucca Mountain, near Las Vegas, and remain
isolated for 10,000 years. The remaining, less radioactive
material was to be left behind at the South Carolina plant after
being mixed with cement, into a mixture called "saltcrete" that
would keep it from spreading.
But the chemical process chosen to wash the most radioactive
material out of the tanks also created benzene, an explosive gas,
and had to be scrapped. The Energy Department is still working on
a replacement process.
As one example of the problems cited by the institute, based
here, its report says the amount of radioactive cesium that the
Energy Department now plans to leave behind in a single tank is
five times as large as the amount it planned two years ago to
leave in all 51 tanks combined.
A different environmental group, the Natural Resources Defense
Council, won a suit against the Energy Department in a federal
court in Idaho last year over the department's plan to leave
large amounts of radioactive material not only in South Carolina
but in Idaho and Washington State as well. The department has
appealed.
The new report's principal author, Arjun Makhijani, president of
the institute, said the Energy Department was turning the South
Carolina plant, the Savannah River Site, into a "de facto
high-level radioactive waste dump."
But Charles Hansen, assistant manager for waste disposal at
Savannah River, said in a telephone interview that the glass
factory there was dealing with waste from the oldest, most
leak-prone tanks first and that these had less radioactivity in
them than the newer tanks.
Jessie Roberson, the assistant secretary of energy for
environmental management, said no tanks would be considered
closed until outside regulators had concluded that the amount of
radioactive material remaining inside did not pose a threat. She
said plans were to remove 95 percent of the radioactivity.
The Savannah River Site has already leaked radioactive isotopes
and chemical poisons into the water, although contamination
remains well below the levels allowed by federal drinking water
standards.
Copyright 2004 [http://www.nytco.com/] |
*****************************************************************
31 Las Vegas RJ: Scientist: No proof dump won't leak
Thursday, March 11, 2004
Energy Department must show Yucca safe
By KEN RITTER THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
A scientist reviewing plans for a national nuclear waste dump in
Nevada said Wednesday the Energy Department still needs to prove
the Yucca Mountain project won't leak radioactivity.
"The testing that's being done has not answered the question
we'd like answered," said Ronald Latanision, a nuclear
engineering expert and member of the U.S. Nuclear Waste
Technical Review Board studying the Yucca project.
"What is the likely stability of the materials over the life of
the project?"'
He said DOE has not shown that metal casks encasing the
nation's most highly radioactive waste will withstand corrosion
while entombed for centuries in tunnels hot enough to roast a
turkey.
"We haven't seen the data. We don't know it exists," Latanision
said in an interview before a second day of meetings in Las
Vegas.
J. Russell Dyer, the top Yucca Mountain official attending the
meetings, said DOE scientists plan to address concerns that
current project designs could let waste containers corrode and
leak radioactivity.
"We've got some data. We're acquiring more," Dyer said, adding
that some questions may remain unanswered while the Energy
Department applies for a license to operate the Yucca site.
"Some tests are going to go on for a very long time," he said.
The 11-member board has raised concerns about possible corrosion
in a letter and subsequent report to Margaret Chu, the Energy
Department's Yucca Mountain project chief.
Chu dismissed the concerns as premature and promised a full
report this year.
Five board members attended the two-day Las Vegas meetings,
which were part of a technical subcommittee studying water and
geology issues affecting the Yucca project.
On Tuesday, a geologist and a climatologist said it was wet
10,000 years ago at Yucca Mountain, and climate changes could
make it wetter again in about 600 years.
They said they could not predict how wet it could get at the
arid site during the more than 10,000 years the nation's nuclear
waste is expected to remain radioactive there.
"There's going to be a change in the amount of water delivered
to Yucca Mountain," Eric McDonald, a Reno-based Desert Research
Institute geologist and professor, said after briefing the
panel. "The question is what that means."
Changes in precipitation, seepage and possible migration of
radiation-contaminated water is key to the DOE plan to license,
build and entomb the nation's most highly radioactive waste.
Subcommittee Chairman Richard Parizek said Wednesday he
believed Energy Department scientists will provide data when the
full board meets May 18-19 in Washington, D.C.
Copyright Las Vegas Review-Journal
*****************************************************************
32 Las Vegas SUN: Editorial: More reason to question Yucca safety
LAS VEGAS SUN
A disturbing similarity unfolded Tuesday during a Nuclear Waste
Technical Review Board meeting in Las Vegas. Two scientists
testified that their research into the safety of permanent
burial of nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain differs from research
conducted by the Energy Department. The testimony was true to a
pattern that has developed over the years -- that of the Energy
Department's research being inconsistent with research by
independent scientists.
Alan L. Flint, a hydrologist with the U.S. Geological Survey,
said his research shows that much more water than estimated by
the Energy Department could penetrate Yucca Mountain's burial
vaults. The big fear involving water is that the casks
containing the waste could corrode. The waste would then leach
into groundwater, causing widespread contamination. While the
Energy Department has said that most water flows off or around
Yucca Mountain, Flint said fractures in the rock enable water to
penetrate much deeper than shown by previous studies.
The testimony of another scientist cast doubt on the Energy
Department's confidence that Yucca Mountain would remain in a
super-dry climate over the period of time in which the waste
will remain toxic, which is 10,000 years at a minimum. Saxon
Sharpe, a climatologist with the Desert Research Institute,
studied the Earth's climate changes over the past 500,000 years.
By charting weather cycles, she found that the Earth is moving
toward a cooler, wetter climate, which means over thousands of
years there would be much more water around Yucca Mountain than
previously thought.
Other independent findings have also differed from the Energy
Department's. They include chemical changes to the waste over
time and increased temperatures in the burial vaults -- both of
which could lead to burst casks. They also include heightened
risks from earthquakes and nearby volcanoes. We believe there is
every reason to reject the Energy Department's conclusion that
Yucca Mountain, just 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas, will be
safe when independent studies consistently point to just the
opposite.
*****************************************************************
33 Las Vegas SUN: Yucca water studies show safe storage less likely
Return to the referring page
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Yucca water studies show safe storage less likely
By Kirsten Searer
LAS VEGAS SUN
It could take about 1,000 years for contaminated water to flow
from Yucca Mountain to the Amargosa Valley, scientists said
Wednesday.
Scientists presented studies this week in Las Vegas to the U.S.
Nuclear Waste Technical Board, a panel of scientists and
engineers who will advise the Energy Department on the planned
Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository.
The studies all show that the complex terrain and water flow
near Yucca Mountain make it more difficult to safely store about
77,000 tons of highly radioactive nuclear waste planned for the
site.
How quickly water moves from the mountain could be important.
By law, the Energy Department is supposed to design the dump to
safely hold waste for at least 10,000 years.
But studies presented Tuesday found that the mountain is damper
and colder than previously thought, meaning the metal canisters
holding the waste could corrode more quickly.
At least one scientist was left with concerns this week about
how well the casks will hold up in the mountain.
"The testing that's being done has not answered the question
we'd like answered," said Ronald Latanision, a nuclear
engineering expert and member of the Technical Review Board.
"What is the likely stability of the materials over the life of
the project?"
J. Russell Dyer, the top Yucca Mountain official attending the
meetings, said Energy Department scientists plan to address
concerns that current project designs could let waste containers
corrode and leak radioactivity.
"We've got some data. We're acquiring more," Dyer said, adding
that some questions may remain unanswered while the Energy
Department applies for a license to operate the Yucca site.
"Some tests are going to go on for a very long time," he said.
Decades ago, scientists thought that the volcanic rock
underneath Yucca Mountain would impede water flow, meaning leaks
of nuclear waste wouldn't contaminate the ground water.
But scientists said Wednesday it now is clear that fissures in
the rock will allow tainted water to flow down the mountain
toward Amargosa Valley and Death Valley, scientists said.
Several factors affect how quickly the water will flow,
including faults in the area and the temperature of the
mountain, scientists said.
Some said it could take as few as 10 years for contaminated
water to travel to water supplies. But that would take a
worst-case scenario of a number of "unlikely" conditions, said
Bill Arnold, a principal member of the technical staff at Sandia
National Laboratories.
There is less than a 5 percent chance that any contaminated
water would reach the water table in less than 500 years, Arnold
said.
Another scientist, Gary L. Patterson of the U.S. Geological
Survey, tested water on the eastern and western sides of the
mountain to determine where it flows. He said it likely would
take thousands of years for water to flow from the mountain to
other major washes.
Studies on how water flows have not changed the Energy
Department's calculations on how ground water could be
contaminated, said Russell Dyer, assistant to the deputy
director on Technical and Regulatory Programs of the Energy
Department's Office of Repository Development.
He showed a graph from the Energy Department showing the
earliest potential contaminated water from the mountain reaching
the water supply in a little more than 500 years.
"We don't feel the new information will affect time travel,"
Dyer said.
Several scientists advocated Wednesday for further study on how
water flows through the mountain.
Dr. John Bredehoeft, a hydrodynamics expert who consults for
Inyo County in California, said there is a "fragile" water
system that runs from Yucca Mountain to the southern Funeral
Mountain range and, eventually, toward Death Valley.
There are several unknowns, Bredehoeft said, including several
faults in the area that could affect the speed of contaminated
water moving through the aquifer.
Also, several cities want to draw more water from the aquifer.
That also could affect water flow, he said.
All in all, Inyo County wants to drill more wells in the region
to determine how long local water has been in the aquifer and
where it came from. Those tests are being held up because the
drilling sites are on protected federal land, he said.
The studies presented Wednesday didn't answer questions for
Judy Treichel, executive director of the Nevada Nuclear Waste
Task Force, who sat through the two-day presentation to the
board.
While the Energy Department hopes to resolve scientific
questions about Yucca by December so it can file for a license
to build it, Treichel told the panel she thinks the answers will
come "a little too late."
"The site's been recommended," she said, "and they're in a race
to get the license application in."
*****************************************************************
34 The State: Nuclear waste increase proposed
03/11/2
By VALERIE BAUERLEIN and SAMMY FRETWELL
Staff Writers
A plan to balance the states budget by burying more nuclear
garbage surfaced Wednesday in the S.C. House of Representatives.
Under the budget proposal, which was expected, South Carolina
would sharply increase the volume of waste allowed next year at
the states low-level nuclear waste dump near Barnwell. In
exchange, the sites operator would pay South Carolina $6
million, according to a budget amendment introduced Wednesday.
The money would be used to fund police officer salary increases,
said Rep. Chip Limehouse, a Charleston Republican and one of the
proposals backers. Others supporting the proposal included GOP
Rep. Bobby Harrell, chairman of the House Ways and Means
Committee; Rep. John Scott, D-Richland; and Rep. Larry Koon,
R-Lexington.
In light of the tough budget times, we thought we would take
this extraordinary measure to fund state government, Limehouse
said.
Rep. Gilda Cobb-Hunter, D-Orangeburg, said she didnt like the
plan because if you continue to take waste, we will always be
expected to take it.
The Barnwell County site, the only low-level dump of its kind in
the country, is scheduled to close to the nation in 2008, when
only South Carolina, Connecticut and New Jersey can send
low-level waste there. According to plans, the state is supposed
to take less waste from the nation each year until 2008.
But the new plan would increase the amount of waste next year
from 50,000 cubic feet to 150,000 cubic feet.
TheStateOnline
*****************************************************************
35 CNS News: Green Groups Worry Russia May Become World's Nuclear Waste Dump
-- 03/11/2004
[http://www.cnsnews.com]
By Sergei Blagov CNSNews.com Correspondent March 11, 2004
Moscow (CNSNews.com) - Russia has agreed to take back and recycle
weapons-grade uranium that it originally supplied to Libya, but
the broader issue of trading in other countries' nuclear
materials has critics complaining that Russia could turn into the
world's nuclear dump.
The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) said in a statement
that highly-enriched uranium (HEU) Russia supplied to Libya's
Tajoura nuclear research center in the early 1980s had been
returned to the Russians.
The agency, which is overseeing Libya's voluntary dismantling of
its nuclear program, said the HEU was flown to a facility in
Central Russia earlier this week, in an operation funded by the
U.S. Department of Energy.
There it would be "blend[ed] down ... into low-enriched uranium
(LEU), making it unsuitable for a nuclear weapon," the IAEA said.
Apart from helping Tripoli dismantle its weapons of mass
destruction programs, Russia has in the past had agreements to
reprocess nuclear materials.
Moscow's nuclear agency, Minatom, envisages a lucrative business.
Advocates of nuclear-waste imports say Russia could earn $20
billion over the next decade by importing, reprocessing and
storing other countries' spent nuclear fuel.
Critics led by the environmental group Greenpeace have lashed out
at the plan, saying the environmental fallout could outweigh the
benefits.
They argue that Russia has enough nuclear waste of its own.
In Moscow, for instance, a facility located in a residential
district just ten miles from the Kremlin has waste depositories
containing spent nuclear fuel, water used as a cooling agent and
worn reactor parts.
Until recently, Russian law forbade the importing of radioactive
waste or nuclear materials from other countries for long-term
storage or burial. Only countries using Russian-built nuclear
power plants or technology could send nuclear waste to Russia, in
line with bilateral deals.
Attempts by environmentalists to lobby for a law opposing any
import of spent nuclear fuel failed, when a campaign to collect
the 2.5 million signatures required to initiate a national
referendum on the question failed.
The campaigners acquired the signatures, but the Central
Elections Commission, citing minor technical inaccuracies -- such
as the use of an abbreviation for the word "street" in a
signatory's address -- rejected more than a fifth of the
signatures.
Following that campaign President Vladimir Putin three years ago
signed a new law allowing the import of spent nuclear fuel for
reprocessing and storage.
Minatom has since then offered to reprocess nuclear waste from
around the world at its Chelyabinsk reprocessing plant. The site
has had some serious accidents in the past, including an
explosion of a high-level waste storage facility in 1957, when
more than 10,000 people in the area had to be evacuated.
A nearby lake was used from 1948 until the 1970s to dump
untreated high-level waste.
When a severe drought dried up the lake in 1967, its bed was
covered by radioactive dust, which later were spread by winds
over an area of 2,000-3,000 square kilometers, which included the
homes of more than 40,000 people.
Two year ago, the Russian Supreme Court handed a victory to
environmentalists, striking down a government decision that
allowed the import of nuclear waste from a nuclear power plant in
Hungary for storage in Russia.
Environmentalists have contested deals clinched before the law
that allows the import of spent nuclear fuel.
Minatom has plans for more than 10,000 tons of foreign
radioactive waste to be reprocessed and stored at the country's
largest waste storage facility, Krasnoyarsk-26 in Siberia,
although non-governmental organization say the site has only
3,000 tons of unused capacity.
There are also plans to build a new waste storage site in a
remote northern region.
In one deal involving the United States, Russia has agreed to
sell 500 tons of HEU to fuel American commercial nuclear power
reactors.
Send a Letter to the Editor about this article.
[letters@cnsnews.com]
All original CNSNews.com material, copyright
1998-2004
Cybercast News Service.
[http://www.cnsnews.com/corporate/copyright.asp]
*****************************************************************
36 Las Vegas SUN: Lawsuit claims workers at nuke dump in Nevada hurt
by toxic dust
Today: March 11, 2004 at 14:00:47 PST
By KEN RITTER ASSOCIATED PRESS
LAS VEGAS (AP) - A former tunnel worker at the nation's nuclear
waste dump in the Nevada desert filed suit Thursday against
Energy Department contractors, claiming the companies
deliberately exposed employees to toxic dust at the Yucca
Mountain project.
The civil lawsuit, filed in state court in Las Vegas, seeks
class-action status and unspecified damages.
It claims the companies knew workers and visitors were exposed
to dangerous levels of silica, erionite, and other toxic dusts
during tunneling from 1992 to 1996.
"This lawsuit will expose an outrageous fraud against the work
force and even the visitors at Yucca Mountain, one that's
already killing people," said plaintiff Gene Griego, a former a
Los Alamos, N.M., national laboratory employee who worked as a
tunnel supervisor at the Yucca Mountain site.
Griego, a nonsmoker who lives in Las Vegas, was diagnosed last
year with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.
"We hope to see these innocent people compensated, and the
perpetrators brought to justice," he said in a statement.
The lawsuit names Bechtel Corp. and Nevada subsidiaries on the
Yucca Mountain project; Bechtel SAIC Corp. of Delaware; the
Kiewit Group of Delaware; Parsons Brinckerhoff Construction of
Delaware and subsidiaries; Morrison-Knudson, now known as
Washington Group International of Delaware; and TRW Automotive
Holdings of Delaware and subsidiaries. Each has an office in
Nevada.
The Energy Department developed the Yucca site for the federal
government and gained Bush administration and congressional
approval in 2002 to bury 77,000 tons of the nation's most
radioactive waste at the site, 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas.
The agency plans to apply to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission
by the end of the year for a license to operate the repository.
Energy Department spokesman Joe Davis said Thursday that because
the DOE was not named as a party to the lawsuit, it would not
comment.
Joseph Egan, a McLean, Va.-based lawyer heading the case, also
represents Nevada in its fight to stop the Yucca Mountain
project in federal courts.
He called the toxic dust issue "a small example of a pattern of
conduct that pervades the entire Yucca Mountain project."
The 27-page complaint filed in Clark County District Court
alleges the companies "intentionally and fraudulently concealed
the truth about the hazards at Yucca Mountain" and "placed a
higher priority on ... deadlines than they did on human safety
and health."
"What we're seeing coming out of it now is junk science and sick
workers," Egan said Thursday.
Egan said the three law firms handling the case expect to add
more plaintiffs, including one who has contracted silicosis.
Mark Hutton, a Wichita, Kan., lawyer also involved in the case,
said the companies knew about the risks from toxic dust, but
failed to protect tunnel workers and visitors.
"The fact it was fraudulently concealed from everyone who ever
set foot inside the mountain makes it all the more shocking," he
said.
In January, Yucca Mountain project managers began a lung disease
screening program for current and former workers, saying up to
1,500 current and former Yucca Mountain site workers may have
inhaled airborne silica at Yucca Mountain.
Last month, the Energy Department started an investigation of
whether notes were altered to misrepresent potentially hazardous
dust levels at the site.
Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., has called for a federal Labor
Department investigation into safety practices at Yucca
Mountain, and has scheduled hearings of the silicosis issue to
begin Monday in Las Vegas.
--
*****************************************************************
37 Progress: Nuclear Weapons Are Immoral, Say Religious, Scientific Leaders
[http://www.progress.org]
Human Beings Deserve A Safer World [atomic bomb]
Here is a new article from [http://www.oneworld.net]
An international group of religious and scientific leaders has
launched an appeal to the United States and all other nuclear
states to pledge never to use nuclear weapons and re-affirm their
commitments to achieving total nuclear disarmament.
The appeal, signed by the head of the U.S. National Council of
Churches (NCC) and the president of the international Catholic
peace group, Pax Christi, and 74 others -- including four Nobel
laureates -- declared such weapons to be "inherently immoral" and
expressed particular concern over U.S. plans to develop of a new
generation of nuclear bombs.
"Even so-called 'mini-nukes' and 'bunker-busters' would have
disastrous effects," the statement declared. "Threatened use of
nuclear weaopns in the name of deterrence is morally wrong
because it holds innocent people hostage for political and
military purposes."
"Why do we continue to construct weapons that have the power to
destroy us," asked Rev. Robert Edgar, general secretary of the
NCC, which represents some 140,000 Protestant congregations in
the U.S., "rather than build systems and structures that will
save lives and help all persons reach the potential for which God
created them?"
Edgar said the appeal was being made with a "sense of real
urgency," in light of new nuclear planning by the Bush
administration and the failure to date of any of the declared
nuclear powers to substantially reduce their stockpiles.
More than a decade after the end of the Cold War, the United
States and Russia retain a total of about 10,000 tactical and
strategic nuclear weapons each. Together, they account for more
than 95 percent of the world's total arsenal.
According to recent estimates by the Washington-based Center for
Defense Information, China is next with an estimated 400
warheads, followed by France, with 350; Israel, with perhaps 200;
Britain, with 185; India, with 60 or more; and Pakistan, with as
many as 48. The Central Intelligence Agency says it believes
North Korea has up to two devices for several years.
Under the 1968 Treaty on the Nonproliferation of Nuclear Weapons
(NPT), nuclear countries must not only halt the spread of nuclear
weapons to non-nuclear countries, but also agree to reduce their
own arsenals to zero. In 1996, the International Court of Justice
at The Hague ruled that the NPT required eventual disarmament, a
position that was formally reaffirmed in 2000 by the five
permanent members of the UN Security Council.
Since the Bush administration took power in 2001, however, the
U.S. has been ambiguous on the question, while its opposition to
the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty -- seen as a key step toward
eventual disarmament -- has fanned concerns that Washington does
not intend to follow through on its earlier commitments.
Adding to these concerns are the administration's efforts to
reverse a unilateral 1993 ban on research and development of
low-yield atomic weapons, such as "mini-nukes" and
"bunker-busters" which Bush officials insist would be good to use
in dealing with small-scale conflicts, such as last year's war
against Iraq, or against suspected criminals.
Some Democrats in Congress tried to prevent the administration
from going forward by denying funding for development, but the
administration succeeded in prying loose $7.5 million for the
project late last year.
Critics have strongly assailed the administration for these
efforts, arguing that they undercut the NPT by showing that the
world's strongest nuclear power has no intention of giving them
up.
Scientists and weapons specialists who signed the Appeal stressed
that the administration's insistence on retaining a nuclear
arsenal and developing new weapons not only risked undermining
the NPT and global non-proliferation efforts, but also made
little military sense in an era when smaller, more precise
conventional weapons using sensors and other systems are
available.
"Military leaders don't see any military utility for making these
weapons," according to Ivan Oerlich, a nuclear physicist at the
Federation of American Scientists. "It's the civilians who want
them," he said. "There is no military mission that cries out for
nuclear weapons. These are weapons in search of a mission."
This new appeal, however, is based more on questions of morality
than on utility, according to its signers, who also include Helen
Caldicott, founder of Physicians for Social Responsibility and
the Nuclear Policy Research Institute who shared the 1985 Nobel
Peace Prize with International Physicians for the Prevention of
Nuclear War.
"My prognosis is, if nothing changes and Bush is re-elected,
within ten or 20 years, there will be no life on the planet, or
little," she said. "It's good to use the words 'sin' and 'evil'
(in this context)," she added. "It is true that it is evil to
have power to destroy life on Earth."
Marie Dennis, who serves on the executive committee of Pax
Christi International, noted that U.S. Catholic Bishops'
Conference recently endorsed a global ban on nuclear weapons as a
policy goal and called on the U.S. to issue a no-first-use policy
on their use. As recently as one year ago in the run-up to the
war against Iraq, the Bush administration refused to do so.
[http://www.progress.org/cgi-bin/emaarta.pl?nuclear06]
[http://www.progress.org/lists/tprjoin.php]
Is building a new set of additional nuclear weapons high on your
list of priorities for a nation that already has the most such
weapons and is deeply in debt? What do you recommend? Tell your
views to The Progress Report:
[http://www.progress.org/]
*****************************************************************
38 DOE: Health Effects Subcommittee (SRSHES)
FR Doc 04-5444
[Federal Register: March 11, 2004 (Volume 69, Number 48)]
[Notices] [Page 11635] From the Federal Register Online via GPO
Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr11mr04-106]
In accordance with section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory
Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463), the Centers for Disease Control
and Prevention (CDC) and the Agency for Toxic Substances and
Disease Registry (ATSDR) announce the following meeting.
Name: Citizens Advisory Committee on Public Health Service
Activities and Research at Department of Energy Sites: Savannah
River Site Health Effects Subcommittee (SRSHES).
Time and Date: 8 a.m.-3:30 p.m., April 6, 2004. Place: Adam's
Mark Hotel Columbia, 1200 Hampton Street, Columbia, South
Carolina 29201, telephone 803-771-7000, fax 803-254- 2911.
Status: Open to the public, limited only by the space available.
The meeting room accommodates approximately 50 people.
Background: Under a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) signed in
December 1990 with DOE, and replaced by MOUs signed in 1996 and
2000, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) was given
the responsibility and resources for conducting analytic
epidemiologic investigations of residents of communities in the
vicinity of DOE facilities, workers at DOE facilities, and other
persons potentially exposed to radiation or to potential hazards
from non-nuclear energy production use. HHS delegated program
responsibility to CDC.
In addition, a memo was signed in October 1990 and renewed in
November 1992, 1996, and in 2000, between ATSDR and DOE. The MOU
delineates the responsibilities and procedures for ATSDR's public
health activities at DOE sites required under sections 104, 105,
107, and 120 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA or ``Superfund''). These
activities include health consultations and public health
assessments at DOE sites listed on, or proposed for, the
Superfund National Priorities List and at sites that are the
subject of petitions from the public; and other health-related
activities such as epidemiologic studies, health surveillance,
exposure and disease registries, health education,
substance-specific applied research, emergency response, and
preparation of toxicological profiles.
Purpose: This subcommittee is charged with providing advice and
recommendations to the Director, CDC, and the Administrator,
ATSDR, regarding community concerns pertaining to CDC's and
ATSDR's public health activities and research at this DOE site.
The purpose of this meeting is to provide a forum for community
interaction and serve as a vehicle for community concerns to be
expressed as advice and recommendations to CDC and ATSDR.
Matters to be Discussed: Agenda items include: a Report by
Advanced Technologies and Laboratories International, Inc.; CDC
Presentation on Completed Dose Reconstruction Projects at Other
Sites; and Update from the National Institute for Occupational
Safefy and Health.
Agenda items are subject to change as priorities dictate.
Contact Person for More Information: Phillip Green, Executive
Secretary, SRSHES, Radiation Studies Branch, Division of
Environmental Hazards and Health Effects, National Center for
Environmental Health, CDC, 1600 Clifton Road, NE., (E-39),
Atlanta, Georgia 30333, telephone (404) 498-1800, fax (404)
498-1811.
The Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, has been
delegated the authority to sign Federal Register notices
pertaining to announcements of meetings and other committee
management activities for both CDC and ATSDR.
Dated: March 5, 2004.
Alvin Hall, Director, Management Analysis and Services Office,
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
[FR Doc. 04-5444 Filed 3-10-04; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4163-18-P
*****************************************************************
39 DOE: transuranic (TRU) radioactive waste at the Rocky Flats
FR Doc 04-5636
[Federal Register: March 11, 2004 (Volume 69, Number 48)]
[Notices] [Page 11621-11623] From the Federal Register Online via
GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr11mr04-99] [[Page
11621]]
Environmental Technology Site (RFETS) proposed for disposal at
the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP). The documents are
available for review in the public dockets listed in ADDRESSES.
We will consider public comments received on or before the due
date mentioned in DATES. EPA will conduct an inspection of waste
streams, characterization systems and processes at RFETS to
verify that the site can characterize transuranic waste in
accordance with EPA's WIPP compliance criteria. EPA will perform
this inspection the week of March 29, 2004. This notice of the
inspection and comment period accords with 40 CFR 194.8.
DATES: EPA is requesting public comment on the documents.
Comments must be received by EPA's official Air Docket on or
before April 12, 2004 .
ADDRESSES: Comments may be submitted by mail to: EPA Docket
Center (EPA/DC), Air and Radiation Docket, Environmental
Protection Agency, EPA West, Mail Code 6102T, 1200 Pennsylvania
Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460. Attention Docket ID No.
OAR-2004-0020. Comments may also be submitted electronically, by
facsimile, or through hand delivery/ courier. Follow the detailed
instructions as provided in Unit I.B of the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION section.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ed Feltcorn, Office of Radiation
and Indoor Air, (202) 343-9463. You can also call EPA's toll-free
WIPP Information Line, 1-800-331-WIPP or visit our Web site at
http://www.epa/gov/radiation/wipp
[http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/leaving.cgi?from=leaving
FR.html&log=linklog&to=http://www.epa/gov/radiation/wipp] .
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. General Information A. How Can I
Get Copies of This Document and Other Related Information? 1.
Docket. EPA has established an official public docket for this
action under Docket ID No. OAR-2004-0020. The official public
docket consists of the documents specifically referenced in this
action, any public comments received, and other information
related to this action. Although a part of the official docket,
the public docket does not include Confidential Business
Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. The official public docket is the
collection of materials that is available for public viewing at
the Air and Radiation Docket in the EPA Docket Center, (EPA/DC)
EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW, Washington, DC.
The EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m.
to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays.
The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202)
566-1744, and the telephone number for the Air and Radiation
Docket is (202) 566-1742. These documents are also available for
review in paper form at the official EPA Air Docket in
Washington, DC, Docket No. A-98-49, Category II-A2, and at the
following three EPA WIPP informational docket locations in New
Mexico: in Carlsbad at the Municipal Library, Hours:
Monday-Thursday, 10 a.m.-9 p.m., Friday-Saturday, 10 a.m.-6 p.m.,
and Sunday 1 p.m.-5 p.m.; in Albuquerque at the Government
Publications Department, Zimmerman Library, University of New
Mexico, Hours: vary by semester; and in Santa Fe at the New
Mexico State Library, Hours: Monday-Friday, 9 a.m.- 5 p.m. As
provided in EPA's regulations at 40 CFR Part 2, and in accordance
with normal EPA docket procedures, if copies of any docket
materials are requested, a reasonable fee may be charged for
photocopying.
2. Electronic Access. You may access this Federal Register
document electronically through the EPA Internet under the
``Federal Register'' listings at http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/
[http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/leaving.cgi?from=leaving
FR.html&log=linklog&to=http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/] . An
electronic version of the public docket is available through
EPA's electronic public docket and comment system, EPA Dockets.
You may use EPA Dockets at http://www.epa.gov/edocket/
[http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/leaving.cgi?from=leaving
FR.html&log=linklog&to=http://www.epa.gov/edocket/] to submit or
view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of
the official public docket, and to access those documents in the
public docket that are available electronically. Once in the
system, select ``search,'' then key in the appropriate docket
identification number.
Certain types of information will not be placed in the EPA
Dockets. Information claimed as CBI and other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute, which is not included in the
official public docket, will not be available for public viewing
in EPA's electronic public docket. EPA's policy is that
copyrighted material will not be placed in EPA's electronic
public docket but will be available only in printed, paper form
in the official public docket. To the extent feasible, publicly
available docket materials will be made available in EPA's
electronic public docket. When a document is selected from the
index list in EPA Dockets, the system will identify whether the
document is available for viewing in EPA's electronic public
docket. Although not all docket materials may be available
electronically, you may still access any of the publicly
available docket materials through the docket facility identified
in Unit I.B. EPA intends to work towards providing electronic
access to all of the publicly available docket materials through
EPA's electronic public docket.
For public commenters, it is important to note that EPA's policy
is that public comments, whether submitted electronically or in
paper, will be made available for public viewing in EPA's
electronic public docket as EPA receives them and without change,
unless the comment contains copyrighted material, CBI, or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. When EPA
identifies a comment containing copyrighted material, EPA will
provide a reference to that material in the version of the
comment that is placed in EPA's electronic public docket. The
entire printed comment, including the copyrighted material, will
be available in the public docket.
Public comments submitted on computer disks that are mailed or
delivered to the docket will be transferred to EPA's electronic
public docket. Public comments that are mailed or delivered to
the Docket will be scanned and placed in EPA's electronic public
docket. Where practical, physical objects will be photographed,
and the photograph will be placed in EPA's electronic public
docket along with a brief description written by the docket
staff.
For additional information about EPA's electronic public docket
visit EPA Dockets online or see 67 FR 38102, May 31, 2002.
[[Page 11622]] B. How and to Whom Do I Submit Comments? You may
submit comments electronically, by mail, by facsimile, or through
hand delivery/courier. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, identify
the appropriate docket identification number in the subject line
on the first page of your comment. Please ensure that your
comments are submitted within the specified comment period.
Comments received after the close of the comment period will be
marked ``late.'' EPA is not required to consider these late
comments. However, late comments may be considered if time
permits.
1. Electronically. If you submit an electronic comment as
prescribed below, EPA recommends that you include your name,
mailing address, and an e-mail address or other contact
information in the body of your comment. Also include this
contact information on the outside of any disk or CD ROM you
submit, and in any cover letter accompanying the disk or CD ROM.
This ensures that you can be identified as the submitter of the
comment and allows EPA to contact you in case EPA cannot read
your comment due to technical difficulties or needs further
information on the substance of your comment. EPA's policy is
that EPA will not edit your comment, and any identifying or
contact information provided in the body of a comment will be
included as part of the comment that is placed in the official
public docket, and made available in EPA's electronic public
docket. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical
difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may
not be able to consider your comment.
i. EPA Dockets. Your use of EPA's electronic public docket to
submit comments to EPA electronically is EPA's preferred method
for receiving comments. Go directly to EPA Dockets at
http://www.epa.gov/edocket
[http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/leaving.cgi?from=leaving
FR.html&log=linklog&to=http://www.epa.gov/edocket] , and follow
the online instructions for submitting comments. To access EPA's
electronic public docket from the EPA Internet Home Page, select
``Information Sources,'' ``Dockets,'' and ``EPA Dockets.'' Once
in the system, select ``search,'' and then key in Docket ID No.
OAR- 2004-0020. The system is an ``anonymous access'' system,
which means EPA will not know your identity, e-mail address, or
other contact information unless you provide it in the body of
your comment.
ii. E-mail. Comments may be sent by electronic mail (e-mail) to
a-and-r-docket@epa.gov [ a-and-r-docket@epa.gov] , Attention
Docket ID No. OAR-2004-0020. In contrast to EPA's electronic
public docket, EPA's e-mail system is not an ``anonymous access''
system. If you send an e-mail comment directly to the Docket
without going through EPA's electronic public docket, EPA's
e-mail system automatically captures your e-mail address.
E-mail addresses that are automatically captured by EPA's e-mail
system are included as part of the comment that is placed in the
official public docket, and made available in EPA's electronic
public docket.
2. By Mail. Send your comments to: EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC),
Air and Radiation Docket, Environmental Protection Agency, EPA
West, Mail Code 6102T, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington,
DC 20460. Attention Docket ID No. OAR-2004-0020. 3. By Hand
Delivery or Courier. Deliver your comments to: Air and Radiation
Docket, EPA Docket Center, (EPA/DC) EPA West, Room B102, 1301
Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC, Attention Docket ID No.
OAR- 2004-0020. Such deliveries are only accepted during the
Docket's normal hours of operation as identified in Unit I.A.1.
4. By Facsimile. Fax your comments to: (202) 566-1741, Attention
Docket ID. No. OAR-2004-0020. C. What Should I Consider as I
Prepare My Comments for EPA? You may find the following
suggestions helpful for preparing your comments: 1. Explain your
views as clearly as possible. 2. Describe any assumptions that
you used. 3. Provide any technical information and/or data you
used that support your views.
4. If you estimate potential burden or costs, explain how you
arrived at your estimate.
5. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns. 6.
Offer alternatives. 7. Make sure to submit your comments by the
comment period deadline identified.
8. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, identify the appropriate
docket identification number in the subject line on the first
page of your response. It would also be helpful if you provided
the name, date, and Federal Register citation related to your
comments.
II. Background DOE is developing the WIPP near Carlsbad in
southeastern New Mexico as a deep geologic repository for
disposal of TRU radioactive waste. As defined by the WIPP Land
Withdrawal Act (LWA) of 1992 (Pub. L. No. 102- 579), as amended
(Pub. L. No. 104-201), TRU waste consists of materials containing
elements having atomic numbers greater than 92 (with half- lives
greater than twenty years), in concentrations greater than 100
nanocuries of alpha-emitting TRU isotopes per gram of waste.
Much of the existing TRU waste consists of items contaminated
during the production of nuclear weapons, such as rags,
equipment, tools, and sludges.
On May 13, 1998, EPA announced its final compliance certification
decision to the Secretary of Energy (published May 18, 1998, 63
FR 27354). This decision stated that the WIPP will comply with
EPA's radioactive waste disposal regulations at 40 CFR Part 191,
Subparts B and C.
The final WIPP certification decision includes conditions that
(1) prohibit shipment of TRU waste for disposal at WIPP from any
site other than the Los Alamos National Laboratories (LANL) until
the EPA determines that the site has established and executed a
quality assurance program, in accordance with Sec. Sec.
194.22(a)(2)(i), 194.24(c)(3), and 194.24(c)(5) for waste
characterization activities and assumptions (Condition 2 of
Appendix A to 40 CFR Part 194); and (2) (with the exception of
specific, limited waste streams and equipment at LANL) prohibit
shipment of TRU waste for disposal at WIPP (from LANL or any
other site) until EPA has approved the procedures developed to
comply with the waste characterization requirements of Sec.
194.22(c)(4) (Condition 3 of Appendix A to 40 CFR Part 194). The
EPA's approval process for waste generator sites is described in
Sec. 194.8. As part of EPA's decision-making process, the DOE is
required to submit to EPA appropriate documentation of quality
assurance and waste characterization programs at each DOE waste
generator site seeking approval for shipment of TRU radioactive
waste to WIPP. In accordance with Sec. 194.8, EPA will place
such documentation in the official Air Docket in Washington, DC,
and informational dockets in the State of New Mexico for public
review and comment.
EPA will perform an inspection of the waste characterization
systems and processes for TRU waste at RFETS in accordance with
Conditions 3 of the WIPP certification. The purpose of this
inspection is for the annual re-evaluation of the transuranic
(TRU) waste program at RFETS and to evaluate new activities
(i.e., new equipment, such as the Multi Purpose Crate Counter)
associated with a particular waste stream (soils/gravels). The
[[Page 11623]] inspection is scheduled to take place the week of
March 29, 2004.
EPA has placed a number of documents pertinent to the inspection
in the public docket described in ADDRESSES. These documents can
be found online in EDOCKET ID No. OAR-2004-0020 and also in hard
copy form as item II-A2-48 in Docket A-98-49. In accordance with
40 CFR 194.8, as amended by the final certification decision, EPA
is providing the public 30 days to comment on these documents.
If EPA determines as a result of the inspection that the proposed
waste streams, processes, systems, and equipment at RFETS
adequately control the characterization of transuranic waste, we
will notify DOE by letter and place the letter in the official
Air Docket in Washington, DC, as well as in the informational
docket locations in New Mexico. A letter of approval will allow
DOE to dispose of TRU waste at the WIPP using the approved
characterization processes. The EPA will not make a determination
of compliance prior to the inspection or before the 30-day
comment period has closed.
Information on the certification decision is filed in the
official EPA Air Docket, Docket No. A-93-02 and is available for
review in Washington, DC, and at three EPA WIPP informational
docket locations in New Mexico. The dockets in New Mexico contain
only major items from the official Air Docket in Washington, DC,
plus those documents added to the official Air Docket since the
October 1992 enactment of the WIPP LWA.
Dated: March 5, 2004.
Robert Brenner, Acting Assistant Administrator for Air and
Radiation.
[FR Doc. 04-5636 Filed 3-10-04; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
*****************************************************************
40 DenverPost: Seeing into Rocky Flats' future
Published: Thursday, March 11, 2004
Some fear former bomb-making site is too risky for public access
By Joey Bunch Denver Post Environment Writer
Critics of plans to develop Rocky Flats into a public site asked
Wednesday for a museum and not much else at the site that once
produced triggers for nuclear warheads.
About 40 people attended a hearing in Westminster about the
management of the 6,240-acre site slated to become a national
wildlife refuge in 2007. The meeting was the first in a series to
draft the plan for the site, wedged between Golden, Boulder,
Arvada and Westminster.
Several speakers said they wanted little or no public access
there because of the plutonium and other dangerous contaminants
handled at Rocky Flats, which served as a top-secret weapons
manufacturing complex from 1952 until it was shut down in an FBI
raid over environmental and worker-safety violations in 1989.
Jacque Brever, a former Rocky Flats plutonium worker and member
of the citizens group United to Keep Rocky Flats Closed, said the
entire site is contaminated, and those who hike or hunt there
should be made to sign an "informed consent" document beforehand.
"Just clean it up, fence it off and keep Rocky Flats closed,"
Brever said.
Taxpayers are spending $650 million a year for the site cleanup,
which is scheduled for completion by the end of 2006. The land
then will be turned over to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to
be a wildlife refuge.
The 385-acre manufacturing complex at the center of the site,
where contractors are knocking down and hauling off more than 800
buildings, will remain off-limits. Dean Rundle, the Fish and
Wildlife manager in charge at Rocky Flats, said no evidence has
been found to indicate that the buffer zone has any contaminants
to worry about.
Bini Abbott, who lives on the west shore of Standley Lake near
the site, is concerned about a proposal to allow youths and
disabled people to hunt there two weeks out of the year at what
is being called a "refuge."
"I think perception is going to be more important that reality,
and the public perception is going to be, 'What? You're going to
kill animals after you said you were saving them ...?"'
University of Colorado student John Geisentanner was bothered
that the site includes 2,460 acres of prairie dog habitat, but
the management plan limits their range to 750 acres.
"I wonder if that's not unfair to the prairie dogs," he said.
The Fish and Wildlife Service proposed four options:
No park development at the site, which would limit public access
and use.
Wildlife and habitat conservation measures, with limited hunting
and public use, including about 16 miles of driving, cycling,
walking and horseback-riding trails along existing roads.
Refuge-wide ecological restoration projects to replicate the
site's pre-development condition. Limited public use and minimal
facilities would be included, as well as removing roads, stream
crossings and other construction.
Maximum public use, including hunting and 19 miles of new and
existing trails for all uses, and intensive wildlife and habitat
management. The site also would include educational programs for
schoolchildren.
--> All contents Copyright 2004 The Denver Post or other
*****************************************************************
41 Tri-City Herald: Energy Northwest announces job cuts
This story was published Thursday, March 11th, 2004
By Chris Mulick Herald staff writer
Energy Northwest announced Wednesday that it will eliminate as
many as 60 positions by June 30.
That's about 5 percent of its approximately 1,200-member work
force at its nuclear site in southern Hanford. About half will
be handled through planned retirements, normal attrition and
vacancies that will not be filled.
The rest will be identified from various positions based on
operational requirements, employee performance, demonstrated
versatility and length of service -- in that order.
The security force will not be affected.
Energy Northwest, which operates the 1,150-megawatt Columbia
Generating Station, had committed to trimming about $5 million
from its annual budget, which figures to come in at $255.2
million for the fiscal year, which begins July 1.
Its primary customer, Bonneville Power Administration, has been
under the gun to cut costs so it can hold the line on its
wholesale electric rates and eventually reduce them. BPA,
through its customer utilities, supplies almost all the
electricity consumed in the Tri-Cities.
Energy Northwest's budget pressure has been heightened by new
security upgrades mandated by the federal government. Those
unanticipated costs have totaled $7.1 million for the next
fiscal year.
After planning spending cuts for small construction projects,
travel, training and incentive pay, staff found it necessary to
cut payroll, said Energy Northwest spokesman Brad Peck.
"We got to a point where we came to the realization we were
going to have to find additional areas to cut," he said. "We've
trimmed all the low-hanging fruit. There isn't any."
Positions will be considered for elimination throughout the
utility, but nuclear safety programs will not be affected.
Though Energy Northwest jobs typically pay well -- better on
average than even federal jobs elsewhere at Hanford -- the
cutbacks aren't likely to have a significant effect on the
Mid-Columbia economy, said Dean Schau, the state's regional
labor economist based in Pasco.
But laid-off workers will be hard-pressed to replace those
salaries.
"Where do you go out and get another job that pays that well?"
Schau asked. "It's just not a good time to be unemployed."
© 2004 Tri-City Herald, Associated Press &Other Wire Services
*****************************************************************
42 Tri-Valley Herald: Settlement taken by lab security officers
Article Last Updated: Thursday, March 11, 2004 -
Two security workers accept $200,000 after staging a sick-out
By FROM STAFF REPORTS
Two former security officers and outspoken labor leaders at
Lawrence Livermore nuclear weapons lab have accepted a $200,000
settlement after losing their whistleblower claims.
As part of the settlement, the union vice president for the lab's
security officers agreed to resign his lab job, effective
Tuesday.
"For me, it was more of a personal decision more than anything
else, to go back east and to be with my family," Mathew Zipoli
said Wednesday evening.
The lab said it fired Zipoli and Union President Charles Quinones
for organizing a sickout among lab security officers on the
anniversary of the Hiroshima bombing, when the lab calls up
additional forces to handle nuclear-disarmament protesters who
show up at a front gate.
Quinones and Zipoli argued that the firings were designed to
punish them for complaining about lax security at the lab to the
U.S. Department of Energy's Office of Inspector General, which
later issued a highly critical, classified report based largely
on their allegations.
An arbitrator found the lab's reasons for firing the men were
proper but that its firing of Zipoli was excessive and ordered
his reinstatement. Quinones and Zipoli also filed with the U.S.
Department of Labor for protected status as whistleblowers.
An administrative law judge for the agency did not find evidence
of retaliation and denied the claim.
Appeals of both decisions were pending when the officers reached
a settlement Tuesday with the lab and its operator, the
University of California.
In exchange for the$200,000, they dropped all claims against the
lab and UC, and the lab and UC dropped all counterclaims again
them.
*****************************************************************
43 Cincinnati Enquirer: Fernald cleanup firm cited
[http://www.cincinnati.com]
Thursday, March 11, 2004
Company lost $100,000 for safety violations
By Dan Klepal The Cincinnati Enquirer
CROSBY TWP. - Fluor Fernald, the company in charge of the $4
billion cleanup at the cold-war era Fernald uranium plant, lost
$100,000 in profit because of repeated safety violations last
year.
In a letter to the construction giant dated March 6, officials
with the U.S. Department of Energy said they were keeping the
money, based on a list of more than 41 safety violations between
July and September of 2003.
Among the problems cited:
• Two structural steel beams, each weighing thousands of pounds,
fell but didn't hit anyone.
• An unmanned forklift rolled into and punctured a hazardous
waste barrel.
• A structural steel beam fell on a worker's foot.
• A 480-volt electrical line fell on a tractor-trailer after
being snagged by the vehicle. Two days later, an excavator struck
a utility pole supporting an energized 480-volt electrical line.
Gary Stegner, spokesman for the DOE, which manages the project,
said there have been no other monetary incentives withheld from
Fluor to date this year. "Their performance has been very good
since then," Stegner said.
Fluor spokesman Jeff Wagner said his company doesn't think
withholding the fee is "reasonable."
"We acknowledge we had room for improvement, but we think we
addressed their concerns," Wagner said.
And last week, Fluor accidentally released an as-yet undetermined
amount of uranium into the Great Miami River, officials said.
The discharge came from resin that cleans tainted groundwater and
rainwater. The resin carries high levels of uranium. Bill Hurtel,
who oversees the cleaning of wastewater at Fernald, said it is
unclear how the resin leaked but he thinks one of the site's five
treatment plants leaked about two days.
An analyst taking samples in the river March 4 discovered the
resin. Later, Fluor officials found out an analyst a day earlier
also found resin.
"We do know we lost some resin, and we're in the process of
trying to quantify how much," Hurtel said.
The Fernald cleanup started in 1992. The project is to be
finished by the June, 2006 deadline.
E-mail dklepal@enquirer.com [dklepal@enquirer.com]
Copyright [http://cincinnati.com/copyright] 1995-2004. The
Cincinnati Enquirer [http://enquirer.com] , a Gannett Co. Inc.
*****************************************************************
44 Google News Alert - nuclear
Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2004 13:25:49 -0800 (PST)
LIBYA signs accord allowing snap nuclear checks
Reuters - India
... a fresh stride towards international rehabilitation on Wednesday by
signing an agreement allowing the UN atomic watchdog to conduct snap inspections
of nuclear ...
See all stories on this topic:
NICHOLAS D. Kristof: Risks of a nuclear Sept. 11 are increasing
International Herald Tribune - Paris,France
NEW YORK A 10-kiloton nuclear bomb (a pipsqueak in weapons terms) is smuggled
into Manhattan and explodes at Grand Central. Some ...
See all stories on this topic:
IRAN'S President Threatens Halt In Nuclear Cooperation With UN
Radio Free Europe - Prague,Czech Republic
Tehran, 11 March 2004 (RFE/RL) -- Iranian President Mohammad Khatami today
reiterated a warning that his government could stop cooperating with the
UN nuclear ...
See all stories on this topic:
BLACK Market for Nuclear Weapons Technology Raises Concerns
Voice of America - Washington,DC,USA
The recent revelation of an international black market in nuclear weapons
technology emanating from Pakistan has raised concern around the world.
...
See all stories on this topic:
''IRAN Reaffirms its Goal of Controlling the Nuclear Fuel Cycle' ...
PINR - United States
n recent days, Iran has reaffirmed its commitment toward its goal of gaining
complete control over the nuclear fuel cycle. Tehran's ...
EMERGENCY crews practice nuclear-plant disaster drill
LaSalle News Tribune - LaSalle,IL,USA
GRAND RIDGE — Local and state emergency disaster agencies teamed up Wednesday
to test their preparedness for the unthinkable — a nuclear disaster.
...
NUCLEAR Scandal Clouds Secretary of State's Visit
Insight on the News - Washington,DC,USA
... South Asia next week with a mixed agenda, but his talks in Pakistan
will also focus on the country's efforts to retrieve information from
a disgraced nuclear ...
See all stories on this topic:
NUCLEAR missile allegedly damaged
Seattle Post Intelligencer - Seattle,WA,USA
Was it a "broken arrow" at the Trident submarine base in Bangor in November
that led to the firing a month later of the Navy leadership overseeing
nuclear ...
See all stories on this topic:
ULTIMATELY A Regime Change Will Defuse Iran ’ s Nuclear Threat
Intellectual Conservative - Phoenix,AZ,USA
The IAEA’s Iran report released last week, short of an actual bomb attached
to it, leaves no doubt that Tehran does have a nuclear weapons program.
...
See all stories on this topic:
GREEN Groups Worry Russia May Become World's Nuclear Waste Dump
Cybercast News Service - USA
... has agreed to take back and recycle weapons-grade uranium that it originally
supplied to Libya, but the broader issue of trading in other countries'
nuclear ...
This daily-once News Alert is brought to you by Google News (BETA)...
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Remove this News Alert:
http://www.google.com/newsalerts/remove?s=92d1672a1b037a07&hl=en
Create another News Alert:
http://www.google.com/newsalerts?hl=en
Try Google News:
http://news.google.com/
*****************************************************************
45 Ithaca Journal: High-energy neutrons or protons can split atoms -
ithacajournal.com
- Thursday, March 11, 2004
Ask A Scientist Hans A. Bethe
Hans Bethe is professor emeritus of physics at Cornell
University. He has been at Cornell since 1935. He won the Nobel
Prize for physics in 1967 for explaining how stars make energy.
He worked on the atomic bomb during World War II and on the
design of nuclear power plants after the war. He has been one of
the leading advocates for the peaceful use of atomic energy and
for reductions in atomic weapons.
**
Today's question was answered by scientist Hans Bethe
Title: Professor of Physics Emeritus
Department: Physics
Research area: Quantum theory of atoms; theory of metals;
quantum theory of collisions; theory of atomic nuclei; meson
theory; energy production in stars; neutron stars and their
formation; quantum electro-dynamics; shock wave theory; theory
of supernovae
Ph.D. school: University of Munich, Germany, 1928
Awards: Nobel Prize in Physics, 1967
Interests/ hobbies: Stamp collecting, alpine hiking, history
Family: Married 65 years, two children, 3 grandchildren
Web page: www.physics. cornell.edu/profpages/emeritus/Bethe.htm
[http://www.physics.cornell.edu/profpages/emeritus/Bethe.htm]
Today's question was asked by student Aiden Moore
School: Spencer-Van Etten Elementary School
Teacher: Mr. Efroymson
Grade: 4
Favorite subject: Science
Interests: Computer, video games, fantasy, science fiction,
movies, cooking, hiking, playing with sisters and friends
Career interest: Work for NASA as a scientist
Family: Mom, stepdad, three sisters ages 11, 7 and 1
Question: How do you split atoms?
Answer: Atoms have a central core, called the nucleus. The
nucleus consists of protons and neutrons. The number of protons
is called the "atomic number." The sum of the protons and
neutrons is the "atomic weight." Nuclei with the same atomic
number but different atomic weights are called isotopes of an
element. The elements we find on the earth have atomic numbers
from 1 to 92 and atomic weights from 1 to 238.
When you hit a nucleus with a particle such as a neutron or
proton several things can happen. The particle can bounce off.
The particle can be absorbed. There will then usually be a
relatively small nuclear change such as transforming a neutron
to a proton by emitting an electron or a larger one in which the
nucleus emits two protons and two neutrons. Both of these
nuclear reactions change the nucleus from one element into
another. But the new element is not very different in atomic
number or weight from the original one.
In 1938 a German chemist, Otto Hahn, hit uranium, atomic number
92, with neutrons. He created some much lighter elements with
atomic numbers between 30 and 60 and weights between 90 and 150.
He was astonished by this and sent his results to a former
colleague, Lise Meitner. She provided the explanation. The
neutrons had split the uranium nucleus into two large fragments.
They named the splitting "fission." If each split creates about
two new neutrons to do more splitting, a "chain reaction" can
result. Fission can only occur in very heavy elements and is
likely only in some isotopes.
The phenomenon that atoms can be split this way led to nuclear
power plants and the atomic bomb. In a bomb, the chain reaction
occurs very rapidly which leads to a very quick release of a lot
of energy. In a nuclear power plant the speed of the chain
reaction is controlled, and so is the rate of release of energy.
Ask A Scientist appears each Thursday on the Health &Science
page. Questions are answered by local or regional researchers
through the Cornell Center for Materials Research (CCMR)
Educational Programs Office. If you have a question, write to
Ask A Scientist, c/o The Ithaca Journal, 123 W. State St., or
e-mail it to tfleisch@ithaca.gannett.com.
[tfleisch@ithaca.gannett.com] You can also check out the Ask A
Scientist Web site at www.ccmr.cornell.edu/ask.
[http://www.ccmr.cornell.edu/ask]
Originally published Thursday, March 11, 2004
Copyright ©2004 The Ithaca Journal. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
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:
*****************************************************************