*****************************************************************
04/01/04 ****     RADIATION BULLETIN(RADBULL)       **** VOL 12.79
*****************************************************************
   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 Haaretz: The lesson of Iraq
2 Economist.com: George Bush's credibility
3 Las Vegas SUN: Britain Concerned by Iran Nuke Facility
4 BBC: Iran uranium plant sparks new row 
5 Pravda.RU: Russia will continue cooperating with Iran in nuclear sph
6 AFP: US to host informal Korean nuclear crisis talks
7 Xinhuanet: ROK, US, Japan to consult on DPRK nuke issue   
8 People's Daily: China, US officials meet on Korean nuke issue
9 US: [NukeNet] Groups Decry New Nukes Proposal
10 US: TCS: Hell in a Suitcase
11 US: Las Vegas SUN: Judge Orders Release of Energy Documents
12 US: Salt Lake Tribune: Bush administration's assaults on environment
13 US: StatesmanJournal: Urge vote against nuke funds
14 US: Las Vegas SUN: White House Renews Call for Energy Bill
15 ThisisLondon: Chickens were recruited for cold war 
16 PRAVDA.Ru: Russian to strengthen its nuclear potential - 
17 US: Bellona: Navy shipyard workers have not received salary since Se
18 Bellona: Russian Nuclear Agency presented its annual report for 2003
19 BBC: Russia condemns Nato's expansion 
20 BBC: Cold war bomb warmed by chickens 
21 Hi Pakistan: No Pakistani govt involved in N-transfer - US
22 Hi Pakistan: Khan N-network smashed - US     
 
                         NUCLEAR REACTORS
 
23 US: TMI: B&W Dropped Info that Might Have Prevented Disaster
24 US: NRC: NRC to Hold Open Regulatory Conference to Discuss Surry Nuc
25 US: NRC: NRC Makes New Management Assignments to Expand Its Focus on
26 US: AFP: US averted nuclear catastrophy 25 years ago
27 US: Brattleboro Reformer: NRC blasted at heated VY meeting
28 US: NRC: Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards; Joint Meeting of 
29 US: NRC: Notice of Availability of Environmental Assessment and Find
30 US: NRC: Arizona Public Service Company, et al.; Notice of Partial 
31 US: Brattleboro Reformer: Consortium to seek license to build new pl
32 US: PC News Herald: Meetings set to review D-B restart - 
33 US: PC News Herald: Plans for new nuclear plant to test NRC -
34 US: News Messenger: Davis-Besse 'above 70% and climbing' 
35 US: North County Times: Broken sensors keep San Onofre reactor down
36 Western Producer: SARM endorses nuclear plant - 
37 US: SignOnSanDiego.com: Power plant owners spar about overhaul
38 US: JS Online: Nuclear plant review won't examine effect on ratepaye
39 US: Brattleboro Reformer: Watchdog group won't give up
40 US: Miami Herald: PL has plans for Turkey Point
41 US: Democracy Now: 25th Anniversary of The Worst Nuclear Accident in
42 US: palmbeachpost: Three Mile Island + 25: Survivor recalls life at 
43 US: Nuclear Energy Institute: Devil's Advocate for Nuclear Power
44 US: NYT: A 2nd Consortium Wants a Reactor
45 US: Manitowoc Herald Times Reporter: Nuclear plant hearings begin
46 US: Oak Ridger: Three Mile Island linkage: Old hometown to new homet
47 US: WIStv: V.C. Summer Nuclear Station off-line for repair
 
                          NUCLEAR SAFETY
 
48 Rachel's #788: Depleted Uranium Weapons
49 US: Jersey Journal: Radiation detectors installed at Jersey City car
50 Scotsman: Death toll from nuclear strike on UK put at 12m
 
                         NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE
 
51 US: Deseretnews: EPA not releasing vital data, Demos say
52 Las Vegas SUN: Energy Department studying trucking waste to Nevada n
53 Las Vegas SUN: Reid upset by Energy Department legal bill for Yucca 
54 US: NRC: Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste; Notice of Meeting
55 Herald: Dounreay wind-down 50 years ahead of schedule   
56 The Spectrum: Nuke-waste dump clearly isn't ready - Opinion - 
57 Las Vegas RJ: Spending on Yucca lawyers criticized 
58 Las Vegas RJ: Nuclear shipments to test site to start in September 
59 Las Vegas RJ: YUCCA MOUNTAIN SHIPMENT ROUTE: DOE: Rail line won't be
60 RGJ: Energy Department dusts off backup waste-shipping plan
61 US: The Australian: Kakadu mine resumes operation 
62 US: Contra Costa Times: Navy reaches deal with S.F. on land at Hunte
63 US: Carlsbad Current-Argus: State won’t attend waste talks
64 US: CBC: Cameco Corp. and partner to develop Inkai uranium deposit i
65 Scotsman: Inverness - Dounreay clean-up cut to 43 years
66 US: fremontneb.com: State tax hike talk lacks consensus (LLW Decisio
67 US: Reid: Reid Statement On Shipping Nuclear Waste By Truck
68 US: Las Vegas SUN: Utah Lawmaker Apologizes for Remark
69 Whitehaven News: NUCLEAR SAFETY OKAY, BNFL TOLD 
70 Whitehaven News: ‘NEAR-CRASH AT SELLAFIELD’ STORY DEEMED UNTRUE 
 
                         NUCLEAR WEAPONS
 
71 US: TV Barn Ticker: Full details on NOW with Bill Moyers
 
                        US DEPT. OF ENERGY
 
72 Las Vegas SUN: Weapons-grade nuclear material to go from New Mexico 
73 Seattle Post-Intelligencer: Don't go nuclear over a banana
74 Las Vegas SUN: Los Alamos nuclear program will be moved to Test Site
75 Oak Ridger: BWXT Y-12 volunteers improve climate of Children's Museu
76 Oak Ridger: Out with the old 							 							 							
77 lamonitor.com: DOE releases cleanup monies 
78 Paducah Sun: Unlikely DOE cleanup at plant -
79 Idaho Statesman: Cleanup workers find broken drum at INEEL
 
                          OTHER NUCLEAR
 
80 [progchat_action] Fw: U.S. TAKES STEP TOWARD WEAPONS IN SPACE
81 Google News Alert - nuclear
82 Japan Times: Kitty Hawk successor to be nuclear-powered
83 Physics Today: DOE Warms to Cold Fusion
*****************************************************************
*****************************************************************
                         FULL NEWS STORIES
*****************************************************************
*****************************************************************
 1 Haaretz: The lesson of Iraq
 
Homepage [http://www.haaretz.com]          

April 02, 2004

  By Ze'ev Schiff [contact@haaretz.co.il]        
  
In the 81 pages of the report of the committee investigating the 
intelligence establishment after the war in Iraq, there is no 
hint of what happened to the weapons of mass destruction and the 
few missiles that were in Saddam Hussein's possession. There is 
also no attempt to deal with this question. The investigative 
panels in both the United States and Britain are interested, 
first and foremost, in whether there was any basis for the launch 
of the war by their leaders. Israel has to look further than 
this.      

With hindsight, there are several possibilities. One is that 
these weapons, as well as missiles and launchers, were no longer 
in Iraq's hands well before the war. Did Israeli intelligence 
take this into account? The answer is affirmative, and here is 
the evidence - at a certain stage, Military Intelligence head 
Aharon Ze'evi-Farkash instructed the "vice versa" team to examine 
this possibility; that is, there was doubt among those in 
intelligence, but it did not supersede fears that Saddam 
nevertheless had a small quantity ("a remnant") of such weapons, 
as well as a small number of missiles.

A second possibility is that these weapons were destroyed just 
before the war. That is, Saddam was alarmed by the possibility of 
a war against him, and therefore, ordered the destruction of this 
weaponry. But if this was indeed the case, why did he not take 
the trouble to prove this in order to save his regime and 
himself? After all, such proof would have been sufficient to 
strengthen the hands of the many who opposed going to war. What's 
absurd is that the distrust of Saddam was so great that they did 
not believe his claim that the weapons had been destroyed.

A third possibility is that the few weapons of mass destruction 
and missiles that remained in his hands were hidden in Iraq. 
Evidence of this possibility: the large number of MiG-25 
aircrafts that were hidden in the sands and found. In addition, 
the Iraqis admitted on the eve of the war that they had produced 
a certain number of Al-Sumud missiles. To this day, about 25 such 
missiles still have yet to be accounted for. At the Tuwaitha 
nuclear facility, for example, American soldiers found drums of 
uranium oxide ("yellowcake"). They did not take their discovery 
seriously enough, and the Iraqi peasants poured the sludge into 
the river and turned the drums into water containers. It is 
strange that all the investigations of the regime heads have not 
revealed this type of concealment. Could it be that the 
investigations have not been professional enough?

The fourth possibility is that the materials for weapons of mass 
destruction have been hidden in Syria. Intelligence does not 
confirm this assumption, but neither does it refute it at 
present. A foreign personality who is close to the Syrian regime 
claims that although the Syrians made a number of anti-American 
moves on the eve of the war, they would not have taken such a 
risk.

On the eve of the war, Israeli intelligence focused on what was 
happening in western Iraq, where missiles were launched on Israel 
in the Gulf War. There was no sign that Saddam was building up a 
dangerous deployment there, but the possibility did exist that he 
had hidden a number of missiles armed with various kinds of 
warheads. There were also signs that the Iraqis were training 
with unmanned aircrafts and a Tupolev-16 cargo plane for missions 
in the direction of Israel.

Various hypothesis were proposed by Israeli intelligence. One, 
for example, was that Saddam would strike Israel preemptively 
before the war began. This hypothesis fell. Another hypothesis 
was that he would use everything he had against Israel if his 
back was to the wall. This was a working hypothesis and not a 
conception like there was on the eve of the Yom Kippur War. The 
conclusion from all this does not point to a fault in the 
intelligence evaluation that said there was a low probability of 
an Iraqi attack. In 1991, Israeli intelligence was correct in its 
evaluation, which at that time was the opposite - that Saddam 
would launch missiles against Israel.

To sum up, it is not the intelligence evaluation that should be 
cause for concern in this affair, but rather the fact that 
Israeli intelligence did not have sufficient information at its 
disposal, and that Israel's human intelligence ("humint") system 
is apparently not good enough.           

© Copyright  Haaretz. All rights reserved   
*****************************************************************
 2 Economist.com: George Bush's credibility
 
Thursday April 1st 2004                

A matter of trust 
Apr 1st 2004 | WASHINGTON, DC 
From The Economist print edition

Evidence is growing that the Bush administration has misled the 
public. But most voters, so far, are inclined to forgive

GEORGE BUSH ran for president in 2000 promising to raise the tone 
of debate in Washington. He was not saying merely that he 
wouldn't have sex with interns. He was talking about basic 
honesty, promising to look facts in the face, not to spin (too 
much), not to make policy by opinion polls, and to give an honest 
accounting of his actions. He reiterated that position last month 
in an interview: The American people [will] assess whether or 
not I made good calls...And the American people need to know 
they've got a president who sees the world the way it is. 

Yet the administration's reaction to accusations by Richard 
Clarke, its former counter-terrorism co-ordinator, raises doubts 
not only over its judgments but, still more, over whether and how 
the administration accounts for its decisions. When set in the 
context of the failure to find weapons of mass destruction in 
Iraq and the ballooning budget deficit, this reaction raises 
profound questions about the administration's credibility, 
honesty and competence. 

Mr Clarke argued, in testimony to the special commission 
investigating the terrorist attacks of 2001, that terrorism was 
not a top priority before September 11th. The administration, he 
claimed, had failed to do as much as it could and should have 
done to disrupt the threat of global Islamic terrorism in its 
first eight months. In his book, he argued that the reason for 
the neglect was that the administration was distracted by its 
obsession with Iraqsymbolised by the president's repeated 
insistence, in the days after the attacks, that Mr Clarke should 
look into possible connections with Saddam. 

These are serious charges politically for Mr Bush, who is running 
on his handling of national security. They are also serious 
charges substantively, because they challenge the performance of 
America's intelligence services and raise questions about whether 
war in Iraq was justified. And, on the substance, the 
administration's case in its own defence should and could have 
been better than it appeared. 

It could, for example, have stressed that it was seeking a more 
ambitious strategy against terrorists than the one inherited from 
the Clinton administration, which Mr Bush called swatting 
flies. In fact, a new, slightly more aggressive strategy emerged 
a week before the attacks, but too late. It could have pointed 
out, as Mr Clarke conceded, that even had it done everything Mr 
Clarke wanted, it probably could not have stopped the September 
attacks. Mr Bush could have acknowledged (as he had done earlier) 
that he had underestimated the threat from al-Qaeda before 
September 11th, but that afterwards he pursued the war on terror 
to the utmost extent. And he could have reminded everyone that, 
in 2001, Iraqi terrorism was a legitimate concern, if not a large 
one. 

But to have done all this would have required acknowledging at 
least part of Mr Clarke's complaints. And that the administration 
was unwilling to do. It was still insisting that it had done 
everything it could have done before the attacks. So instead of 
treating the criticisms seriously, and replying to them 
seriously, the administration, with one or two honourable 
exceptions, began a campaign to discredit Mr Clarke. 

Dick Cheney, the vice-president, suggested that he was doing it 
in revenge for not getting a promotion. He claimed Mr Clarke was 
out of the loop, a charge almost instantly contradicted by 
Condoleezza Rice, the national security adviser. The White 
House's press spokesman claimed Mr Clarke was doing it for both 
commercial and partisan reasons. (He is a friend of John Kerry's 
chief foreign-policy adviser, Rand Beers, who succeeded Mr Clarke 
in his counter-terrorism job before leaving for the Kerry 
campaign.) The nadir came when the leader of the Senate, Bill 
Frist of Tennessee, all but accused Mr Clarke of perjury before 
the Senate. Mr Frist even criticised Mr Clarke's apology to the 
victims of terrorism, saying he had neither the privilege nor the 
responsibility to make such a statement. But no one else from the 
administration has risen to that responsibility at all. 

It has to be conceded that the administration's attacks are not 
made up from scratch. Mr Clarke had previously lauded the Bush 
administration's anti-terror policies before the attacks in 
off-the-record briefings, something he now dismisses as a 
question of politics. His accounts of the episode in which Mr 
Bush urged him, the day after the al-Qaeda attacks, to look into 
possible Iraqi connections vary a little: sometimes he describes 
Mr Bush's manner as intimidating, sometimes not. The White House 
has claimed that, just before the invasion of Iraq, Mr Clarke met 
Ms Rice but did not raise his worries that such an action would 
harm the war on terror. Wilful inattention? 

It might also be argued that the administration, in attacking Mr 
Clarke, was merely responding in kind to the personal criticisms 
that Mr Clarke himself had levelled at its members. For instance, 
he implied that Ms Rice had never heard of al-Qaeda before he 
briefed her in her early days in office, whereas in fact she had 
given speeches about the threat of al-Qaeda long before. 

Yet when all is said and done, Mr Clarke was the administration's 
first crisis manager on September 11th, directing emergency 
responses from the White House itself that day. He had presented 
Ms Rice with a memo urging the administration to imagine a day 
after a terrorist attack, with hundreds of Americans dead at home 
and abroad, and ask themselves what they could have done 
earlier. This came one week before September 11th. And even if 
he had not been a prescient participant in much of the debate on 
terrorism within the White House, his arguments would still have 
merited better answers than they receivedif only because they 
were also raised by others. 

The special commission's reports corroborate his charge that 
proposals to resume unmanned Predator drone flights in 
Afghanistan were discussed only in desultory fashion at a lower 
level of the administration throughout 2001, while the 
principals (cabinet-level officers) were discussing other 
matters, such as Russia, Iraq and the Middle East. The Army War 
College argued that by attacking Iraq, the administration 
unnecessarily expanded the global war on terror and that this 
was done at the expense of continued attention and effort to 
protect the United States from a terrorist organisation with 
which the United States was at war. 

That does not necessarily make the arguments against Mr Bush 
true. But as a philosopher, Sidney Hook, once said, before 
impugning an opponent's motives, even when they legitimately may 
be impugned, answer his arguments. The administration did not do 
this. Instead, by seeking to demean Mr Clarke, it neglected the 
questions he raised. Even to those who agree with the policies in 
the war on terror, this should be worrying. 

More worrying still, the Clarke affair has a pattern: never 
apologise, never explain. With the notable exception of Richard 
Armitage, the deputy secretary of state, the administration has 
refused to acknowledge even obvious shortcomings, such as its 
slowness in formulating a new counter-terrorism policy. It has 
not shifted its basic claimto have done everything possiblein 
the light of conflicting arguments. It refused to allow Ms Rice 
to testify in public to the commissionWhite House officials do 
not usually do such thingsuntil pressure to do so became 
irresistible, implying a certain reluctance to account for its 
actions before Congress (see article). It deployed ruthless 
character assassination against critics within its own ranks. The 
reason this pattern is disturbing is that all these features can 
be seen in the policy debates over both the war in Iraq and tax 
cutsthe policies on which Mr Bush deserves, above all else, to 
be judged. 

In both cases, the administration stuck relentlessly to an 
unchanging line in radically changed circumstances. It argued 
that the tax cut of 2001 was justified because there was a large 
surplus. It argued that the tax cut of 2003 was justified even 
though there was a large deficit. It argued that war in Iraq was 
justified because Iraq's weapons of mass destruction threatened 
the United States. It argued that war was justified even when it 
failed to find those weapons. 

This is not to assert that the policies were conclusively wrong, 
though many have argued as much. In both cases, the 
administration could still defend and justify its actions in 
different ways. It has claimed, for example, that tax cuts were 
right because they encouraged economic growth. It has justified 
war in Iraq variously as an integral part of the global war on 
terror, on humanitarian grounds, and as a first step towards the 
democratisation of the Middle East. And, of course, tax cuts and 
the Iraq war could also be disputed, as well as defended, on any 
or all of these grounds. 

But some of these arguments are undeniably internally 
inconsistent. For example, if temporary tax cuts have spurred 
economic growth, why should they be made permanent, as the 
administration wants? Or if forecasts of vast budget deficits are 
bogus now (as the administration says), why did Mr Bush justify 
the 2001 cut on predictions of large surpluses? Digging in 

More important, in both cases, the administration has not engaged 
in any serious debate about the implications for its original 
arguments of changed circumstances. Rather, it has simply waved 
objections aside and restated its position. Paul O'Neill, Mr 
Bush's first treasury secretary, memorably quoted Mr Cheney as 
writing off the significance of budget deficits altogether: 
Reagan proved deficits don't matter. In similar vein, Mr Bush 
dismissed the idea that the absence of WMD had any implications 
for perceptions of the Iraqi security threat. So what's the 
difference?, he asked a television interviewer rhetorically last 
December, between Saddam actually possessing WMD and his moving 
to acquire them? The idea that the absence of WMD is 
insignificant sits oddly with the administration's earlier claims 
that the existence of the weapons was vital. 

When justifying policies on both Iraq and tax cuts, the 
administration's case has been riddled with errors. Obviously, 
the most egregious concern Iraq's WMD. Henry Waxman, a Democratic 
congressman, has gathered no fewer than 237 exaggerated or 
dubious claims by senior administration membersan impressive 
litany of mistakes. One priceless example: Donald Rumsfeld in 
September 2002, asserting that there's no debate in the world as 
to whether they have those weapons...We all know that. A trained 
ape knows that. All you have to do is read the newspapers. (Had 
the ape been trained to read?) 

These mis-statements could be excused as hype, or errors based on 
faulty intelligence. But the administration can hardly pin all 
the blame on a gung-ho Central Intelligence Agency when it itself 
was even more convinced that Saddam had WMD, and was sceptical of 
the few words of caution that the CIA and others managed to 
interject. On March 30th, the new chief American weapons 
inspector for Iraq talked of new information about WMD but gave 
little idea what it was, beyond evidence of a general Iraqi 
capability to produce such weapons. 

In the case of the deficit, the budget mis-statements cannot even 
be excused on the grounds of simple error. Mr Bush's budget 
statements have routinely assumed future spending restraints that 
few in Congress or the administration believe will happen. In 
forecasting future deficits, he has assumed revenue increases 
from taxes he is seeking to repeal (such as the so-called 
Alternative Minimum Tax). And as Mr O'Neill argued, the White 
House was wrong when it claimed, in 2001, that it could not use 
the budget surplus to pay off the federal debt beyond a certain 
point. All these are cases where the administration should surely 
have known better. 

There have been a few specific instances of stepping nearperhaps 
even overthe line that divides error from irresponsibility. For 
example, the president claimed in October 2002 that Iraq had a 
massive stockpile of biological weapons. The CIA's director, 
George Tenet, has said he had no specific information on such 
stockpiles even at the time. In the state-of-the-union message in 
2003 Mr Bush, citing British intelligence, claimed Iraq had tried 
to buy yellowcake uranium from Africaa claim that had to be 
retracted. In March, Mr Cheney said there was no doubt that 
Saddam was trying to build a nuclear device. In fact, the 
intelligence services had expressed doubts. 

But the most damning example comes from the budget process, and 
from lower levels of the administration. During the debate in 
Congress on a new Medicare prescription-drug bill, the cost of 
the programme proposed by the administration was put at $400 
billion over ten yearseven though analysts at the Department of 
Health and Social Security reckoned the real cost would be about 
$550 billion and, it is widely believed, had passed that estimate 
on to the White House and the Office of Management and Budget. 
But they did not pass it to Congress because, says a 
whistle-blower, the then Medicare administrator threatened to 
fire the chief analyst if he told legislators the higher 
estimate. There was legal justification for this, and the 
administrator denies making threats of dismissal. But the episode 
still looks disturbingly like a case of the administration 
manipulating federal accounting standards for political ends. 
Lies, or principle? 

On both Iraq and the budget, the administration has unloaded its 
heaviest ammunition against critics who formerly worked for it. 
John DiIulio, who was brought into the White House to implement 
Mr Bush's faith-based initiative, was told to retract his 
criticism that the administration lacked a proper policy shop for 
evaluating facts and arguments impartially. Paul O'Neill, who 
repeated that criticism in a book, found himself on the receiving 
end of a barrage of personal abuse. And when Joe Wilson, who had 
investigated the claims about yellowcake uranium, contradicted Mr 
Bush's assertion that there had been a deal, someoneit is not 
clear whotelephoned journalists in Washington to blow the cover 
of Mrs Wilson (Valerie Plame), who had worked for the CIA. 
Richard Clarke was not the first such target. 

This pattern of behaviour is strikingly consistent. But what does 
it reveal? And how much will it really matter in the election? 
Critics of the administration have asserted that it means the 
whole crew is a bunch of liarsas John Kerry recently blurted out 
when he thought the microphone was switched off. The president 
always intended to go to war with Iraq; terrorism was just an 
excuse. All he cares about is tax cuts; fiscal discipline and 
spending programmes can go hang. 

But there is another set of explanations, less damning of the 
administration. Most of the liesalmost all of which are 
actually mistakes or misrepresentations, not deliberate 
falsehoodsare products of the endless spin and interpretation of 
America's permanent campaign. Message control and winning each 
24-hour news cycle have usurped the place of substantive debate. 
The Clinton administration was accused of similar lies and 
half-truths. It is as much the product of a political culture as 
of any one president, and Mr Bush's ambition to buck the trend 
has failed. 

The administration came into office convinced that, under Mr 
Clinton, too much accountability to Congress had hampered 
effective government. Its members have therefore tried to 
re-assert executive privilege. Some of their attempts to keep 
Congress in the dark are rooted in this view, rather than in 
perfidy and secrecy. 

Lastly, many of these lies have a curious quality: they tend to 
confirm the popular view of the president's temperament and 
beliefs. Usually, distortions suggest that the person responsible 
is putting on an act or is somehow different from what he 
pretends to be. Yet, at least in foreign policy, the 
administration's errors and misrepresentations all tend to 
confirm the president's image as a man uncompromising in his 
determination to fight the war on terror as he conceives it (at 
least after September 2001), and willing to ride roughshod over 
critics and nuanced intelligence alike to get his way. 

And that in turn may explain one of the most surprising features 
of the past two weeks: that despite all the controversy over Mr 
Bush's honesty, credibility and competence, his position in the 
opinion polls has remained resilient. In several polls he has 
regained a narrow lead over Mr Kerry, and 50% of voters say they 
are more likely to vote for him because of his actions in the war 
on terror compared with just 28% for his rival. 

Admittedly, the margin on the latter question was even greater 
two months ago, and more people now think the war in Iraq has 
increased the likelihood of another terrorist attack than think 
it has reduced it. Still, worries about Mr Bush do not yet seem 
to be translating into potential votes for Mr Kerry. It is as if 
voters, faced with the president's lack of straight dealing, are 
concluding that truth may indeed be the first casualty of the war 
they want to win. 
	
Copyright © The Economist Newspaper Limited 2004. All rights
reserved.
*****************************************************************
 3 Las Vegas SUN: Britain Concerned by Iran Nuke Facility
 
ASSOCIATED PRESS 

LONDON (AP) - The British government said it was concerned by a
new nuclear facility in Iran and said the clerical regime must
allay international concerns about its uranium enrichment
program. 

Iran announced on Saturday that it had inaugurated a uranium
conversion facility in Isfahan, 155 miles south of Tehran. 

Gholamreza Aghazadeh, chief of Iran's Atomic Energy
Organization, told state television Monday that the plant would
process uranium ore into gas - a crucial step before uranium
enrichment. Enriched uranium can be used for atomic energy or to
make bombs. 

Britain's Foreign Office said Wednesday that it had noted
Aghazadeh's statement. "This announcement sends the wrong signal
about Iranian willingness to implement a suspension of nuclear
enrichment-related activities," it said in a statement. 

"It will make it more difficult for Iran to re-establish
international confidence in her undertakings. Iran must explain
her statement and her intentions." 

The German Foreign Ministry issued a statement expressing the
same concerns. 

British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw, German Foreign Minister
Joschka Fischer and French Foreign Minister Dominique de
Villepin visited Tehran last year and secured a commitment to
allow the International Atomic Energy Agency to conduct spot
checks. 

The Foreign Office said Paris and Berlin would express similar
concerns Wednesday. 

The United States accuses Iran of pursuing a nuclear weapons
program, and Washington has called for Iran to suspend all
uranium-related activity. Iran says it wants atomic energy only
for peaceful purposes. 

-- 



*****************************************************************
 4 BBC: Iran uranium plant sparks new row 
 
  Last Updated: Thursday, 1 April, 2004
 
[Aerial view of Natanz facility]                                
Iran has been accused of keeping some of its nuclear activities 
secret [Photo: Digitalglobe]                                                           

Iran has hit back after European criticism of its decision to set 
up a uranium conversion plant near Isfahan. 

UN ambassador Pirooz Hosseini told Reuters news agency the plant 
was not in breach of Iran's commitment to suspend uranium 
enrichment. 

On Wednesday the UK, Germany and France issued a joint statement 
saying the plant's creation sent the wrong signal to the 
international community. 

The row comes less than a week after UN inspectors returned to 
Iran. 

The plant is a total separate issue from our commitment to the 
suspension of uranium enrichment Pirooz Hosseini Iranian 
ambassador to the UN    

Inspections were suspended earlier in March after a dispute with 
UN watchdog the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). 

The IAEA has rebuked Tehran for keeping some of its nuclear 
activities secret. 

The US, meanwhile, says Iran is using its nuclear power programme 
to develop weapons. 

Strong reaction 

Mr Hosseini told Reuters that he would be discussing criticism of 
the new plant with British, French and German representatives in 
the next few days, adding that Iran would keep its promise made 
to European countries last October about enrichment and 
inspections. 

"[The plant is] a totally separate issue from our commitment to 
the suspension of uranium enrichment," he said. 

This announcement sends t wrong signal about Iranian willingness 
to implement a suspension of nuclear enrichment-related 
activities UK Foreign Office statement     

The ambassador did not say whether Tehran would be prepared to 
shut down the plant, the inauguration of which was announced on 
Saturday. 

Iran says the facility will process uranium ore into gas, a step 
towards enrichment. 

The news prompted a strong reaction from the UK Foreign Office. 

"This announcement sends the wrong signal about Iranian 
willingness to implement a suspension of nuclear 
enrichment-related activities," it said in a statement. 

"It will make it more difficult for Iran to re-establish 
international confidence in her undertakings. Iran must explain 
her statement and her intentions." 

The German Foreign Ministry expressed similar concerns. 

*****************************************************************
 5 Pravda.RU: Russia will continue cooperating with Iran in nuclear sphere
 
[PRAVDA.RU]         Last update:04/02/2004 07:10 MSK     
                    
 Russia will continue its cooperation with Iran in the nuclear 
sphere, according to the head of the Russian Atomic Energy 
Agency, Aleksandr Rumiantsev. As reported by a Rosbalt 
correspondent, Rumiantsev told an agency colloquium Wednesday 
that 'Iran is our strategic partner, and our cooperation with it 
will continue.'

According to Rumiantsev, there is no evidence that Iran is 
developing nuclear weapons. He said that 'Iran has demonstrated 
peaceful intentions in the nuclear sphere.' He added that the 
atomic energy station Russia is building at Bushehr would 'become 
operational according to plan in mid-2005.'

At the same time, Rumiantsev noted that the United States 'is not 
very happy about the developing relationship between Russia and 
Iran.' He added that 'our country has fulfilled all of the 
obligations undertaken by us concerning bilateral cooperation 
between Russia and the United States.' 

© RosBalt

  Copyright ©1999 by "Pravda.RU [http://www.pravda.ru/] ". When
*****************************************************************
 6 AFP: US to host informal Korean nuclear crisis talks

[http://www.spacewar.com/]

WASHINGTON (AFP) Apr 01, 2004

 The United States confirmed Thursday that it would hold 
unofficial talks with Japan and South Korea next week on the 
Korean nuclear crisis.

The "informal trilateral meeting" in San Francisco on April 7-8 
"is part of our continuous, ongoing dialogue about North Korea 
policy," a US official said. "I don't expect any major 
announcements."

The three countries together with Russia and China are involved 
in so-called six-party talks with North Korea to help resolve the 
nuclear crisis in the Korean peninsula.

The second round of the six-party talks, held in China in 
February, agreed to set up a working group but failed to achieve 
a breakthrough in the nuclear standoff.

US State Department official Joseph DeTrani discussed 
preparations for the third round of talks with Chinese Vice 
Foreign Minister Wang Yi, one of Beijing's top North Korea hands, 
in Beijing on Thursday.

Japanese media reported this week about the upcoming trilateral 
informal talks and said the agenda would include the setting up 
of the working group.

The parties hope to hold the first working group session in late 
April, the Japan Broadcasting Corporation (NHK) reported.

Those expected to attend the San Francisco talks are Mitoji 
Yabunaka, director of the Japanese foreign ministry's Asian and 
Oceanian Affairs Bureau, South Korean Deputy Foreign Minister Lee 
Soo Hyuck and James Kelly, US assistant secretary of state for 
East Asian and Pacific affairs.

The three each led their countries' delegations in the six-party 
talks in February.

Washington had accused North Korea in October 2002 of having a 
program to enrich uranium and demanded that the Stalinist state 
completely and verifiably dismantle its nuclear programmes.

Pyongyang has sought security guarantees and economic aid in 
return for denuclearization while Washington has insisted that a 
verifiable dismantling of its nuclear program come first.

  WAR.WIRE
*****************************************************************
 7 Xinhuanet: ROK, US, Japan to consult on DPRK nuke issue   

  www.xinhuanet.com

  www.chinaview.cn 2004-04-01 21:22:50   

    SEOUL, April 1 (Xinhuanet) -- South Korea, the United States 
and Japan are to hold high-level talks to coordinate their 
policies onthe nuclear issue of the Democratic People's Republic 
of Korea (DPRK), the South Korean Ministry of Foreign Affairs and 
Trade (MOFAT) said Thursday. 

    The meeting, to be held in San Francisco on April 7-8, will 
be attended by MOFAT Deputy Minister Lee Soo-hyuck, US Assistant 
Secretary of State James Kelly and Mitoji Yabunaka, director 
general of the Japanese Foreign Ministry, said MOFAT spokesman 
Shin Bong-kil. 

    The three diplomats led their countries' delegations to the 
previous two rounds of six-nation talks on the DPRK nuclear 
issue. 

    China, the United States, the DPRK, Russia, South Korea and 
Japan held first and second rounds of six-way talks in Beijing in 
August 2003 and February 2004, respectively. Enditem 

  Copyright ©2003 Xinhua News Agency. All rights reserved. 
*****************************************************************
 8 People's Daily: China, US officials meet on Korean nuke issue
 
  Last updated at: (Beijing Time) Thursday, April 01, 2004   
  
  Chinese Vice Foreign Minister WangYi met Thursday in Beijing 
with Joseph R. DeTrani, a US State Departmentspecial envoy for 
the Democratic People's Republic Korea (DPRK), who was on a 
special visit to China for working consultations.   

During their meeting, the two sides gave a high evaluation of the 
progress that the second round of six-party talks on the Korean 
nuclear issue made and expressed their willingness to starta 
working group as early as possible so as to prepare for the third 
round of talks, which it was agreed will be held before the end 
of June. 

Before their meeting, Ning Fukui, Chinese ambassador in charge of 
the Korean Peninsula issue, had held working consultations 
withDeTrani on launching the working group. 

The second round of six-party talks, involving China, the 
DPRK,the United States, the Republic of Korea, Russia and Japan, 
was held in Beijing from Feb. 25 to 28. 

The six sides agreed to form a working group on the Korean 
nuclear issue. 

  Copyright by People's Daily Online, all rights reserved   
*****************************************************************
 9 [NukeNet] Groups Decry New Nukes Proposal
 
Date: Thu, 01 Apr 2004 15:59:28 -0800

 
<x-flowed>
*** Apologies for cross-posting ***
*** P R E S S    R E L E A S E ***

PUBLIC CITIZEN * NUCLEAR INFORMATION AND RESOURCE SERVICE * PEOPLE'S
ALLIANCE FOR CLEAN ENERGY * NUCLEAR REALITY CAMPAIGN * CLAIBORNE COUNTY
NAACP * NO NEW NUKES

For Immediate Release: March 31, 2004
Contact: Michele Boyd, Public Citizen, 202-454-5134; Paul Gunter, NIRS
202-328-0002; A.C. Garner, Claiborne County NAACP, 601-437-4690

Application for New Nuclear Plants is an Affront to Logic, Safety

Community and national groups around the country expressed outrage
today at the announcement by two consortia that they plan to apply for
Combined Construction and Operating Licenses (COL) for new nuclear
reactors without having to specify either a particular site or a
reactor
type.  Half the cost of preparing these applications will be paid by
the
U.S. Department of Energy (DOE).

One consortium consists of Exelon Nuclear, Entergy Corporation,
Southern Company, EDF International North America, Constellation
Energy
Group, GE Energy, and Westinghouse Nuclear.  The other consortium
includes Dominion and Atomic Energy of Canada.

"This process is outrageous -- why are they allowed to apply for a
combined construction and operating license without saying if they
will
build a reactor, where they will build it, or what kind of reactor it
will be?" asked Geoff Ower, director of the Nuclear Reality Campaign
and
a member of Illinois State University Student Environmental Action
Coalition.  "What exactly can be evaluated through this process?"

Three of the utilities in the consortium -- Entergy, Exelon, and
Dominion -- are getting funded by the DOE to apply for Early Site
Permits, which allow a utility to bank a site for up to 20 years, with
the option of a 20-year extension. The sites are in Illinois,
Mississippi, and Virginia.

Although the companies in the consortia have stated that they have not
definitively committed to building any reactors, the applications mark
the first steps toward new nuclear-generating capacity in 25 years.

"Clearly, when these utilities say they have no plans to build a new
reactor, they're just trying to pull the wool over the public's eyes,"
said Jerry Rosenthal, who lives near the North Anna site where
Dominion
has applied for an Early Site Permit.  "Given the money being expended
on this and the push by the federal government, there's no turning
back."

"In a time of increased terrorist risk, it makes no sense to move
ahead
with building new nuclear power plants, which are
government-identified
terrorist targets," said Paul Gunter, of the Reactor Watchdog Project
at
NIRS.  "At the same time, emergency planning around reactors is
antiquated and inadequate."

The Clinton and North Anna sites, two of the three locations where
Early Site Permit applications are under review, both sit on man-made
lakes which have since developed economically.  Security concerns have
already forced public closure of numerous lakes next to nuclear power
plants around the country -- threatening property values around the
lake
and businesses dependent on lake recreation and further highlighting
reactor security vulnerability.

Nuclear waste also remains an unaddressed and problematic issue.
"With
the proposed Yucca Mountain repository currently tangled up in
lawsuits
that could send DOE back to the drawing board, the waste problem is
far
from solved.  Until that has been adequately addressed, creating more
deadly radioactive waste with no place to put it is bad public
policy,"
said Sandra Lindberg, President of No New Nukes and a professor at
Illinois Wesleyan University.

A.C. Garner, a spokesman and one-time president of the Claiborne
County
NAACP, as well as former Claiborne County emergency manager, calls
selection of the Mississippi site environmental racism.  "We can't
adequately protect our citizens from a nuclear accident as it is,
because most of the tax revenue from the plant goes elsewhere.  To
even
propose putting more reactors here is unjust."

"Considering the six public companies in the larger consortium had
cumulative profits in 2003 of close to $20 billion, it would seem at
first glance that there's no reason to shower them with extra
dollars,"
said Michele Boyd, legislative representative at Public Citizen's
energy
program.  "It is noteworthy, though, that the seven US-based companies
have contributed $5 million to various electoral campaigns and the
Democratic and Republican parties since the 2000 election cycle."

Southern Company is the most generous donor of the bunch, giving over
$1.6 million since 2000. The money trail doesn't end there.  According
to Public Citizen, nuclear industry Political Action Committees (PACs)
contributed over $5.8 million to congressional campaigns since 2000,
with 65% going to Republicans.  Exelon, Southern Company, and Entergy
are all in the top four among total nuclear industry contributions.
Dominion neatly rounds out the top ten.

More information on the electoral activities of consortia members can
be found at
http://www.citizen.org/cmep/energy_enviro_nuclear/nuclear_power_plants/nuclear_revival/esp/articles.cfm?ID=11328


*Public Citizen is a national, non-profit consumer advocacy
organization (http://www.citizen.org).  NIRS is a national, non-profit
anti-nuclear group (http://www.nirs.org).  PACE is a chapter of the
Blue
Ridge Environmental Defense League formed to fight Dominion's proposed
new reactors at North Anna (http://www.northanna.org).  No New Nukes
is
a local citizens' group fighting expansion of the Clinton site in
Illinois (http://clinton.nonewnukes.org).  The Nuclear Reality
Campaign
is an emerging student organization against new nuclear reactors
(http://www.nukereality.org).  The Claiborne County NAACP has also
intervened against Entergy's Early Site Permit application on the
grounds of environmental racism.

###

**********
If you would like to be removed from the CMEP ListServ, send an email
to listserv@listserver.citizen.org with the words "unsubscribe CMEP" in
the message.

Questions about the CMEP ListServ can be directed to
CMEP-request@LISTSERVER.CITIZEN.ORG.

To learn more about this and other Public Citizen Critical Mass Energy
and Environment Program campaigns, visit our website at
http://www.citizen.org/cmep/

-Public Citizen's Critical Mass Energy and Environment Program

_______________________________________________________________________
Subscribe/Unsubscribe Here: http://www.energyjustice.net/nukenet/
Change your settings at:
http://energyjustice.net/mailman/listinfo/nukenet_energyjustice.net

</x-flowed>
*****************************************************************
 10 TCS: Hell in a Suitcase

Tech Central Station - 

  Ralph Kinney Bennett Contributing Editor, TCS   

  By Ralph Kinney Bennett      Published       04/01/2004    

I will never forget the image. An unassuming looking man walking 
the streets of London with a bulging briefcase. Inside it, an 
atomic bomb. 

It was back in 1950. I was just a kid, and I sat immobilized in 
my seat at the Manos Theater in Latrobe, Pa., watching a British 
film "Seven Days to Noon." In it, a leading British atomic 
scientist, played by now-forgotten actor Barry Jones, posts a 
letter to the Prime Minister saying he has taken a small nuclear 
weapon and will detonate it in the center of London in seven days 
unless the government agrees to abandon its atomic weapons 
program. 
  
The story of how the police track down "Professor John 
Willoughby," meanwhile evacuating the city of London, was 
absolutely riveting. And the scenes of a deserted London as the 
last day approached were eerie and unforgettable. 
  
I'm pretty sure this Boulting Brothers movie -- filmed in black 
and white with an almost documentary feel to it -- was the first 
to introduce the idea of carrying a nuclear weapon around in some 
sort of case. Very little was publicly known about nuclear 
weapons at that time. People had little sense of their size or 
shape. There was only a vague understanding that something 
relatively small had caused horrendously big explosions at 
Nagasaki and Hiroshima. So the idea of an atomic bomb in a 
suitcase was not implausible. 
  
We now know how really big and heavy the first atomic bombs, Fat 
Man and Little Boy, were. But within a few years of the 
appearance of this movie the U.S. had developed not only 
artillery shell-sized nuclear munitions but also an 11- by 16- 
inch oval warhead, the W-54. Dubbed the Davy Crockett, it weighed 
as little as 51 pounds and could be fired by a soldier from a 
recoilless rifle! 
  
The closest the U.S. is known to have come to a "suitcase" or 
hand-carried weapon was a variation of the W-54 called, 
interestingly enough, the SADM (small atomic demolition 
munition). This device -- officially the Mk-54 -- would have 
required a mighty big suitcase. It was a fat cylinder, 15 inches 
(diameter) by 24 inches, not unlike one of those big plastic 
buckets you can buy bulk paint in at Home Depot, and it weighed 
150 pounds. 
  
Since the deployment (and eventual retirement) of these weapons, 
more ingenious designs and advances in explosives, structural 
materials and microelectronics, have brought relative 
miniaturization of nuclear weapons to a multi-billion dollar high 
art, making possible the stuffing of warheads by the half-dozens 
into missile nose cones 
  
"Relative" is the key word here. How small can a nuclear bomb be? 
What are the downscale physical limits to making one? It is 
important to have some concept of these limits as we consider the 
occasional alarms in the media regarding terrorists and 
"suitcase" or (lately) "backpack" nuclear bombs. Last week were 
heard al-Qaeda claims that it has a couple of suitcase bombs it 
bought from Russians years ago. Chechnyan rebels have made 
similar claims in the past, as have Palestinian terrorists. 
  
The infamous Soviet-made suitcase bombs that supposedly 
disappeared from inventory sometime after the break-up of the 
Soviet Union have been the subject of numerous investigations and 
much fevered speculation. It is known that the Soviets, like the 
United States, developed small nuclear munitions, small enough to 
be fired in artillery shells or to be hand-carried (by one or 
more soldiers) as a demolition device. If they designed and built 
one that could actually fit in a large brief case, one of them 
has not shown up anywhere, nor has an official photograph or 
blueprint of it. 
  
The ones described by Soviet General Alexander Lebed, in 
sensational Congressional hearings back in 1997, were supposedly 
in suitcases approximately 24 x 16 x 8 inches. A mock-up of such 
a bomb, using the warhead of an American nuclear artillery shell, 
was constructed and, indeed, all the necessary items -- neutron 
generators, batteries, arming mechanism etc. -- were successfully 
stuffed in around the cylindrical device itself. (For a photo of 
the mock-up and more see 
nuclearweaponarchive.org/News/Lebedbomb.html 
[http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/News/Lebedbomb.html] . This is 
an excellent site thanks to the expository writing of Carey 
Sublette.) 
  
There continue to be disturbing rumors, and in some cases 
evidence of fissile material and dangerous nuclear byproducts 
(strontium, cesium etc.) floating around the international 
underworld. And while nothing should be considered beyond the 
scope of determined terrorists with enough money, building a hand 
carried nuclear weapon "from scratch," so to speak, would be very 
difficult. 
  
The starting point would be a critical mass of plutonium or 
U-233. This would be a sphere about 4 or 5 inches in diameter and 
weighing roughly 28 to 30 pounds. Since the carriers of the 
weapon would presumably be in close quarters with it for some 
period of time, the critical mass would have to be of 
"supergrade" plutonium, which would be relatively safe to handle 
because it gives off lower neutron emissions. Beyond that, design 
variations (neutron reflector, high explosive, trigger type etc.) 
and the packaging for the device would add to size and weight 
depending on materials used, ingenuity of layout and other 
factors. 
  
Part of the design of U.S. and probably Soviet small atomic 
munitions was to insure maximum safety to handlers and enough 
robustness to preclude accidental damage. These might not be 
particularly acute considerations for some terrorists, who would 
be thinking more about portability and concealment. 
  
There can be little doubt that next to the acquisition of an 
actual contained nuclear munition (in a suitcase or whatever) the 
acquisition of an artillery-type nuclear warhead would be the 
ticket for terrorists -- a sort of advanced starter kit. The 
smallest one the U.S. ever deployed in its arsenal was the M-45, 
which could be fired from a 155 mm cannon. It was 6.1 inches in 
diameter (caliber) and 34 inches long. It weighed up to 128 
pounds. Remove the conical tip and fuse from one of those and you 
reduce the length enough to barely fit diagonally in the 
Soviet-sized suitcase. 
  
But, hey, why not a larger suitcase? Or a crate, or a strong 
cardboard box? How about the trunk of a car? The possibilities 
for concealing or disguising a nuclear weapon are endless. Take a 
look, for instance, at one of those high-capacity air compressors 
you can buy in any Sears hardware department. 
  
The big question is the shelf-life and availability of nuclear 
artillery shells. The U.S. shells are apparently accounted for 
and secure. Whether all the Soviet era mini-warheads can be 
accounted for is another story. 
  
The shelf-life issue is important. If there is a nuclear munition 
or more than one "out there," its condition could be in question. 
A nuclear weapon involves the melding of a variety of materials 
in close proximity -- metals, plastics, ceramics, exotic high 
explosives and, of course plutonium and uranium. Things happen 
inside a nuclear weapon even when it is just sitting. 
  
The plutonium core gives off quite a bit of heat. This will warm 
the other parts of the weapon up to as much as 100 degrees 
Fahrenheit. Uranium "rusts" in much the same manner as steel when 
exposed to the air. And even though warheads are sealed in 
airtight metal containers, the materials inside -- the explosives 
and plastic, for instance -- give off trace amounts of oxygen, 
hydrogen and water vapor that can eventually cause oxidation and 
corrosion, both of which are abetted by the weapon's intrinsic 
heat. The high explosives in the detonating "lenses" of a weapon 
also have been known to deteriorate. 
  
So, unless the purloined (or purchased) warhead was regularly 
monitored and, if necessary, refurbished by experts it might 
become dangerously unstable or perhaps not work at all. It's 
conceivable that the conventional explosives might detonate 
incompletely and that the nuclear core might be scattered rather 
than being "assembled" to cause a nuclear explosion. Thus a 
"dirty bomb" incident, spreading radioactive material, would be 
the result. 
  
Of course a nuclear weapon gives off a significant signature in 
the form of both gamma rays and neutrons. A huge effort is being 
made to employ a variety of gamma and neutron spectrometry 
devices at ports of entry and the perimeters of potential 
targets. But these devices (and more sophisticated ones are now 
being worked on at the national laboratories) are not foolproof. 
Distance, shielding of various types (tungsten, lead, steel of a 
given thickness) and the problem of false positives and false 
negatives are some of the challenges now being wrestled with by 
detection experts. 
  
In the end, an atomic bomb in a suitcase is really just a 
metaphor, not only for the portability of nuclear weapons but for 
the new and ominous possibility of who might be carrying them. 
The fictional tweedy professor who terrorized London in "Seven 
Days to Noon" was a misguided idealist with a bomb in a satchel. 
Those who now seek to terrorize the West and particularly the 
United States are hate-filled killers who have glorified suicide 
as a virtue and are bending every effort to secure and use "the 
bomb," be it in a suitcase, a packing crate, a car or whatever 
will surreptitiously deliver it to target. "If" is not the 
question. Where and when are. 
  
Ralph Kinney Bennett recently wrote for TCS about the military's 
efforts to reduce collateral damage 
[http://www.techcentralstation.com/032504C.html] . 

*****************************************************************
 11 Las Vegas SUN: Judge Orders Release of Energy Documents

 By ANNE GEARAN
 ASSOCIATED PRESS 

WASHINGTON (AP) - 

A federal judge told the government to release more documents
related to a White House task force that met behind closed doors
to develop a national energy policy. 

Judicial Watch, a government watchdog group, and the
environmental group the Sierra Club want the records as part of
an inquiry into whether energy executives and lobbyists helped
draft a policy friendly to their industries early in President
Bush's first year in office. 

The administration maintains that only government employees were
members of the task force, which disbanded in 2001. 

Judicial Watch has alleged that former Enron chairman Ken Lay
and lobbyists Mark Racicot, Haley Barbour and Thomas Kuhn may
have participated. 

The order Wednesday from U.S. District Judge Paul Friedman
covers material that the Energy Department, Interior Department
and other federal agencies had refused to produce since a
similar federal court ruling two years ago. 

The latest order could cover some material that is the subject
of a separate lawsuit now before the Supreme Court. That case
also involves documents about the inner workings of the energy
task force headed by Vice President Dick Cheney and housed in
his office. 

Cheney was also ordered to produce some documents, and appealed
that part of the dispute to the high court, which will hear
arguments next month. 

The Cheney case was the subject of recent headlines because of a
hunting trip that Cheney took with Supreme Court Justice Antonin
Scalia weeks after the court had agreed to hear Cheney's appeal.
Scalia rebuffed a request that he step aside, saying he had no
conflict of interest. 

Friedman's order deals with agencies that are subject to the
federal Freedom of Information Act. Federal agencies must turn
over more documents by June 1 or explain to the judge why they
cannot, Friedman said. 

The Energy Department and other agencies have turned over some
40,000 documents since another federal judge ordered them to do
so in 2002, but have withheld an estimated 100,000 additional
documents that may be relevant to the Judicial Watch-Sierra Club
lawsuit, Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton said Thursday. 

It is not clear how many of those documents might be covered by
Friedman's order. He agreed with agency lawyers that in some
instances certain documents were exempt from the FOIA request or
may not exist at all. 

The judge disagreed, however, with their contention that records
of communication between federal agencies and the task force are
automatically exempt. He also ordered release of records from
the task force's director, then a civil servant on loan to the
task force from another government job. 

Those records will probably prove revealing, Fitton said. 

"This is a brushback to the government," Fitton said. "I read it
to mean we will finally get documents from the heart of the
energy task force." 

On the Net: 

Opinion and order from U.S. District Court:
http://www.dcd.uscourts.gov/01-981c.pdf
[http://www.dcd.uscourts.gov/01-981c.pdf] 

-- 



*****************************************************************
 12 Salt Lake Tribune: Bush administration's assaults on environment are endless 
 
April 01, 2004   
 
Molly Ivins 
FORT WORTH STAR-TELEGRAM 
 
    AUSTIN, Texas -- O Karl Rove, Karl Rove, birder thou never
wert. If George W. Bush loses the election narrowly in November,
put it down to the birders. You read it here first. What was
Rove thinking when he allowed William Haynes II to be nominated
to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit? 
 
    There are all the usual reasons for rejecting a Bush
judicial nominee -- he's only tried one case; no understanding
of the Constitution; author of the "enemy combatant doctrine"
that allows American citizens to be held in prison without
trial, without counsel and without knowing the charges against
them. But the fatal faux pas is the feather-blowing tale of
Haynes' role as the top Defense Department lawyer in the case of
the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. 
 
    DOD wanted to use an island in the Marianas for bombing
practice, so Haynes' team of lawyers argued that bombing the
bird haven would not break the treaty and that the bombing would
actually enhance bird-watching because people "get more
enjoyment out of spotting a rare bird than they do spotting a
common one." By this logic, we should drive every bird on earth
to near-extinction and just think what a thrill we'd get out of
ever seeing one. According to The New York Times, "Mr. Haynes
says he only supervised the case and was unaware of the bizarre
claim." He only supervised the case? 
 
    Well! If you have never seen a flock of enraged birders, you
don't know what danger is. These people don't just watch pewits
and tweety-birds, they're into raptors, too -- falcons, eagles .
. . they know how to swoop and strike. If we find Rove beaten to
a pulp with binoculars, it will be no surprise. How could he
ignore the immemorial warning, "Beware the wrath of the birding
legions!" 
 
    Back to business. There's no way to keep up with the Bush
administration's assaults on the environment, they're just
endless. Most notable lately was the decision to let mercury
pollution, which is extremely toxic, continue. With current
technology, we could cut mercury emissions by 90 percent in four
years. Instead, the Bushies chose a plan that will reduce it by
50 percent over 14 years, thus saving millions for their big
campaign contributors in the power, coal and chemical
industries. To make up for it, they warned pregnant women not to
eat tuna. But that's not all: 
 
    * The U.S. Forest Service is going to eliminate any reviews
of its actions by outside agencies for compliance with clean
water, endangered species and historical preservation laws. 
 
    * The Department of Energy is moving to overturn a court
decision on standards to clean up the country's most toxic and
radioactive waste. 
 
    * The Environmental Protection Agency's inspector general
has concluded that senior Bushies at EPA have repeatedly made
misleading statements about purported improvements in drinking
water quality. (Oh no, not Bushies lying!) 
 
  
 
 
 
  
 
    Other actions way too numerous to mention here can be found
on the Web sites of assorted environmental groups. 
 
    To counter this ghastly record, the GOP put out a "talking
points" memo for Republican members of Congress. In it, the
congressmen are advised to inform their constituents that: A)
global warming has not been proved, B) there are no clear links
between childhood asthma and air pollution (in what I assume was
an unintentionally hilarious slip, the memo advises R's that the
links are "cloudy"), and C) America's rivers and lakes aren't
nearly as polluted as the EPA says they are. The EPA says at
least 40 percent of our streams, rivers and lakes are too
polluted for drinking, fishing or swimming. 
 
    Sen. Jim Jeffords of Vermont observed: "It's so incredible
that they have this denial of any responsibility for the serious
situation we have in this country as far as the environment
goes. They have a head-in-the-sand approach to it. They're just
sloughing off the human health impacts -- the premature deaths
and asthma attacks caused by power plant pollution." 
 
    One of the weirdest environmental developments of late is
the attempt by right-wing anti-immigrant groups to take over the
venerable Sierra Club. The latest fad among these anti-immigrant
groups, many of which have ties to disgusting racist groups, is
to blame immigrants for our environmental problems. 
 
    I see a lot of Mexican immigrants, and some must be illegal,
gardening in this country, but I don't know of many who run
power plants that spew tons of mercury into the air. You hardly
ever see an illegal Mexican immigrant on a snowmobile in
Yellowstone. Illegal Mexicans are seldom in charge of timber
companies that want to clear-cut the national forests. It's not
often that illegal Mexicans run chemical companies that dump
toxins into rivers and wetlands. It's rare to find an illegal
Mexican in the Bush administration deciding to end the Superfund
cleanup program or to lower air and water quality standards. 
 
    I don't know about you, but I don't think we can pin this
one on them. Reckon these folks have some other agenda? 
 
   ----- 
 
   Creators Syndicate 
 
    
 
    
 
   
 
   
			   				 	 "> 	                 				 
 
  
Copyright Salt Lake City Tribune
*****************************************************************
 13 StatesmanJournal: Urge vote against nuke funds

Opinion - 

   [http://www.statesmanjournal.com/]   		     
                  
April 1, 2004
 							
Recently peace advocates from 47 states and six countries 
gathered together in Washington, D.C., to participate in an 
Ecumenical Advocacy Days event to explore a faith-based vision of 
justice, peace and reconciliation and how that vision could 
translate into concrete policies and actions by lobbying their 
Congressional members.

 I participated in the nuclear disarmament track — urging members 
of Congress to oppose funding for new nuclear weapons including:
 
+ $427.6 million for the robust nuclear Earth penetrator (“bunker 
buster”). The Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator would have up to 70 
times the power of the bomb that destroyed Hiroshima.
 
+ $9 million in fiscal year 2005 for advanced concepts for 
nuclear weapons (“mini nukes”). Advanced nuclear concepts could 
lead to the development of “mini nukes” and explore new 
technologies and nuclear weapons for new missions.
 
+ $30 million to refurbish the Nevada test site for test site 
readiness to test the newly developed nuclear weapons.

 Oregon Sen. Gordon Smith is a key vote to defeating the 
appropriations for funding the nuclear weapons. Urge him to vote 
in defense of creation by voting against funding for the use or 
development of nuclear weapons.

 —Kathy Campbell-Barton

 Salem
 							 							 							 							
Copyright 2004 Statesman Journal, Salem, Oregon
*****************************************************************
 14 Las Vegas SUN: White House Renews Call for Energy Bill

 By H. JOSEF HEBERT ASSOCIATED PRESS 

WASHINGTON (AP) - 

For three years Congress has struggled to put together a new
national energy policy, only to fail repeatedly because of
disagreements that have little to do with what worries Americans
today - record high gasoline prices and the government's
inability to counter the OPEC oil cartel. 

The White House renewed its call Wednesday for Congress to act
amid growing concern that high energy costs and the specter of
an invincible OPEC could hurt President Bush's re-election bid. 

When asked how the president intended to deal with the rising
gasoline prices and OPEC's tightening of the oil spigot, White
House spokesman Scott McClellan repeated a single theme: Get
Congress to pass energy legislation. 

"We need a comprehensive national energy policy so that we don't
keep going from one crisis to the next," McClellan said in
response to the decision by the Organization of Petroleum
Exporting Countries to cut oil production by 4 percent, despite
administration efforts to persuade OPEC not to do so. 

If Congress had acted "we wouldn't be in this mess," McClellan
said. 

In 2000, candidate Bush had pledged a get-tough response to
force OPEC to retreat when it cut production, which puts upward
pressure on oil prices. 

On Wednesday, McClellan said the administration would "stay in
close contact with major producers from around the world to
discuss these issues and make sure our views are known." He said
that oil prices should be set by the market. 

McClellan blamed Democrats for blocking energy legislation and
suggested that if Republicans had gotten their way, a new
national energy policy would be in place today to keep gasoline
prices down and the OPEC oil cartel in check. 

The White House and the Bush re-election campaign also went
after Democratic Sen. John Kerry, contending that the party's
presumptive nominee for president would raise gas taxes. 

Democrats said the energy bills that came close to being enacted
into law in both 2002 and again last year contained little that
would reduce America's dependence on OPEC oil and virtually
nothing that would assure an end to the volatility of gasoline
prices. 

And they said Republicans had been as much to blame for the
stalemate on energy as anyone else. Republican senators who
objected to the high cost of a largely GOP-crafted energy bill
helped kill the legislation in the Senate late last year. 

Even if the bill had passed, would it have helped? 

"I don't think there's anything in the pending energy bill that
would have effect on gas prices in the short term at all, or
affect them substantially in the long-term either," Sen. Jeff
Bingaman of New Mexico, the ranking Democrat on the Senate
Energy Committee, said in an interview Wednesday. 

He said the same was true in legislation passed by the Senate in
2002 when Democrats were in control. 

The bill that's now before Congress and crafted essentially by
the GOP majority does nothing to increase refining capacity,
ease problems with so-called boutique fuels or reduce oil
imports, Bingaman said. 

Supporters of the bill say it would lead to a diversity of
energy sources, boosting production of coal, natural gas and
renewables. But cars and trucks depend on oil, and the bill does
nothing to increase automobile fuel economy or to get more
domestic oil. 

Proposals to increase fuel economy were defeated repeatedly and
a Bush administration proposal to tap oil in Alaska's Arctic
National Wildlife Refuge also quickly became a non-issue because
of strong opposition from Democrats and moderate Republicans in
the Senate. While ANWR represents the biggest untapped U.S. oil
resource, a recent Energy Department study acknowledged its
production would only modestly slow the growth of imports. 

Another report by the DOE's Energy Information Administration
recently concluded that the energy bill Congress came close to
passing last year would result in no significant increase in
domestic oil production and reduce oil imports - currently 9.8
million barrels a day - by a scant 100,000 barrels a day by
2010. After that imports would increase. 

And, according to the EIA analysis, it would add to the overall
cost of gasoline by 3 cents a gallon - and increases of as much
as 8 cents a gallon in some parts of the country - by 2015
because of the wider use of the corn-based additive ethanol and
a phaseout of another additive, MTBE. 

The ethanol industry disputes the figures and has insisted that
wider use of its additive would not cause higher gasoline
prices. 

While the White House is blaming Democrats for blocking energy
legislation, such legislation might have passed last year had it
not been for two issues involving Republicans. 

There was strong opposition from a group of GOP senators who
objected to the measure's $31 billion price tag over 10 years, a
cost that ballooned as programs were added to attract support. 

And Senate Democrats objected to a giving the makers of the MTBE
gasoline additive protection against product liability lawsuits.
Democratic leaders said they could deliver the votes for the
bill if the MTBE provision were scrapped. But House Republicans
- especially Majority Leader Tom DeLay and Rep. Joe Barton, both
of Texas - refused to budge on the issue. 

Sen. Pete Domenici, R-N.M., the bill's Senate floor leader, has
scaled back its cost and removed the MTBE provision, hoping to
get the bill through the Senate this year. But Barton, now
chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, says any
bill that passes the House must include the MTBE waiver. 

-- 



*****************************************************************
 15 ThisisLondon: Chickens were recruited for cold war 
 
[http://jobs.thisislondon.co.uk]

1 April 2004 

A secret British Cold War plan to fill a vast nuclear landmine 
with chickens to regulate its temperature emerged today for the 
first time. 

The Army planned to detonate the seven-tonne device on the German 
plains in the event of a retreat from invading Soviet forces. 

The idea was that the plutonium landmine would cause mass 
destruction and contamination over a wide area to prevent 
subsequent enemy occupation. 

Details of the top secret operation Blue Peacock emerged at the 
"Secret State" exhibition at the National Archives in Kew, south 
west London, which is set to open on Friday. 

Scientists working on the project realised that the bomb could 
fail in winter if vital components became too cold, so they 
explored ways of keeping the inner workings warm. 

One proposal, put forward in a 1957 document on show in the 
exhibition, consisted of filling the casing of the device with 
live chickens, who would give off sufficient heat prior to 
suffocating or starving to death to keep the delicate explosive 
mechanism from freezing. 

A spokesman for the National Archives said: "As it turns out, 
chickens aren't as chicken as we thought. They knew all about the 
foul play and were hatching a plan to save Britain all along." 

*****************************************************************
 16 PRAVDA.Ru: Russian to strengthen its nuclear potential - 

[http://www.pravda.ru]  [http://port.pravda.ru]   
  
  04/01/2004 15:48   
  
Russian State Duma has passed a new law
Wednesday regarding NATO expansion. 

305 delegates voted for it, while 41 were against, two
abstained.  The bill was prepared by three Duma's committees
(committee of international affairs, committee of defense and
committee of security). 

The law enables Russia to reconsider expediency of its
involvement in International negotiations concerning regular
armament and strengthen its nuclear potential in case NATO
disregards Russia's position concerning the organization's
expansion. 

State Duma considers that further relations between Russia and
NATO have to be based on the following foundation. "The North
Atlantic Treaty Organization has to take into account those
concerns of our country regarding the expansion as well as
organization's specific moves of strengthening international
security and total control of the regime of armed forces in
Europe," reports the document. 

Otherwise, State Duma> will advise the President and the 
government to take all the necessary precautions to assure 
Russia's safety. 

In the document State Duma also asks the government to hold a 
meeting of Defense Counsel "to discuss establishment of 
additional defense facilities on the territory of the Russian 
Federation that borders with those countries of NATO," reports 
"Interfax". 

States-members of NATO "continue to purposely delay"
ratification of the OSCE agreement signed in November of 1999 in
Istanbul. Delegates notice that this delay could have been
caused by the fact that supposedly Russia does not fulfill its
promises. 

"State Duma accuses such actions of NATO and regards them as an 
attempt to create illusionary obstacles thus preventing adoption 
of a crucial control mechanism of regular armament", reads the 
document.  

The document also emphasizes the fact that a certain number of 
new NATO newcomers including three Baltic States, have nothing to 
do with OSCE. As a result "the so-called "gray-zone" has emerged 
in Europe where internationally acclaimed restrictions on 
particular location of foreign armed forces have no effect." 
  
Read the original in Russian: (Translated by: Anna Ossipova)
 
  L1999-2002 "PRAVDA.Ru". When reproducing our materials in
*****************************************************************
 17 Bellona: Navy shipyard workers have not received salary since September
2003
 
The Northern Fleet trade unions sent a letter of protest to the 
Russian Chief Navy commander, TV Murman reported. 

2004-03-25 17:39

The trade union leaders are concerned with the situation at the 
navy shipyards in Polyarny and Roslyakovo on the Kola Peninsula. 
Social tensions rise among the workers due to the lack of 
salaries. They received the last wages in September last year. 
The total debt for the wages is about one million dollars at the 
Polyarny shipyard despite the fact that the workers fulfil the 
work in time and with good quality. The Defence ministry 
transfers the money for the repaired submarines in time; however, 
it does not reach the workers, TV Murman reported. 

Most of the money is taken by the tax authorities to pay off the 
debt for the previous years. Similar situations at these two 
shipyards were in the end of 90’s marked by the mass protests. 
Today wage debts have reached $2m at the two plants, while the 
shipyards’ debts to the extra-budgetary and pension funds are 
$14m. The Northern Fleet trade unions demand Russian Chief Navy 
commander to pay for all fulfilled orders in 2004, TV Murman 
reported. 
  
Publisher: Bellona Foundation [bellona@bellona.no] , President: 
Frederic Hauge [frederic@bellona.no] Information: info@bellona.no 
[info@bellona.no] , Technical contact: webmaster@bellona.no 
[webmaster@bellona.no] Telephone: +47 23 23 46 00 Telefax: +47 22 
38 38 62  * P.O.Box 2141 Grunerlokka, 0505 Oslo, Norway
*****************************************************************
 18 Bellona: Russian Nuclear Agency presented its annual report for 2003 

Former Minatom’s chief Alexander Rumyantsev reported about last 
year achievements in the Russian nuclear industry.

2004-04-01 19:56

He informed about 12% gain in industrial production and 4.5% 
increase of the annual capacity factor what is equal to one 1000 
MW reactor’s operation during one year. 

Rumyantsev promised to reorganize accurately Minatom into the 
Federal agency during two months, and reduce the staff for 100 
employees in the Moscow office. As a result of the administrative 
reform the Federal Atomic Agency will remain the state client in 
the field of nuclear arms. “Do not doubt about our nuclear force 
and the strength of the companies designing nuclear weapons and 
ammunition” the head of the Atomic Agency assured. All the 
international agreements and contracts with all the countries 
about cooperation “remain in force and are not a subject for 
revision”. However, the Russian Ministry of Industry and Energy 
will sign all such agreements in the future, but the Nuclear 
Agency will fulfill them. 

Regarding international cooperation the Minatom received $688m 
from the USA according to the HEU-LEU agreement. The sales of 
fresh nuclear fuel increased for 24.8% in comparison with 2002. 
The contracts for fuel deliveries were signed and renewed with 
Slovakia, Hungary, India, Ukraine. Rumyantsev confirmed the 
intention to continue and develop cooperation with “strategic 
partner” Iran as the latter “shows peaceful intentions in the 
nuclear field”. The export growth was $400m and reached $3 
billion in 2003. 

Minatom continued to participate in dismantling of the nuclear 
submarines: unloaded nuclear fuel from 12 retired submarines and 
scrapped 13 submarines. Minatom spent total $71.8m from the 
Russian federal budget and $21m of the foreign aid in 2003 for 
the nuclear submarines’ dismantling. The nuclear plants generated 
148.6 billion KW/h (6.3% increase) what is 16% higher then 
maximum production of the Russian nuclear plants in the Soviet 
time. 

“We are ready to fulfill any task assigned by the President and 
the government” assured the head of the Atomic Agency, Alexander 
Rumyantsev, at the press-conference yesterday. 
  
  2004-03-24 Accidents and Incidents Russian Nuclear Regulatory 
reports about insufficient level of nuclear installations 
security

  Publisher:  [bellona@bellona.no] , President: 
[frederic@bellona.no] Information:  [info@bellona.no] , Technical 
contact: [webmaster@bellona.no] Telephone: +47 23 23 46 00 
Telefax: +47 22 38 38 62  * P.O.Box 2141 Grunerlokka, 0505 Oslo, 
Norway
*****************************************************************
 19 BBC: Russia condemns Nato's expansion 
 
  Last Updated: Thursday, 1 April, 2004
 
[Russian lawmakers during a Duma's session on 31 March 2004]                             

Many deputies were angered by Nato's move                       
			   		
Russian lawmakers have voiced concern about Nato's eastward 
expansion to Moscow's doorstep. 

A resolution by the lower house of parliament, the Duma, said 
Russia may reconsider its defence strategy if Nato continued to 
ignore Moscow's interests. 

It urged Nato members to ratify an arms treaty to restrict 
deployment of weapons near Russia's borders. 

On Monday, the Baltic states of Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania 
joined the bloc together with four other nations. 

Duma's warning 

The Duma's tough resolution was supported by 305 deputies, with 
only 41 voting against and also two abstentions. 

The document said Nato's move eastwards contradicted a pledge to 
enhance the alliance's co-operation with Russia in 
counterterrorism, peacekeeping and other areas contained in an 
agreement signed in 2002. 

It also warned that Russia may revise a promise to limit troop 
numbers in its Baltic enclave of Kaliningrad, and the 
northwestern Pskov region near Estonia, if Nato tried to change 
the military-political balance in the whole region. 

"Common responses to modern global challenges don't require a 
build-up of weapons on the territories of Russia's neighbours," 
the resolution said. 

The Duma said it would also recommend the government to 
strengthen Russia's nuclear deterrent and consider the deployment 
of additional troops on the country's western borders. 

Earlier this week, the US ambassador to Nato, Nick Burns, said 
there was no sense of a crisis in relations with Russia over the 
expansion. 

Mr Burns also said Nato had no intention of deploying substantial 
forces in any new member country. 

*****************************************************************
 20 BBC: Cold war bomb warmed by chickens 
 
  Last Updated: Thursday, 1 April, 2004
 
[Bomb shell]                            

The mine would be kept warm by chickens                                                                

Plans to fill a nuclear landmine with chickens to regulate its 
temperature were seriously considered during the Cold War. 

Civil servants at the National Archives say it is a coincidence 
the secret plan is being revealed on 1 April. 

The Army planned to detonate the seven-tonne device on the German 
plains in the event of having to retreat. 

Operation Blue Peacock forms part of an exhibition for the 
National Archives, in Kew, London, on Friday. 

Professor Peter Hennessy, curator of the Secret State exhibition, 
told the Times: "It is not an April Fool. These documents come 
straight from the archives at Aldermaston. Why and how would we 
forge them?" 

The Civil Service does n do jokes Tom O'Leary, National Archives          

The bomb was designed to stop the Red Army advancing across West 
Germany during the height of the Cold War. 

But nuclear physicists at the Aldermaston nuclear research 
station in Berkshire were worried about how to keep the landmine 
at the correct temperature when buried underground. 

In a 1957 document they proposed live chickens would generate 
enough heat to ensure the bomb worked when buried for a week. 

The birds would be put inside the casing of the bomb, given seed 
to keep them alive and stopped from pecking at the wiring. 

The landmine would be remotely detonated. 

Tom O'Leary, head of education and interpretation at the National 
Archives, told the paper: "It does seem like an April Fool but it 
most certainly is not. The Civil Service does not do jokes." 
*****************************************************************
 21 Hi Pakistan: No Pakistani govt involved in N-transfer - US
 
April 02 2004     
 
WASHINGTON, March 31: No previous or present Pakistani 
governments were involved with the network that sold nuclear 
technology to other countries, the US administration told a 
powerful Congressional committee on Tuesday. 

"The issue is the extent to which, if at all, the top levels of 
the government of Pakistan were involved in (these) activities. 
And...we have no evidence to that effect," said John R. Bolton, 
undersecretary of state for arms control and international 
security. 

Mr Bolton, who appeared before the House Committee on 
International Relations as a witness of the Bush administration, 
did acknowledge that senior government officials other than Dr 
A.Q. Khan might also have been involved with his proliferation 
network. 

The undersecretary said he had no doubt that there were officials 
in the government of Pakistan - 'perhaps at the Khan Research 
Laboratories, perhaps in the military - who participated in Dr 
Khan's network and probably enriched themselves just as Dr Khan 
himself did'. 

He rejected the suggestion that the United States should 
re-impose strict nuclear sanctions on Pakistan. The 
proliferation, he said, was done by individuals and not the 
government and that's why there was no evidence to support the 
demand for re-imposing nuclear sanctions on Pakistan. 

When Congressman Gary Ackerman, a Democrat from New York and a 
known anti-Pakistan lobbyist, asked the US official 'when can we 
expect President Bush to reintroduce nuclear sanctions on 
Pakistan', Mr Bolton said: "If we had information about 
complicity of top levels of the government of Pakistan, we would 
act on it. At this point, there's no such information". 

He also disagreed with Mr Ackerman's suggestion that the Bush 
administration might defer granting Pakistan a major non-Nato 
ally status before applying the sanctions. These two subjects 
were not inter-related, said Mr Bolton. 

The decision to make Pakistan a major non-NATO ally, he 
explained, was based on other factors. "I mean, we have been 
saying to the Pakistanis for quite some time" that they were a 
key US ally in the war against terror. 

He said the US acted 'on the basis of what we know to be the 
case' while applying nuclear-related sanctions. "Based on the 
information we have now, we believe that the proliferation 
activities that Dr Khan confessed to recently - his activities in 
Libya, in Iran and North Korea, and perhaps elsewhere - were 
activities that he was carrying on without the approval of the 
top levels of the government of Pakistan. That is the position 
that President Musharraf has taken, and we have no evidence to 
the contrary," said Mr Bolton. 

Mr Ackerman, however, insisted that senior members of the then 
government in Pakistan were aware of the activities of nuclear 
proliferators. "You cannot use the military transport planes of 
Pakistan to deliver that kind of materiel and programme to North 
Korea and other (countries) without the implicit support of the 
Pakistan army. 

And it seems to me that we know the name of the guy who was the 
head of the army of Pakistan then," he said. Mr Bolton rejected 
the assumptions as not grounded in facts. "You can make 
assumptions about the use of military aircraft in Pakistan. (But) 
those assumptions at some point have to be grounded in facts," he 
said. 

He said the US administration had the understanding that the KRL 
had extraordinary autonomy and added that quite likely it could 
have used military aircraft for purposes that people in the 
military would not necessarily know. 

When Congresswoman Betty McCollum, a Democrat from Minnesota, 
read out quotes from a magazine article saying Dr Khan's daughter 
had information with her that 'implicates very high-level 
government officials,' Mr Bolton said he did not want to comment 
on that in public. 

At one point during the hearing Mr Bolton challenged Ms McCollum 
to produce if she had any evidence that the government of 
Pakistan was involved in selling nuclear weapons technology. 

Mr Bolton did not comment when a Congressman said he knew the 
name of the person who was involved with Dr Khan and 'he was the 
head of the army of Pakistan then'. 
					     							 				 				   				 				
      
Copyright 1996-2002 . Hi Pakistan. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
 22 Hi Pakistan: Khan N-network smashed - US     

April 02 2004     
 
NEW YORK - The A.Q. Khan network has been broken and President 
Pervez Musharraf has agreed to provide information to enable the 
ongoing investigation into the worldwide trading in nuclear 
technology, a senior US official said Tuesday.

‘We have broken up the Khan network, worked in partnership with 
Libya to dismantle its WMD programmes, put the international 
spotlight on Iran’s nuclear programme, moved North Korea into 
multilateral negotiations, eliminated Saddam Hussein’s regime in 
Iraq, and successfully used the Proliferation Security Initiative 
(PSI) to stop WMD shipments,’ the official added.

‘At the same time, we have made clear that countries that
abandon such dangerous pursuits can enjoy the prospect of
improved relations with the United States and our friends,’ John
Bolton, Under Secretary of State for Arms control and
International Security, told the House International Relations
Committee in Washington.

The House International Relations Committee convened hearings
Tuesday to examine new strategies being developed by the Bush
administration to advance non-proliferation measures.

Testifying before the Committee, Bolton said the global
proliferation of biological, chemical, and nuclear weapons is
becoming riskier and more uncertain, and the United States is
sending the message that the pursuit of these weapons does not
bring security.

He told the committee in prepared testimony that, although the
United States has made progress in stopping the spread of WMD.

‘It would be irresponsible to believe that stopping WMD
proliferation will be any easier than the war against terrorism,
or that it will be resolved sooner,’ Bolton said. ‘Only by
sustained efforts over a protracted period will we achieve our
goals.’

On specific regional non-proliferation efforts, Bolton said that:
— The elimination of the dictatorial regime of Saddam Hussein,
while far from solving all of Iraq’s or the Middle East’s
problems, has nevertheless made the region and the world safer
and more secure.

— Libya appears to be living up to its commitments to
voluntarily rid itself of its WMD equipment and programmes,
curtail its missile programmes to ranges approved in the Missile
Technology Control Regime, and comply with the Nuclear
Non-Proliferation Treaty and the Biological Weapons Convention.

Libya has also said it will sign the International Atomic Energy
Agency Additional Protocol, and accede to the Chemical Weapons
Convention.

— Despite strong actions taken by the International Atomic
Energy Agency over the past year on Iran’s nuclear weapons
development programme, ‘there is no reason to believe that Iran
has made a strategic decision to abandon its nuclear weapons
programme.’

— The United States is committed to ensuring a Korean peninsula
free of nuclear weapons. ‘The quickest and easiest route to
achieving this goal would be for North Korea to make the same
historic decision that Libya made, and abandon the pursuit of
WMD in a verifiable way.’

— The United States is concerned about Syria’s nuclear research
and development programme and continues to watch for signs of
nuclear weapons activity.

— Foremost among US efforts to halt the spread of WMD is the
Proliferation Security Initiative, which includes the United
States and 10 other nations working to disrupt proliferation at
sea, in the air and on land.

Following are the portions of his testimony dealing with
Pakistan and India:

PAKISTAN AND THE AQ KHAN NETWORK:

The United States Government is working co-operatively with
Pakistan to improve its export control regimes and
non-proliferation policies. While Pakistan has not conducted
nuclear explosive tests since 1998, it continues to develop
nuclear weapon and missile programmes. The sanctions imposed in
1998 were lifted in September, 2001, and a more co-operative
approach to achieve our mutual non-proliferation goals has since
been implemented.

Our recent non-proliferation focus with Pakistan is to work with
the government to eliminate once and for all the network of
Abdul Qadeer Khan. As the President laid out in great detail in
his NDU speech last month, we have been concerned about the
scope and the breadth of Khan’s activities for quite some time.

What we have learned about the international black market in
weapons of mass destruction shows how sophisticated WMD
proliferators are, and how skilled they are at deception and
camouflage. The complexity of the Khan network illustrates the
need for a multi-faceted approach to ultimately defeat the WMD
black market. This approach will require using all the tools we
have available, including close co-operation with our allies and
friends.

Khan’s recent admissions that he provided uranium enrichment
expertise to North Korea and Iran has put the lie to
protestations by these states about their covert uranium
enrichment programmes. President Musharraf has assured the
United States that he will provide us, and the IAEA with
information from Khan and his associates.

With respect to India, in September, 2001, the Bush
Administration lifted nuclear-related sanctions imposed on India
following its 1998 nuclear weapons tests. This decision resulted
not from a diminution of US concerns regarding India’s
development of nuclear weapons, but reflected the
Administration’s view that a different approach, including
regular engagement on non-proliferation issues, would prove more
effective in advancing our non-proliferation goals. We have
embarked on an intensive programme of co-operative technical
exchanges on export controls, which both sides have found
useful. While there has been progress in some notable cases, US
sanctions remain in place against proliferating entities in
India, such as NEC Engineers, and its president, Hans Raj Shiv.
We are gratified by the ongoing Indian prosecution of NEC and
are following the case with interest. 

On January 12 this year, President Bush and Prime Minister
Vajpayee announced the ‘Next Steps in Strategic Partnership’
(“NSSP”) initiative to expand co-operation in the areas of
civilian nuclear and civilian space applications,
high-technology commerce, and dialogue on missile defence. This
important initiative reflects our growing strategic relationship
with India. As part of the expanded co-operation, India will
undertake meaningful steps to improve its export control
systems, and work with the US in pursuit of shared
non-proliferation goals. Consistent with its obligations under
US law and international commitments, the United States is
offering no assistance to India’s nuclear weapons or missile
programmes. 					     							 				 				   				 				
      
Copyright 1996-2002 . Hi Pakistan. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
 23 TMI: B&W Dropped Info that Might Have Prevented Disaster
 
Date: Thu, 1 Apr 2004 16:53:05 -0600 (CST)

 
Posted on Sun, Mar. 28, 2004

Davis-Besse came close to accident two years earlier

1977 coolant problems similar to Three Mile Island's lasted only 22 minutes

By Bob Downing

Beacon Journal staff writer

The accident that caused a partial meltdown at Three Mile Island
Nuclear Generating Station almost occurred at theDavis-Besse nuclear
plant in northwest Ohio two years earlier.

Operators of the Davis-Besse nuclear plant in Oak Harbor ran into
coolant problems strikingly similar to those at Three Mile Island.

But the 1977 problem atDavis-Besse only lasted 22 minutes before a
Toledo Edison Co. employee realized what was happening and made the
necessary corrections.

At Three Mile Island, the problem lasted more than two hours and
caused more than 50 percent of the core to melt.

The Ohio incident got little attention in 1977, but it is chronicled
in a new book by J. Samuel Walker, a historian with the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission.

He wrote about the Davis-Besse incident in A Nuclear Crisis in
Historical Perspective, Three Mile Island (University of California
Press, $24.95). The details were confirmed by David Lochbaum of the
Union of Concerned Scientists, a Massachusetts-based nuclear watchdog
group.

The incident at Davis-Besse occurred on Sept. 24, 1977, when the
plant was running at 9 percent capacity. (Three Mile Island was
running at full power when its accident occurred.)

Davis-Besse shut down after a disruption in its cooling system. A
few seconds later, a pressure relief valve stuck open, allowing
coolant to escape.

Alarms sounded and operators struggled to figure out what was
happening. At one point, the plant's emergency cooling pumps were
erroneously turned off. A worker then realized that the valve was
stuck open. He shut a backup valve and the problem was solved.

No radiation was released and the plant was undamaged.

Toledo Edison and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission both investigated
the incident, but nothing came from those studies.

Babcock & Wilcox, the company that designed the plant, realized
that operator error made a bad situation potentially dangerous. It
drafted a warning memo to operators of B&W-designed plants but that
warning was never sent.

Bob Downing can be reached at 330-996-3745 or bdowning@thebeaconjournal.com
*****************************************************************
 24 NRC: NRC to Hold Open Regulatory Conference to Discuss Surry Nuclear Plant Operations
 
News Release - Region II - 2004-02
 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 

Office of Public Affairs, Region II
  No. II-04-021   		        March 31, 2004   
  CONTACT:     Ken Clark (404) 562-4416
 Roger D. Hannah (404) 562-4417     E-mail: opa2@nrc.gov
[opa2@nrc.gov]   
  


The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission will hold an open
Regulatory Conference with officials of Virginia Electric &
Power Company on April 1 in Atlanta to discuss operations at the
companys Surry nuclear power plant near Surry, Virginia. 

Conferees will discuss the preliminary risk significance of NRC
inspection findings associated with a potential fire in the
emergency switchgear and relay room. This room houses the
electrical power sources for most of the essential equipment and
operating controls that would be needed in a plant emergency.
Company officials requested the conference to discuss their
evaluation of the issues safety significance. 

The meeting is open to public observation and will begin at 2:00
p.m. in the NRCs Region II office in Atlanta, located in the
Atlanta Federal Center at 61 Forsyth Street, SW, Suite 24T20. 

The NRC evaluates regulatory performance at commercial nuclear
power plants with a color-coded process which classifies
regulatory findings as either green, white, yellow or red, in
increasing order of safety significance. The NRCs preliminary
evaluation determined that the safety significance of this issue
is white, meaning that it is considered to be of low to moderate
safety significance. 

No decision on determination of the final significance, any
apparent violation or any contemplated enforcement action will
be made during the conference. Those decisions will be made by
NRC officials at a later time, and that information will be made
available on the NRCs web site. 

Remote public observation of this meeting will be permitted in
Room O-03B34 in the NRCs White Flint office building at 11555
Rockville Pike in Rockville, MD. Seating may be limited and will
be assigned on a first-come basis. Interested parties should
contact the meeting coordinator, Mr. Steve Monarque, at (301)
415-1544, indicating their intention to attend.   



  


 	Last revised Thursday, April 01, 2004 	   
*****************************************************************
 25 NRC: NRC Makes New Management Assignments to Expand Its Focus on Safety, Security, and
                          Preparedness
News Release - 2004-03
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION   
  Office of Public Affairs     Telephone: 301/415-8200   
  Washington, DC 20555-0001     E-mail: opa@nrc.gov
  No. 04-038     March 31, 2004   
  


The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has made a number of new
management assignments to better focus the agency on safety,
security, and preparedness, and to position it for future change
while continuing to protect public health and safety. The
changes are intended to bring fresh perspectives on key issues
and cross-fertilization of management ideas as the agency moves
forward. 

In an announcement to all NRC employees today, Chairman Nils J.
Diaz said, During the last 2 ˝ years, the NRC has faced
multiple challenges in every area of its responsibilities. The
agency has turned most of these challenges into opportunities to
do what is right. However, it is clear that the NRC is no longer
a safety agency, but a safety, security, and preparedness
agency. To address these challenges and opportunities, and to
move succession planning into one of our priority areas, a
series of senior management assignments are going to be
effected. These changes are being done with the approval of, or
in consultation with, the Commission. 

The new assignments are: 

Executive Director for Operations, William D. Travers, will
become Region II Administrator. 

Region II Administrator, Luis A. Reyes, will become Executive
Director for Operations. 

Deputy Executive Director for Reactor Programs, Samuel J.
Collins, will replace Region I Administrator Hubert J. Miller
upon his retirement in June. 

Chief Information Officer, Ellis W. Merschoff, will become
Deputy Executive Director for Reactor Programs. 

Deputy Chief Information Officer, Jacqueline E. Silber, will
become Chief Information Officer, pending approval by the Office
of Management and Budget. 

Deputy Executive Director for Materials, Research, and State
Programs, Carl J. Paperiello, will become Director of the Office
of Nuclear Regulatory Research. 

Director of the Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research, Ashok C.
Thadani, will become Director for International Research and
Development Projects. 

Director of the Office of Nuclear Material Safety and
Safeguards, Martin J.Virgilio, will become Deputy Executive
Director for Materials, Research and State Programs. 

Deputy Director of the Office of Regulatory Research, Jack R.
Strosnider, will become Director of the Office of Nuclear
Material Safety and Safeguards. 

Associate Director in the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation,
John W. Craig, will become the Deputy Director of the Office of
Regulatory Research. 

These changes will become effective in phases, but as soon as
practical.   



  


 	Last revised Wednesday, March 31, 2004 	   
*****************************************************************
 26 AFP: US averted nuclear catastrophy 25 years ago

 [http://www.spacewar.com/]
 
WASHINGTON (AFP) Apr 01, 2004

 Twenty-five years ago, 100,000 people poured onto the roads of 
Pennsylvania fearing a nuclear disaster at the Three Mile Island 
power plant located between Washington and New York.

Today, it is the fear that terrorists might try to blow up a 
nuclear plant that has Americans jittery.

The Three Mile Island incident began on March 28 1979 when in the 
middle of the night an alarm sounded in the control room of 
reactor Number Two. 

Two days later, the incident reached its peak when a radioactive 
gas bubble threatened the environment.

On April 1, the bubble began to shrink under the 900 megawatt 
reactor's dome, and President Jimmy Carter visited Harrisburg, 
Pennsylvania, and the plant to reassure the public.

No one died in the incident, which started with a failure in a 
non-nuclear section of the plant, according to the US Nuclear 
Regulatory Commission (NRC).

The main feedwater pumps stopped running after a mechanical or an 
electrical failure, preventing steam generators from removing 
heat, according at an NRC report.

The turbine and reactor Number Two shut down automatically.

Pressure in the nuclear part of the plant immediately began to 
increase. 

A valve opened to reduce pressure, but it failed to close as it 
was supposed to when the pressure subsided. The control station 
never received a signal indicating that the valve remained open.

Coolant escaped from the valve through the pressurizer, causing 
the reactor's core to overheat.

The control station's indicators did not show that the core's 
coolant level was too low.

Unaware of this problem, technicians worsened the condition by 
taking steps that reduced the core's coolant level.

Since there was no adequate cooling, the nuclear fuel overheated 
to the point of causing the rupture of metal tubes that held the 
fuel. 

Fuel pellets began to melt before technicians were able to reduce 
the temperature.

Luckily, although the plant suffered a "severe core meltdown, the 
most dangerous kind of nuclear power accident, it did not produce 
the worst-case consequences that reactor experts had long 
feared," according to the NRC report.

A Chernobyl-type disaster -- in which massive amounts of 
radiation were spread into the atmosphere in the Ukraine in 1986 
-- was averted.

Today, one-fifth of US energy derives from nuclear power, 25 
years after the country avoided a catastrophe.

No new plants have been ordered and Congress has only timidly 
proposed nuclear power as an alternative source of energy to 
modernize a fragile sector.

Last year, one-fourth of the US northeast lost electricity after 
a massive power failure.

Since the September 11, 2001, attacks in New York and Washington, 
nuclear plants are considered among the most likely targets of 
terrorists who want to cause mass casualties.

Every alert leads the security services of the country's 103 
nuclear plants to prepare for the worst, while fighter jets are 
mobilized to stop hijacked planes from crashing into a reactor.

  WAR.WIRE
*****************************************************************
 27 Brattleboro Reformer: NRC blasted at heated VY meeting

 [http://www.reformer.com/]   

April 01, 2004 Brattleboro, VT                                                                                 
 			 								 					
  Brian Holian, deputy director of Region 1, Division of Reactor
Projects with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission speaks about
Vermont Yankee safety at a meeting held at the Vernon Elementary
School on Wednesday. Photo: Jason R. Henske/Reformer

By CAROLYN LORI É Reformer Staff

VERNON -- Nuclear power whistleblowers Paul Blanch and Arnie 
Gundersen accused Entergy Nuclear, the Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission and General Electric of a "pattern of collusion" meant 
to skirt safety regulations on the "uprate" process proposed at 
Vermont Yankee.

 The allegation was made during a heated and confrontational NRC 
meeting meant to address public concerns about the uprate.

 More than 500 people attended.

 It was also announced by Bill Ruland, manager of the uprate 
process for the NRC, that the commission will provide the Public 
Service Board with a formal response to its request for an 
independent engineering assessment.

 Various NRC officials stressed that the letters sent to U.S. 
Sens. Patrick Leahy and Jim Jeffords on Monday, stating that only 
normal baseline inspections were planned from Vermont Yankee, 
were not meant to be a response to the board's request. 

Following an hour-long meeting between the NRC and Entergy 
regarding Vermont Yankee's safety performance for the last year, 
representatives from the commission made a brief presentation on 
the uprate review process, made even more brief by angry calls 
from the audience to hand the floor over to the public.

 Gundersen, who served as an expert witness for the New England 
Coalition during the technical hearing before the board, was the 
first to speak. Holding documents that were handed over to the 
coalition during the discovery process, Gundersen said that he 
had "discovered e-mail and telephone notes in which the NRC 
informed Entergy that GE was licensing the uprates 'on the 
cheap.'"

 According to Gundersen and Blanch, NRC had concerns about GE's 
analysis system, called constant pressure power licensing topical 
report, used by power plants applying for uprate. Gundersen 
alleges that, instead of requiring GE to strengthen their system, 
NRC officials suggested that Entergy "have a heart to heart with 
GE" and that the NRC also told Entergy officials that "GE wasn't 
being honest with us."

 They further allege that the documents show that GE officials 
became frustrated with NRC's questioning and that they intended 
to "go for the jugular" of the commission if they did not back 
down.

 Gundersen concluded by saying that he would not hand the 
documents over to the NRC but would instead hand deliver them to 
Chuck Ross of Sen. Leahy's office and Brian Keith of Sen. 
Jeffords' office, both of whom attended the meeting.

 "You are not here to protect the public. You are here to protect 
the industry from the public," said Gundersen the NRC 
representatives.

 Ruland said that he didn't "know the details behind this matter 
but we're going to find out."

 He added that the NRC has a system in place for handling 
allegations against its own employees, which involves going to 
the inspector general of the commission.

 According to Blanch, another of the coalition's expert 
witnesses, a call had already been made to the NRC's inspector 
general's office and the documents in questions handed over.

 Blanch said that he was willing to support an uprate at Vermont 
Yankee "if, and only if, the NRC and Entergy are willing to talk 
about nuclear safety in an open, collaborative and candid manner 
with us and members of the public."

 Blanch has repeatedly invited Entergy officials to meet with him 
publicly for a debate on the technical merits of the uprate. 
Entergy has declined the invitations.

 Several local and state officials were present including Sen. 
Mark MacDonald, D-Orange, Rep. Patty O'Donnell, R-Vernon, Sen. 
Jeanette White, D-Windham, Rep. Sarah Edwards, P-Brattleboro, 
Peggy Farabaugh of the Vernon Selectboard, as well as an aide for 
Mass. State Rep. Stephen Kulik, D-Turners Falls.

 Also attending was John Burke of the Public Service Board, who 
read a letter from the board addressed to NRC chairman Nils Diaz.

 The letter questions whether the response sent to Sens. Leahy 
and Jeffords was intended to also be a response to the board. It 
goes on to state that "...we want to make clear that the views 
expressed in our previous letter are unchanged...", making 
reference to the letter sent on March 15 with the original 
request for an independent engineering assessment. In the board's 
order, the certificate of public good was contingent upon 
completion of the assessment.

 The meeting, which was held at the Vernon Elementary school and 
had to be moved into the gymnasium because of the number of 
people, often erupted into cheering and applause, as members of 
the public voiced their concerns about the uprate process and 
frustration with Entergy and the NRC.

 Many questions and comments revolved around uprates done at 
other plants, that have since experienced problems.

 According to Ruland, the commission is in discussion with Exelon 
Corp., which owns Dresden and Quad Cities nuclear power plants, 
about uprate-related issues at both plants. He added that the NRC 
is considering taking regulatory action against Exelon.

 As the meeting entered its third hour, hands continued to go up 
with people wanting to add to the discussion, many saying they 
had waited years for such an opportunity.

 "I think its great," said Arnie Gundersen. "This is democracy. 
It's civil. This is Vermont at its best. I'm so proud to be a 
Vermonter."

*****************************************************************
 28 NRC: Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards; Joint Meeting of the 
 
                         FR Doc 04-7314 
[Federal Register: April 1, 2004 (Volume 69, Number 63)] 
[Notices] [Page 17244] From the Federal Register Online via GPO 
Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr01ap04-121]                         
 
Subcommittees on Reliability and Probabilistic Risk Assessment 
and on Human Factors; Notice of Meeting The ACRS Subcommittees on 
Reliability and Probabilistic Risk Assessment and on Human 
Factors will hold a joint meeting on April 22, 2004, Room T-2B1, 
11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland.
 
The entire meeting will be open to public attendance.
 
The agenda for the subject meeting shall be as follows: Thursday, 
April 22, 2004--8:30 a.m. until 2:30 p.m. The purpose of this 
meeting is to discuss the proposed staff guidance on Good 
Practices for Implementing Human Reliability Analysis (HRA) and 
development of data for Human Event Repository and Analyses 
(HERA). The Subcommittees will hear presentations by and hold 
discussions with representatives of the NRC staff, and other 
interested persons regarding this matter. The Subcommittee will 
gather information, analyze relevant issues and facts, and 
formulate proposed positions and actions, as appropriate, for 
deliberation by the full Committee.
 
Members of the public desiring to provide oral statements and/or 
written comments should notify the Designated Federal Official, 
Mr. Bhagwat P. Jain (telephone 301/415-7270), five days prior to 
the meeting, if possible, so that appropriate arrangements can be 
made. Electronic recordings will be permitted.
 
Further information regarding this meeting can be obtained by 
contacting the Designated Federal Official between 7:30 a.m. and 
4:15 p.m. (e.t.). Persons planning to attend this meeting are 
urged to contact the above named individual at least two working 
days prior to the meeting to be advised of any potential changes 
to the agenda.
 
Dated: March 26, 2004.
 
Medhat M. El-Zeftawy, Acting Associate Director for Technical 
Support, ACRS/ACNW.
 
[FR Doc. 04-7314 Filed 3-31-04; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P

 
*****************************************************************
 29 NRC: Notice of Availability of Environmental Assessment and Finding
 
                         FR Doc 04-7315 
[Federal Register: April 1, 2004 (Volume 69, Number 63)] 
[Notices] [Page 17242-17243] From the Federal Register Online via 
GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr01ap04-119]                         
 
of No Significant Impact for License Amendment for the 
Connecticut Agricultural Experiment Station for Its Johnson 
Laboratory Facility, New Haven, Connecticut AGENCY: Nuclear 
Regulatory Commission.
 
ACTION: Notice of Availability of Environmental Assessment and 
Finding of No Significant Impact.
 
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Judy Joustra, Nuclear Materials 
Safety Branch 2, Division of Nuclear Materials Safety, Region I, 
475 Allendale Road, King of Prussia, Pennsylvania, 19406, (610) 
337-5355; fax (610) 337-5269; e-mail: JAJ@nrc.gov [JAJ@nrc.gov] .
 
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Introduction The Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission (NRC) is considering the issuance of a license 
amendment to The Connecticut Agricultural Experiment Station 
(Experiment Station) for Materials License No.
 
06-03754-01, to authorize release of the Johnson Laboratory in 
New Haven, Connecticut for unrestricted use. NRC has prepared an 
Environmental Assessment (EA) in support of this action in 
accordance with the requirements of 10 CFR Part 51. Based on the 
EA, the NRC has concluded that a Finding of No Significant Impact 
(FONSI) is appropriate. The amendment will be issued following 
publication of this Notice.
 
II. EA Summary The purpose of the proposed action is to authorize 
the release of the licensee's Johnson Laboratory, New Haven, 
Connecticut facility for unrestricted use. The Experiment Station 
has been authorized by NRC since July 9, 1958 to use radioactive 
materials for research and development purposes at the Johnson 
Laboratory. On September 4, 2003, the Experiment Station 
requested that NRC release the facility for unrestricted use. The 
Experiment Station has conducted surveys of the facility as 
required by 10 CFR Part 20 and performed an assessment of 
residual contamination, and has determined that the facility 
meets the license termination criteria in Subpart E of 10 CFR 
Part 20. The NRC staff has prepared an EA in support of the 
proposed license amendment.
 
 
[[Page 17243]] III. Finding of No Significant Impact The staff 
has prepared the EA (summarized above) in support of the proposed 
license amendment to release the facility for unrestricted use. 
The NRC staff has evaluated the Experiment Station's request, and 
the results of the surveys and the assessment, and has concluded 
that the completed action complies with Subpart E of 10 CFR Part 
20.
 
The staff has found that the environmental impacts from the 
proposed action are bounded by the impacts evaluated by the 
``Generic Environmental Impact Statement in Support of Rulemaking 
on Radiological Criteria for License Termination of NRC-Licensed 
Facilities'' (NUREG-1496).
 
On the basis of the EA, the NRC has concluded that the 
environmental impacts from the proposed action are expected to be 
insignificant and has determined not to prepare an environmental 
impact statement for the proposed action.
 
IV. Further Information The EA and the documents related to this 
proposed action, including the application for the license 
amendment and supporting documentation, are available for 
inspection at NRC's Public Electronic Reading Room at 
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html 
[http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/leaving.cgi?from=leaving 
FR.html&log=linklog&to=http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html] 
(ADAMS Accession Nos. ML040840072, ML032541028, ML032790538, 
ML033630602 and ML040830619). These documents are also available 
for inspection and copying for a fee at the Region I Office, 475 
Allendale Road, King of Prussia, PA 19406. Persons who do not 
have access to ADAMS, should contact the NRC PDR Reference staff 
by telephone at (800) 397-4209 or (301) 415-4737, or by e-mail to 
pdr@nrc.gov [pdr@nrc.gov] . Dated at King of Prussia, 
Pennsylvania this 24th day of March, 2004.
 
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
 
John D. Kinneman, Chief, Nuclear Materials Safety Branch 2, 
Division of Nuclear Materials Safety, Region I.
 
[FR Doc. 04-7315 Filed 3-31-04; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P

 
*****************************************************************
 30 NRC: Arizona Public Service Company, et al.; Notice of Partial 
 
                         FR Doc 04-7316 
[Federal Register: April 1, 2004 (Volume 69, Number 63)] 
[Notices] [Page 17242] From the Federal Register Online via GPO 
Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr01ap04-118]                         
 
Withdrawal of Application for Amendment to Facility Operating 
License The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission) 
has granted the request of Arizona Public Service Company (the 
licensee) to partially withdraw its September 17, 2003, 
application for proposed amendments to Facility Operating License 
Nos. NPF-41, NPF-51, and NPF- 74 for the Palo Verde Nuclear 
Generating Station, Units 1, 2, and 3, respectively, located in 
Maricopa County, Arizona.
 
A portion of the September 17, 2003, license amendment request 
proposed a change to Limiting Condition for Operation 3.1.5, 
Condition B, concerning control element assembly position 
indicators.
 
The Commission had previously issued a Notice of Consideration of 
Issuance of Amendment published in the Federal Register on 
December 9, 2003 (68 FR 68657). However, by letter dated February 
20, 2004, the licensee partially withdrew the proposed change.
 
For further details with respect to this action, see the 
application for amendments dated September 17, 2003, and the 
licensee's letter dated February 20, 2004, which partially 
withdrew the application for license amendments. Documents may be 
examined, and/or copied for a fee, at the NRC's Public Document 
Room (PDR), located at One White Flint North, Public File Area O1 
F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland. 
Publicly available records will be accessible electronically from 
the Agencywide Documents Access and Management Systems (ADAMS) 
Public Electronic Reading Room on the Internet at the NRC Web 
site, http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams/html 
[http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/leaving.cgi?from=leaving 
FR.html&log=linklog&to=http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams/html] 
. Persons who do not have access to ADAMS or who encounter 
problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS, should 
contact the NRC PDR Reference staff by telephone at 
1-800-397-4209, or 301-415-4737 or by e-mail to pdr@nrc.gov 
[pdr@nrc.gov] . Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 23rd day of 
March 2004.
 
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
 
Mel B. Fields, Senior Project Manager, Section 2, Project 
Directorate IV, Division of Licensing Project Management, Office 
of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
 
[FR Doc. 04-7316 Filed 3-31-04; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P

 
*****************************************************************
 31 Brattleboro Reformer: Consortium to seek license to build new plant

 [http://www.reformer.com/]   

April 01, 2004 Brattleboro, VT                                                                                 
 			 								 					
By H. JOSEF HEBERT Associated Press

WASHINGTON -- Seven companies have agreed to jointly apply for a 
license to build a new commercial nuclear power plant, the first 
new reactor application to be filed in three decades, the 
companies announced Wednesday.

 The five energy companies and two reactor vendors emphasized 
that none of the companies have made a commitment to actually 
build a new plant, but are taking the move to test the 
government's streamlined licensing process.

 The companies intend to commit $7 million a year to the effort 
under a cost-sharing program with the Energy Department. The goal 
is to get license approval from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission 
by 2010.

 While three utilities previously have submitted applications for 
early site approval for reactors, this represents the first time 
the industry has actually said it would seek construction and 
operating approval for a new nuclear power plant since 1973. 

Interest in new reactors faded after the nuclear accident at the 
Three Mile Island plant in Pennsylvania in 1979. Many projects 
were canceled after the accident, although 51 reactors in the 
pipeline were completed.

 The consortium includes four of the country's largest 
electricity generating companies: Chicago-based Exelon Corp., 
which owns 17 reactors; Entergy Nuclear, a unit of New 
Orleans-based Entergy Corp., operator of 11 reactors; 
Baltimore-based Constellation Energy; and Atlanta-based Southern 
Co.

 Also in the group are EDF International North America Inc., a 
subsidiary of Electricite deFrance, which owns interest in a 
number of U.S. fossil fuel plants and 58 reactors in France, and 
two reactor vendors, General Electric and Westinghouse Electric 
Co. Westinghouse is a subsidiary of the British nuclear company, 
BNFL.

 Both vendors have designs for next-generation reactors before 
the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

 In the announcement, the participants emphasized that the 
decision to submit a license application is aimed at testing the 
government's new approach to licensing, which for the first time 
would have the NRC approve a generic reactor design and consider 
in one process both a construction permit and operating license.

 Such a test is considered a major step in the gradual move 
toward building new reactors. The consortium gave no indication 
when or where a plant actually might be built. The announcement 
said neither the consortium nor its members "are making a 
commitment to build a new nuclear unit at this time."

 Any decision on a future plant would be left to the individual 
participants in the consortium, the announcement said.

 "We must keep the nuclear energy option open for the future," 
said Chris Crane, president and chief nuclear officer at Exelon.

 Michael Wallace, president of Constellation Energy Group, said 
while his company "has no immediate plans" for building a new 
reactor "our decision to join this consortium is indicative of 
our strong desire to see the process by which new plants are 
sited streamlined to support efficient construction in the 
future."

 The consortium hopes to complete the application process by 2008 
and get a decision from the NRC by 2010. After that, any company 
or combination of participants can use the permit to proceed with 
a construction plan. 

Copyright © 2004 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This 
*****************************************************************
 32 PC News Herald: Meetings set to review D-B restart - 

portclintonnewsherald.com
 
Thursday, April 1, 2004   

By RICK NEALE Staff writer 
  
OAK HARBOR -- On April 8, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission will 
conduct a pair of meetings at Oak Harbor High School to discuss 
restart activities at Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station. 

The nuclear plant received NRC approval March 8 to resume 
operations after a two-year shutdown. Boric acid dissolved an 
unexpected crater a half-foot deep in the reactor vessel head, 
prompting First Energy to invest $600 million in equipment 
upgrades and replacement power purchases during the closure. 

NRC officials will meet from 1 to 4 p.m. to review FirstEnergy's 
performance and actions. Then from 6 to 8 p.m., the NRC will 
detail the status and activities of its Davis-Besse oversight 
panel, which has scrutinized activities at the Carroll Township 
facility. 

Both meetings will take place in the high school auditorium. The 
public is invited to attend. 

FirstEnergy spokesman Richard Wilkins said the Davis-Besse 
reactor continues to energize after restarting early Friday 
morning. 

Engineers shut down the reactor March 17 after problems were 
discovered with a trio of valves. 

"Things are going pretty well," Wilkins said shortly before 12:30 
p.m. Wednesday. "We're above 70 percent (power) at this point and 
climbing." 

Wilkins said electricity from Davis-Besse was routed onto the 
regional power grid early Saturday morning. 

He said the plant should be operating close to full power by 
week's end. Just prior to reaching 100 percent capacity, workers 
will pause the reactor ramp-up at a present "hold point" for 
about 72 hours to conduct chemistry analysis testing, Wilkins 
said 

Originally published Thursday, April 1, 2004
 
 Copyright ©2004 News Herald. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
 33 PC News Herald: Plans for new nuclear plant to test NRC -
                
portclintonnewsherald.com
 
Thursday, April 1, 2004   

 Development of new plants a priority
 
Gannett News Service 

Seven companies said Wednesday they intend to jointly apply for a 
license to build a new nuclear power plant. 

The government says it has been 30 years since it received an 
application to build a plant that later went into operation. 
Other applications were received after 1974, the Nuclear 
Regulatory Commission says, but were withdrawn or the plants 
never began operating. 

The seven companies, which include four of the country's largest 
electricity-generating utilities, say they haven't committed to 
building a new plant but aim to test the NRC's streamlined 
licensing process, implemented in 1992. 

The companies hope to file the application in 2008 and get an NRC 
decision in 2010. They say their actions follow a Department of 
Energy initiative last fall to develop new nuclear power plants. 

A DOE spokeswoman says development of new plants is a priority, 
but she wouldn't comment on the companies' decision. The 
companies hope to enter into a cost-sharing program with the DOE. 

Plans to build many plants were canceled after a nuclear accident 
at the Three Mile Island plant in Pennsylvania in 1978. 

The huge cost of building a plant has also been a deterrent. It 
cost about $11 billion to build the Watts Bar facility in 
Tennessee, which was completed in 1996, says David Lochbaum of 
Union of Concerned Scientists. 

Craig Nesbit, a spokesman for one of the companies, Exelon 
Nuclear, hailed Wednesday's announcement as a major new chapter 
in the nuclear power industry. "It's a step toward the 
next-generation of technology and nuclear energy," he says. 

Critics think the move is a mistake. "I see no reason to build 
more terrorist targets in our midst when there are better ways 
that are more safe and reliable to generate the energy we need," 
says Jim Riccio of Greenpeace. 

Besides Chicago-based Exelon, other companies involved in the 
joint license application will be Entergy Nuclear, a unit of New 
Orleans-based Entergy; Baltimore-based Constellation Energy; 
Atlanta-based Southern Co.; EDF International North America; and 
two reactor vendors, General Electric and Westinghouse Electric. 

Originally published Thursday, April 1, 2004
 
 Copyright ©2004 News Herald. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
 34 News Messenger: Davis-Besse 'above 70% and climbing' 

- thenews-messenger.com

Thursday, April 1, 2004   

By RICK NEALE Staff writer 
  
OAK HARBOR -- The Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station is expected 
to be operating close to full power by week's end, according to 
FirstEnergy spokesman Richard Wilkins. 

Wilkins said the plant's reactor continues to energize after 
restarting early Friday morning. 

The nuclear plant received Nuclear Regulatory Commission approval 
March 8 to resume operations after a two-year shutdown, but 
engineers shut down the reactor again March 17 after problems 
were discovered with a trio of valves. 

Those issues were resolved and the plant was restarted Friday. 

"Things are going pretty well," Wilkins said Wednesday. "We're 
above 70 percent (power) at this point and climbing." 

Wilkins said electricity from Davis-Besse was routed onto the 
regional power grid early Saturday morning. 

To provide an update on just how things are going, the NRC will 
conduct a pair of meetings April 8 at Oak Harbor High School to 
discuss restart activities. 

NRC officials will meet from 1 to 4 p.m. to review FirstEnergy's 
performance and actions. Then from 6 to 8 p.m., the NRC will 
detail the status and activities of its Davis-Besse oversight 
panel, which has scrutinized activities at the Carroll Township 
facility. 

Both meetings will take place in the high school auditorium. The 
public is invited to attend. 

The plant had been shut down since February 2002 after it was 
discovered that boric acid dissolved a crater a half-foot deep in 
the reactor vessel head. First Energy invested $600 million in 
equipment upgrades and replacement power purchases during the 
closure. 

Wilkins said that just prior to the plant's reaching 100 percent 
capacity, workers will pause the reactor ramp-up at a present 
"hold point" for about 72 hours to conduct chemistry analysis 
testing. 

Originally published Thursday, April 1, 2004
 
 Copyright ©2004 The News-Messenger. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
 35 North County Times: Broken sensors keep San Onofre reactor down

North San Diego and Southwest Riverside County News
 
[http://www.nctimes.com/news]   

 March 31, 2004 11:14

By: PAUL SISSON - Staff Writer 

SAN ONOFRE ---- Two failed water temperature sensors have forced 
operators to shut down San Onofre's Unit 2 reactor before it 
could reach full power after a 45-day refueling and maintenance 
outage, a plant spokesman said Wednesday.

Ray Golden, a spokesman for Southern California Edison, San 
Onofre's majority owner and operator, said technicians detected 
the faulty sensor Feb. 25 as they were preparing to reconnect the 
Unit 2 reactor with Southern California's electricity grid. 

"The reactor core was critical, which means it was undergoing a 
sustained nuclear reaction, when we detected the problem," Golden 
said. "We had to shut down and bring the temperature below 100 
degrees so we could do the repair." 

He added that the faulty sensor is used to measure the 
temperature of the coolant that is pumped through the reactor 
core. Once the reactor had cooled enough for a repair crew to 
enter, a second faulty temperature sensor was detected.

The pair of faulty sensors presented no danger to plant operators 
or the public, Golden said.

"We have a total of 22 sensors that are in various lines," he 
said. "They can all be used to monitor the temperature of the 
reactor coolant."

Unit 2 will be reconnected to the grid Sunday if no other 
problems are discovered as the reactor is gradually returned to 
full power, Golden said.

Also Wednesday, Golden said Edison has begun planning the most 
significant maintenance project in San Onofre's history.

Edison filed a 6-inch-thick application in late February with the 
California Public Utilities Commission, asking for permission to 
replace four steam generators inside the plant's twin reactor 
domes, at an estimated cost of $680 million. Golden said Edison's 
engineers estimate that by 2009, the generators' internal 
workings will have cracked badly enough to need replacement.

Edison's application, which should take about nine months to 
process, would remove the old steam generators and bury them at a 
nuclear waste disposal site in Clive, Utah. The new generators 
would be purchased from an overseas company and shipped by sea to 
San Onofre.

Golden said electricity rates for household customers would be 
increased by less than one cent per kilowatt hour to pay for the 
replacement.

The plant's steam generators, two in each of its twin reactor 
domes, are used to boil water.

Each generator is 66 feet tall, 25 feet in diameter, weighs 750 
tons and contains 9,350 metal tubes.

All day every day, 560-degree reactor coolant is pumped through 
the tubes under 2,250 pounds of pressure per square inch.

San Onofre's steam generators were designed to last 40 years. 
However, inspectors began detecting cracks in the thin coolant 
tubes only 10 years after units 2 and 3 came into service in 1983 
and 1984.

Golden said Edison had to plug 1,899 of Unit 2's tubes and 
another 534 have been repaired by inserting protective metal 
sleeves. All told, Golden said 10 percent of Unit 2's steam 
generator tubes are out of service.

Unit 3 has a total of 1,227 ---- or 6.5 percent ---- of its tubes 
plugged.

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission allows San Onofre to have no 
more than 21.4 percent of its steam generator tubes out of 
service.

The tubes are made of a nickel alloy called Iconel 600. Most 
pressurized water reactors such as San Onofre, built in the late 
1970s and early 1980s, used the alloy inside steam generators 
because it was believed it could best withstand extreme 
temperature and pressure.

But at plants throughout the nation, the alloy tubes have cracked 
and engineers have never been able to figure out exactly why.

Golden said the new steam generators that Edison hopes to 
purchase and install would be made by a new nickel alloy called 
Iconel 690, which is supposed to have much better resistance to 
cracking.

Paul Gunter of the Nuclear Information Resource Service, a 
national anti-nuclear watchdog organization based in Washington, 
D.C., said that the same faulty alloy that is cracking in San 
Onofre's steam generators is also used in other critical areas 
such as inside the reactor vessel itself.

"Our concern is that, while they're replacing the steam 
generators, they're not going back to replace that same alloy in 
other portions of the reactor system," Gunter said.

He added that, should several pipes inside the steam generator 
rupture at the same time, radioactive coolant would automatically 
mix with steam and be carried outside the reactor dome.

"Fifteen ruptured tubes could lead to a significant coolant loss 
and a serious problem," Gunter said.

Golden said Edison inspects old Iconel 600 parts inside the 
reactors each time they are taken apart for refueling. He said 
that any parts that show cracking are replaced with newer Iconel 
690.

"For example, the two sensors we are replacing right now used to 
be the old alloy, but they were upgraded several outages ago," 
Golden said.

He added that San Onofre's four steam generators have extremely 
low-tolerance radiation detectors that would close steam lines 
exiting the dome if a large-scale rupture occurred.

"In literally seconds, valves would close and bottle up the 
generator," Golden said.

Contact staff writer Paul Sisson at (760) 901-4087 or 
psisson@nctimes.com [psisson@nctimes.com] 

             [webmaster@nctimes.com]  
  © 1997-2004 North County Times - Lee Enterprises
*****************************************************************
 36 Western Producer: SARM endorses nuclear plant - 

April 1, 2004 edition
 		 	 	 	 	 		
src="http://www.producer.com

 By Karen Briere [newsroom@producer.com?subject=Feedback - 

Regina bureau

Saskatchewan rural leaders have endorsed the idea of establishing 
a nuclear power plant in the province. 

At their recent annual convention, Saskatchewan Association of 
Rural Municipalities delegates passed a resolution calling on 
SARM to work with Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd. and the provincial 
uranium industry "to construct a state-of-the-art nuclear-powered 
power plant to demonstrate to the rest of the world that this is 
safe and reliable technology." 

Sinclair Harrison, a former SARM president and reeve for the RM 
of Moosomin, told the convention that if Saskatchewan is serious 
about economic development it should look at all possibilities. 
He reminded delegates that they had passed resolutions supporting 
nuclear energy at previous conventions. 

"We want to ship this stuff all over the world but we're not 
prepared to build a little reactor to prove its safety," he said. 

The delegates passed a wide range of resolutions, including two 
directing SARM to work with the Agricultural Producers 
Association of Saskatchewan. 

They want the provincial government to "drastically increase" the 
cost of an overweight permit. Municipalities are not allowed to 
charge more than $25 for a single-trip permit or $100 for more 
than one trip. 

A resolution put forward by the RM of Antler said the time it 
takes to assess and fix the damage far exceeds the nominal fees 
charged. 

Delegates also want the government to provide financial 
assistance to municipalities for noxious weed control, reduce 
power and natural gas rates for recreation facilities and allow 
RMs to use marked diesel in their unlicensed equipment. 

Delegates tabled a resolution calling for the removal of 
education tax from agricultural property and another calling for 
it to be removed from all classes except residential property. 

        External websites are not endorsed by The Western 
Producer. They will open in a new browser window. --> 

[newsroom@producer.com ?subject=Feedback - Western Producer - 
SARM endorses nuclear plant - April 1, 2004 edition ]  
                                
      © The Western Producer. Not to be republished without 
*****************************************************************
 37 SignOnSanDiego.com: Power plant owners spar about overhaul
 
SDG won't pay for San Onofre work

By Matthew T. Hall UNION-TRIBUNE STAFF WRITER

 April 1, 2004 

Aging steam generators at the San Onofre nuclear power plant must 
be replaced in five years at a cost of $813 million or the plant 
may not be safe to operate, a Southern California Edison 
spokesman said yesterday. 

A dispute among the owners over whether the overhaul is justified 
has left the issue of who will pay for it  if it takes place  
unclear. 

San Diego Gas & Electric Co. says its 1.2 million customers won't 
be asked for money because it refuses to spend money on an 
unnecessary project. 

The 4.5 million customers of Southern California Edison would pay 
the largest share, amounting to a 2 percent increase in their 
monthly bills. 

Edison, which operates and owns 75 percent of the plant, is alone 
among the four owners in supporting the replacement of the four 
20-year-old steam generators, which can produce electricity for 
2.2 million homes. 

Under Edison's proposal, the plant's two reactors would be taken 
out of service separately in 2009 for 115 consecutive days, at 
times when energy consumption is not at its peak. 

Edison spokesman Ray Golden called the maintenance critical. He 
said new modeling shows a 25 percent chance that the number of 
plugged cracks in the tubes of the two generators in Unit 2 will 
exceed federal regulations by 2009. The tubes in Unit 3 have a 15 
percent chance of exceeding the limits by 2009. 

Edison needs approval from state regulators to begin the project, 
but said in its filing with the state Public Utilities Commission 
that it won't proceed without support from SDG&E and the cities 
of Anaheim and Riverside. 

The cities, which own a combined 5 percent stake in the plant, 
have not weighed in. Spokesmen for their public utilities said 
their combined 162,000 ratepayers would see negligible increases 
in power bills if their city councils supported the proposed 
overhaul. 

San Onofre's steam generator tubes are closely inspected and tiny 
cracks are plugged each time a reactor is shut down for routine 
maintenance every 22 months. The tubes and the water rushing 
through them are monitored constantly. 

Under federal regulations, a nuclear power plant cannot operate 
when more than 21.4 percent of alloyed tubes in its steam 
generators have been plugged, Golden said. 

At San Onofre, about 10 percent of the tubes in both steam 
generators in Unit 2 are plugged and 6 percent to 7 percent of 
Unit 3's tubes are plugged. 

Each steam generator has 9,350 tubes that are three-quarters of 
an inch wide and 67 feet long. Heated water from the reactor 
cycles through the tubes, creating steam that turns turbines to 
create electricity. 

Golden said 50 other nuclear power plants nationwide with similar 
pressurized water reactors have replaced or made plans to replace 
steam generators that have too many plugged tubes. San Onofre is 
one of three that do not have such plans. 

Golden said operators initially believed the steam generators 
would last through 2022, the 40-year length of the operating 
licenses for the San Onofre plant's two active reactors. 

Extracting, burying and replacing the existing steam generators 
would cost about $680 million, Golden said. Financing the project 
between 2006 and 2011 would cost $133 million more. 

The company must start its approval process now because of long 
lead times in the production of steam generators. Edison is 
considering about a half-dozen manufacturers, Golden said. 

Under Edison's plan, its customers would pay $610 million of the 
total, SDG&E ratepayers $163 million, Anaheim $25 million and 
Riverside $15 million. 

The cost of replacing the steam generators easily surpasses the 
$600 million cost of entirely dismantling Unit 1, which had been 
the largest project commissioned at the nuclear plant site. 

Unit 1 was shut down permanently in 1992, in part because of 
degrading conditions of the plant's steam generators. It was one 
of three plants shut down in the United States primarily or 
partly for that reason between 1989 and 1992, according to a 1995 
report by nuclear analyst Kenneth Chuck Wade. 

In the 1980s and 1990s, a wave of lawsuits brought by nuclear 
plant operators against the steam generator manufacturer 
Westinghouse Electric Corp. led to private settlements and new 
alloys for steam generator tubes. 

Edison brought one suit against the company, which produced the 
three steam generators inside Unit 1. Edison hired another 
company, Combustion Engineering, to make the steam generators for 
its newest units. 

Golden said Edison officials have made no decision on whether to 
sue that company, now a part of Westinghouse. 

Greenpeace nuclear policy analyst Jim Riccio, who has followed 
the steam generator degradation issue for a decade, said 
ratepayers should not be asked to foot the bill. 

"The same legal principle applies," he said. "Why is it that the 
public should pay for the bad investment?" 

SignOnSanDiego | Make us your homepage
 © Copyright 2004 Union-Tribune Publishing Co.   
*****************************************************************
 38 JS Online: Nuclear plant review won't examine effect on ratepayers
 
[http://www.jsonline.com
    
 By THOMAS CONTENT
tcontent@journalsentinel.com Posted: March 31, 2004 

Two Creeks - The evaluation of whether to extend the life of the 
Point Beach nuclear power plant will not analyze the impact of 
the decision on ratepayers, a Nuclear Regulatory Commission 
official said Wednesday night. 

The review will focus on safety, environmental and technical 
matters - essentially on whether the plant can operate safely 
another 20 years, said Michael Morgan, NRC safety program 
manager. 

Plant owner Wisconsin Energy Corp. said that renewing the Point 
Beach license will save state ratepayers $474 million. But 
critics of nuclear power, including the Wisconsin Citizens 
Utility Board, said that amounts to a 2% savings, which is not 
worth the risks associated with nuclear power. 

"We don't really get involved with economics. That decision has 
been made by the owners and operators of the plant," Morgan said. 

Morgan addressed about 60 people at Town Hall, at the first of 
several public meetings on the license renewal application 
scheduled in the next two years. 

Some people at the meeting raised concerns about spent nuclear 
fuel stored at the plant. 

NRC officials said their review will not take into account 
whether the proposed national storage facility at Yucca Mountain 
in Nevada will open on time. 

Spent fuel is being stored safely at Point Beach and other 
nuclear power plants, NRC spokesman Jan Strasma said. 

"We assume that waste will be dealt with for the additional 20 
years and can be dealt with safely," he said. 

Part of the review, however, is to focus on the safety and 
history of the plant. Point Beach was recently the subject of 
intense NRC inspections and criticism. 

Nuclear Management Co. of Hudson, which is owned by Wisconsin 
Energy and other utilities, filed the renewal application less 
than a week after a top NRC official warned operators of serious 
consequences if the plant's management and attention to 
correcting problems don't improve. 

In February, NRC officials announced that Point Beach has been 
tagged with a classification that amounts to the worst rating a 
plant can have but still be allowed to operate. 

Point Beach experienced problems in the late 1990s and again in 
recent years. The plant became the only one in the nation that 
government inspectors determined to have two problems of "high 
safety significance." 

Plant workers have been good at identifying problems, but have 
been deficient in fixing them, NRC officials said. As a result, 
the plant faces continued inspections and won't be able to 
improve its performance rating until early next year, Strasma 
said. 

Point Beach's first unit opened in 1970, and its second unit 
opened in 1973, with licenses scheduled to expire in 2010 and 
2013, respectively. The plant generates one-sixth of the power 
produced in Wisconsin and 27% of the electricity generated by 
Wisconsin Energy's regulated utility, We Energies. 

From the April 1, 2004 editions of the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel
 
[http://www.jsonline.com/copyright.html] , Journal Sentinel Inc.
All rights reserved.
Journal Sentinel Inc. is a subsidiary of Journal Communications
[http://www.jc.com] , an employee-owned company.
*****************************************************************
 39 Brattleboro Reformer: Watchdog group won't give up
 
[http://www.reformer.com/]   

April 01, 2004 Brattleboro, VT                                                                                 
 			 								 					
By CAROLYN LORIÉ Reformer Staff

BRATTLEBORO --The fight is not over as far as the New England 
Coalition is concerned.

 The Brattleboro-based nuclear watchdog group says it will do 
everything it can to make sure that Entergy Nuclear's 20 percent 
"uprate" at Vermont Yankee does not happen.

 On Monday, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission sent a letter to 
U.S. Sens. Jim Jeffords and Patrick Leahy, stating that it will 
not do an independent engineering assessment, as requested by the 
state Public Service Board and the Vermont Senate.

 "The NRC has helped considerably by raising the awareness of 
this issue," said Shadis, referring to the fact that the letter 
generated negative responses from all levels of state government, 
as well as from Leahy and Jeffords.

 Although Shadis described the process of getting a public 
hearing with the NRC as a "great uphill battle," the coalition 
intends to do just that. 

As an intervenor in the technical hearings before the Public 
Service Board, the coalition provided expert testimony and 
cross-examined witnesses from Entergy and the state.

 In response to the board's March 15 decision to issue a 
conditional certificate of public good for the uprate, the group 
has filed a motion for reconsideration.

 It is unclear how the NRC's refusal will affect the board's 
decision, as the order states that the board will maintain 
jurisdiction over the case and may revisit the issue, depending 
on the assessment of the NRC.

 According to Shadis, the coalition became an intervenor because 
the parties responsible for protecting the interests of 
Vermonters dropped the ball, namely Gov. Jim Douglas and the 
Department of Public Service.

 Prior to the coalition's involvement, Shadis says that "the 
people of Vermont were not represented in this case."

 In a previous interview, Douglas' spokesman Jason Gibbs said the 
Douglas administration negotiated aggressively on behalf of 
Vermonters, which resulted in Entergy's contribution to the 
state's general fund and the consumer protection program.

 Many critics of the plan have characterized the agreement as a 
bribe.

 In addition to going before the board, the coalition has tried 
to engage Entergy in a pubic debate on the technical merits of 
its proposal. Through its expert witness, industry whistleblower 
Paul Blanch, repeated invitations have been made, including an 
e-mail sent to Jay Thayer, site vice-president at Vermont Yankee. 
Blanch says Thayer did not respond.

 In addition to the challenge of securing a public hearing with 
the NRC, there is there the inescapable inequity of resources 
between Entergy and the coalition.

 Entergy Corporation -- the parent company of Entergy Nuclear, 
which owns Vermont Yankee -- has annual revenues in excess of $9 
billion. It is the second largest nuclear generator in the 
country, operating a fleet of eight nuclear power stations and 
employing over 14,000 workers.

 The coalition has one full-time employee, Peter Alexander, who 
was hired in December, as the first executive director in the 
organization's 33-year history.

 In addition to Alexander, there are three part-time workers and 
several dozen volunteers. The annual operating budget is 
$140,000, all of which comes from private donations.

 "It's like Godzilla versus the ant people," says Shadis.

 According to Alexander, the efforts are taking a toll on the 
coalition's coffers.

 "We're limited by our budget. We're limited by the size of our 
staff. Entergy has millions that they can spend promoting this 
plan in every arena. We basically spent most of our treasury. We 
are ready to go to the community (for contributions)," he says.

 Except for the alternative energy van program, which is an 
ongoing project, the coalition has directed all its efforts to 
stopping the uprate. It has been able to do so, largely because 
of the donated time of so many people, including industry 
whistleblowers Blanch, Arnie Gundersen and David Lochbaum.

 Shadis, an artist and anti-nuclear activist from Maine, does all 
the legal work, something he learned how to do over the 30 years 
he has spent fighting the nuclear power industry. Usually a 
half-time employee, he is now getting paid for three-quarter time 
but in reality, he says, works more than 40 hours a week.

 "We took no measure of time," says Shadis, of all the unpaid 
hours.

 At tonight's meeting in Vernon with Entergy and the NRC, the 
coalition will be out in full force. Alexander, Shadis, Blanch 
and Gundersen plan to attend, as well as board members and 
volunteers. The meeting will be held at the Vernon Elementary 
School, beginning at 7 p.m.

 After Monday's letter was announced, Alexander said that he was 
hopeful that it would spur even more people to attend the 
meeting.

 "The NRC has not been as firm as they led on to be. They are 
expecting heavy flak from the public and we do not want to let 
them down," says Alexander.                             
 		   			 		   	 	
*****************************************************************
 40 Miami Herald: PL has plans for Turkey Point

| 04/01/2004 | 

SOUTH DADE

A growth boom has FPL wanting to expand operations at Turkey 
Point in South Dade. But some environmentalists have objections.

 BY BROOKE PRESCOTT

  [bprescott@herald.com] 

Florida Power & Light wants to add a high-tech generator to its 
Turkey Point power plant in response to booming development, 
particularly in Miami-Dade. 

After conducting a 10-year study, FPL said there would be a need 
to build a new generator at Turkey Point or buy power from other 
companies by 2007. 

In December, though, the company determined the best option would 
be to build a $600 million combined-cycle generator, which uses 
natural gas. 

''We found that our project will still be saving our customers 
money by building on our existing site,'' said FPL spokeswoman 
Kathy Scott. 

The new unit would be among the cleanest power plants in the 
state and capable of serving an additional 230,000 customers, she 
said. 

Before construction starts, hearings and meetings on the local 
and state levels will determine if the project should move 
forward. Already plans have drawn criticism from local 
environmentalists. 

''We're not satisfied it's the best decision,'' said Cynthia 
Guerra, executive director of Tropical Audubon. Her group is 
upset about the site chosen for construction. 

Turkey Point is south of Biscayne National Park, and some 
environmentalists fear that developing it further poses a threat 
to coastal wetlands. 

''Our main issues are with the impact footprint -- where they 
will clear away coastal wetlands,'' Guerra said. ``We don't want 
them to develop any more of that site.'' 

So far, Biscayne National Park hasn't objected to the plan, said 
Rick Clark, the park's resource management division chief. 

The combined-cycle generator would be built just north of the 
four existing generators at Turkey Point. 

The process would be 30 percent more efficient than the two 
nuclear-powered and two oil and gas-fired units that are now used 
at the 11,000-acre site, Scott, the FPL spokeswoman, said. 

FPL, however, does not have the final say. 

The Florida Public Service Commission will decide in June if FPL 
has a need for more power, and if the company has chosen the most 
cost-effective option. 

''We feel very confident that we'll be able to show that we have 
the need, and the Turkey Point project is the best way to meet 
that need,'' Scott said. 

A state-appointed judge will have a hearing in September and make 
a recommendation. 

The judge's recommendation will then go to the governor and 
Cabinet, who will make the final call.   


*****************************************************************
 41 Democracy Now: 25th Anniversary of The Worst Nuclear Accident in U.S. History
 
  Thursday, April 1st, 2004
 Three Mile Island:

Twenty-five years ago this week, the Three Mile Island nuclear
reactor at Harrisburg, Pennsylvania malfunctioned, sparking a
meltdown that resulted in the release of radioactivity. We speak
with Susan Stranahan, the lead reporter for The Philadelphia
Inquirer's Pulitzer Prize winning coverage of the disaster.

It was the worst nuclear accident in US history. Twenty-five 
years ago this week, the Three Mile Island nuclear reactor at 
Harrisburg, Pennsylvania malfunctioned, sparking a meltdown that 
resulted in the release of radioactivity. In the pre-dawn hours 
of March 28, 1979, the cooling system of Three Mile Island's Unit 
Two reactor malfunctioned, causing temperatures inside to 
skyrocket. 

Early that morning, pumps feeding cooling water to the plant's 
reactor failed, and 32,000 gallons of radioactive, superheated 
water spewed from a dodgy valve into the domed concrete reactor 
housing. Without water to cool them, more than half of the 
reactor's 36,000 nuclear fuel rods ruptured. 

Lieutenant Governor William Scranton appeared on local TV and 
warned residents to close their doors and windows and urged them 
to stay inside. Harrisburg Mayor Stephen Reed said the message to 
lock windows and stay indoors was akin to telling everyone to 
evacuate. Some estimate that well over 100,000 people fled 
Harrisburg and the surrounding areas. 

The evening of March 28, 1979, famed news anchor Walter Cronkite 
opened his nightly newscast on CBS by calling the disaster "the 
first step in a nuclear nightmare." For the next four days, the 
nation and the world feared a full-scale meltdown would follow. 

The accident at Three Mile Island would quickly fuel the nuclear 
debate in this country that rages to this day. 


  + Containment: Life after Three Mile Island, excerpt of 
documentary produced by Nick Poppy and Chris Boebel. + Susan 
Stranahan, lead reporter for The Philadelphia Inquirer's Pulitzer 
Prize winning coverage of the Three Mile Island accident. She now 
writes regularly on nuclear issues for Mother Jones. 

AMY GOODMAN: We turn now to the reporter for the "Philadelphia 
Inquirer" who led the Pulitzer Prize winning coverage of the 
Three Mile Island accident. She now writes regularly on nuclear 
issues for "Mother Jones." Take us back to that day, Susan 
Stranahan. 

SUSAN STRANAHAN: Listening to the experts brought back a lot of 
memories. I have been rereading coverage, both the stuff that 
dated 25 years ago, and coverage about the 25th anniversary of 
the accident, and all of the stories contain a lot of details. 
None of them contain quite the level of uncertainty and confusion 
and fear that pervaded. I think you got a sense of that from the 
excerpt from the documentary. But it was a very frightening time. 
I compared it in a piece that I wrote for the anniversary to the 
9-11 catastrophe. Certainly it was not in any magnitude close to 
the tragedy of September 11, but at least that was, up until the 
9-11 accident, certainly probably the most frightening time that 
many Americans had experienced, at least those in this part of 
the country. 

JUAN GONZALEZ: Well, Susan, I remember being a cub reporter that 
year at “The Philadelphia Daily News," so I wasn't chosen by my 
editors to go to Three Mile Island, but can you talk about the 
changes that the reporters went through who were assigned, like 
yourself to cover the accident, and what emotional changes went 
through you deciding because I know there were some at the 
"Philadelphia Daily News" who refused to go. They said didn't 
want to take the chance. 

SUSAN STRANAHAN: I think there were 39 reporters from the 
"Philadelphia Inquirer" that covered the story. Most of them were 
out there. It was one of the great conflicts that journalists 
have whether they're covering a disaster, a war, a fire, 
whatever. Half of you, your heart and your gut want you there 
because you know it's the most amazing story. Your brain is 
telling you any rational person probably would not be here. The 
drama and the significance of the moment, I think, kept a lot of 
people working 24 hours a day seven days a week just to see how 
this whole thing would play out. 

AMY GOODMAN: We're talking to Susan Stranahan who led the 
Pulitzer Prize winning "Philadelphia Inquirer" coverage of the 
Three Mile Island accident 25 years ago. We'll continue with her 
in just a minute. 

AMY GOODMAN: This is Democracy Now! The War and Peace Report. 
Broadcasting on more than 220 Pacifica radio stations, NPR 
stations, public access TV stations, PBS stations, and on direct, 
Dish Network, Free Speech TV, Channel 9415, Satellite Television, 
and the largest public media collaboration in this country. If 
you want to get us on your TV or radio station, you can just call 
or go to our website and find out how at democracynow.org. I'm 
Amy Goodman here with Juan Gonzalez. In just a few minutes, we'll 
be talking about the tenth anniversary of The Rwandan Massacre, 
The Rwandan Genocide. We're also going to be talking about the 
firm that the U.S. Civilians now in Fallujah came from who were 
killed, but right now, we're talking about the 25th anniversary 
of Three Mile Island, how it was covered and some comparisons to 
how 9-11 was covered. Susan Stranahan is with us, won the 
Pulitzer Prize for her reporting on Three Mile Island. What about 
the coverage, and how it was managed, and the role of one of the 
largest P.R. Firms in the world, Hill &Nolten? 

SUSAN STRANAHAN: I had no contact with Hill &Nolton. Amy, I'm not 
sure what you were referring to there. The problem that we had as 
reporters was fairly complex. One, we're not nuclear engineers so 
we were working with that handicap. We were also working with 
bureaucracies and experts that clearly didn't have a clue what 
was going on. We were working with the utility companies that 
just would never tell the truth, would stand up and absolutely 
just lie day after day, hour after hour, and there was an excerpt 
of that on the documentary. So, we were basically thrown into a 
situation where you are doing basic reporting on an incredibly 
complicated problem. And that's where good journalistic instincts 
come into play, and it was digging and asking questions and being 
skeptical, and going to as many people as you could possibly 
think of. I remember we used everybody from nuclear physicists 
and PhD’s down to high school science teachers that we would call 
up and say basically, quick, give us a crash course in x, y and 
z, and everyone worked together. There were some mistakes, as 
there always are when you are under that enormous amount of 
pressure, but I think in reading back, the stories given the 
limitations of time, given the amount of information that just 
was not there, and would not become available for years, the 
stories hold up quite well, both from a technical standpoint, as 
well as to just the total breakdown of the regulatory system in 
this country and corporate mentality of just no hesitancy to just 
lie through their teeth. 

JUAN GONZALEZ: On that question, obviously there were several 
groups that should have exercised responsibility. There were the 
owners of Three Mile Island themselves. There were the public 
officials, and then the local public officials, and then there 
was the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. What was looking back on 
it, your assessment of how each of these groups functioned. You 
told us a little bit about the Three Mile Island owners. What 
about the public officials and the N.R.C.? 

SUSAN STRANAHAN: The N.R.C. has always labored under a cloud of 
being a promoter of nuclear power rather than a regulator. In 
this instance, by and large, they fell back onto a rather 
defensive posture of not being as candid as they could have been 
in terms of the potential risks. But I think the bottom line on 
that, Juan, is that they didn't know, either. They just didn't 
know what was going on. They had worked under this mindset that 
something like this could not happen, therefore it, wasn't 
happening. Yet it was. So, for hours and the early days they were 
as confused as those of us who were in the newsroom because this 
just wasn't supposed to happen. There were two heroes in this. 
There were many, many heroes in this, but the two most prominent 
heroes were Governor Dick Thornburg, who remained calm and became 
a figure that the public trusted. He was a guy who was just 
pulling out his hair because he could not get any answer, so he 
felt responsibility for the health and safety of hundreds of 
thousands of Pennsylvanians. The other hero was Harold Denten who 
was eventually sent up from the N.R.C. on the orders of President 
Jimmy Carter, who was equally as upset and frustrated by his 
government's inability to give a clear and straight answer to a 
very panicked public. Once both of those people, especially 
Harold Denten, were on the scene, at least there became a single 
voice speaking, and a voice that people, including members of the 
media, began to at least feel that they were getting a straight 
story. So, it was a breakdown of the bureaucracies, but there 
were two people that stepped to the plate and said, we will begin 
to try and do our jobs here and calm a panicked public. 

AMY GOODMAN: Susan Stranahan, can you talk about the comparison 
of coverage between Three Mile Island, 1979, 25 years ago, and 
then what happened on September 11. 

SUSAN STRANAHAN: I wasn’t anywhere close to the September 11th 
sites either here in Pennsylvania or in Washington or in New 
York, and I didn't have any direct role in it, so, I can’t speak 
firsthand on that. Obviously, there were terrible differences 
between them. There was no loss of life in Three Mile Island. In 
the Three Mile Island accident, the catastrophes of 9-11, the 
fact that this played out in front of the eyes of America was 
amazing. It was a terrorist attack, it wasn't the failure of a 
piece of machinery, which was frightening in and of itself, this 
was a terrorist attack on America, so psychologically, it was 
much, much different. I think the coverage was fantastic. It 
offered many of the same challenges to the media because like a 
melting down reactor, nobody in the media ever thought in their 
right mind they would walk to work one morning and the next hour 
be out there covering a terrorist attack in downtown Manhattan 
with people leaping from buildings and planes crashing into… it's 
one of those things that as a reporter… you get up in the morning 
and you always say, “Well, I don't know what's going to happen 
before the time I come home,” and there's always the likelihood, 
god forbid, that this is the sort of thing that you're going to 
be doing. So people jump in. They use their best skills. They 
know that their first obligation is to get the information out to 
the public, and they put themselves at risk in doing it, and I 
think that's the comparison. 

JUAN GONZALEZ: Also, since you have continued to write now on 
nuclear issues for "Mother Jones" and I'm wondering about your 
reaction hearing this week that a group of private companies 
wants to build the first nuclear power plant since… obviously 
none has been built in this country since Three Mile Island, and 
your thoughts having dealt with the issue again as Americans try 
to grapple with the question of the future of nuclear energy. 

SUSAN STRANAHAN: I'm not surprised. You look at the forces that 
are at work here. You have got energy prices soaring. You have 
got pressure to drill in The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. You 
have got clean air concerns. You have got a very friendly 
administration in The White House that is very pro-nuclear. The 
Cheney Energy Plan that was put forth was called for building a 
thousand new nuclear plants by 2020, which averages something 
like one a week. That's not going to happen. But I'm not 
surprised. I would think if there are a group of investors that 
wanted to put up the capital to do it, then it probably will go 
forward. My concerns are that none of the issues that existed in 
1979 with nuclear power have been resolved. We still don't know 
what to do with the waste it produces. We still don't have a 
technology that we can trust 100%. The line I always use is that 
the ultimate safety plan for a nuclear reactor is a mass 
evacuation. And despite assurances that the plants are safer and 
the utility companies are better run, I'm not sure I buy into 
that. There's an awful lot of pressure to cut costs with… and 
utility companies now with energy deregulation. The N.R.C. is 
turning over more and more of the regulatory authority of the 
safety inspections to the companies themselves, and the reactors 
that we have in this country are getting near the end of their 
useful lives, and the N.R.C. has indicated a willingness to 
extend the operating licenses another 20 years, which were meant 
to last for 40 years, so we're extending them for another 20 at 
the same time that there are economic pressures that keep the 
utilities from probably making as many major repairs as the 
public might like to have them do. So, I'm not surprised that 
there's someone out there that's going to propose it. I would be 
very interested, if ultimately it succeeds. 

AMY GOODMAN: Susan Stranahan, I want to thank you very much for 
being with us won a Pulitzer Prize for reporting on the Three 
Mile Island disaster 25 years ago was reporting for “The 
Philadelphia Inquirer" now covers nuclear issues for "Mother 
Jones." You are listening to Democracy Now! 

To purchase an audio or video copy of this entire program, click 
here for our new online ordering or call 1 (800) 881-2359.   

*****************************************************************
 42 palmbeachpost: Three Mile Island + 25: Survivor recalls life at the brink
                                
[PalmBeachPost.com Home]   

By Tom Peeling, Palm Beach Post Staff Writer
 Thursday, April 1, 2004

As we ponder the possibilities today of a terrorist releasing 
radioactive material into the air, it's hard to believe it was 25 
years ago that we faced that same possibility, but from our own 
hands. 

I was three months out of Penn State journalism school, thinking 
I was on top of the world. Upon graduation, I had a job in my 
field as a newspaper reporter at The Pocono Record earning $184 a 
week, about $30 to $40 more than most of my fellow graduates who 
had found jobs. 

Hard as it is to believe today, that actually gave me enough 
money to pay the rent, car payment and for food, as well as a 
little left over for the occasional movie. One Saturday night in 
late March 1979, I took some of that movie money and went with 
fellow reporter friends to see The China Syndrome, a 
just-released film starring Jane Fonda. A riveting flick about a 
disaster at a nuclear power plant, I remember thinking, but 
probably not reality. 

Slightly more than a week later, as I sat at my desk writing, the 
bells of the old newswire teletype machines were incessantly 
ringing. So much more so than usual. 

It was still early in the day, by newsroom standards, and I was 
one of the few in the office. As I ripped a sheet of paper off 
the wire machine, I noticed it said "bulletin" at the top and 
something about Three Mile Island and an accident. 

The dateline on the bulletin said Middletown, Pa. As a Florida 
kid, I didn't know all those little Pennsylvania towns by name, 
so I checked the map. When I saw that it was 125 miles from where 
I sat, I didn't pay much attention. 

As the hours and days progressed, we all came to realize how 
close 125 miles was. There was talk of evacuating the area around 
the nuclear plant, then possibly larger parts of Pennsylvania. 

For several days, those of us in eastern Pennsylvania lived The 
China Syndrome. Nuclear meltdown, containment building and 
millirems became part of our everyday vocabulary. First there was 
fear of the reactor's core overheating and melting right through 
the containment building that held it. Then there was a release 
of radiation from a pressurizer that resulted in officials asking 
pregnant women and preschool kids within a 5-mile radius to 
evacuate. Finally, news flashes told us about a hydrogen bubble 
forming in the building. Would it explode, we wondered? 

By Sunday, April 1, it was declared that the worst of the 
disaster was over. 

Nine days after the partial plant meltdown began, I took my first 
day off and drove to the nuclear plant. Young and stupid, I had 
to see it myself. As I stood just a few hundred yards across the 
river from the plant, it never occurred to me that perhaps there 
was still some danger there. 

Today, I can read on the Nuclear Regulatory Commission Web site 
that "estimates are that the average dose (of radiation) to about 
2 million people in the area was only about 1 millirem. To put 
this into context, exposure from a full set of chest X-rays is 
about 6 millirem." 

I wince when the dentist puts a lead apron on me to X-ray my 
teeth, and wonder how close we came to a major disaster 25 years 
ago this week. Perhaps the folks in Chernobyl could tell us. 

   Copyright © 2004, The Palm Beach Post. All rights reserved.
 By using PalmBeachPost.com, you accept the terms of our visitor
*****************************************************************
 43 Nuclear Energy Institute: Devil's Advocate for Nuclear Power
 
 by Dean M. Brooks 01 April 2004 

The Nuclear Energy Institute's efforts may result in the 
construction of the first nuclear power plant in the United 
States since 1978. 
  
It's amazing what a little shortage of electricity will do for 
your view of what's needed for the future. -- Joe Colvin, a 
spokesman for the Nuclear Energy Institute
 

With the possible exception of Big Tobacco, the nuclear energy 
industry has lived through the greatest public relations 
nightmare since the beginning of the Atomic Age in the 1950's. 
Disasters such as Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, worldwide 
anti-nuclear protests and coalitions, the NIMBY effect, and even 
such children's shows as Captain Planet, Toxic Avengers and The 
Simpsons, have all routinely portrayed the industry in a bad 
light.  No other sector of the American economy needs a 
well-spoken, "devil's advocate" as much as nuclear power, and the 
Nuclear Energy Institute fulfills that need.
 

As the Washington-based lobbying arm of the nuclear energy 
industry, the NEI states its main mission is to "ensure the 
formation of policies that promote the beneficial uses of nuclear 
energy and technologies in the United States and around the 
world."  These policies include helping to develop a national 
energy policy that promotes a diverse and reliable energy supply 
by educating the public and elected officials about the value of 
nuclear power, and rebuilding public and governmental support for 
nuclear initiatives.  


Since its founding in 1994, the NEI has developed over 260 
corporate members from 15 countries in nuclear related 
businesses.  Donald Hintz, the chairman of the NEI, is also the 
president of Energy Corporation.  Additionally, over 4,000 
industry professionals participate in NEI activities and programs 
year round.  These activities include acting as an industry voice 
by providing information to the U.S. Congress, Executive Branch 
agencies, federal regulators as well as international 
organizations and venues.    
       
By and large, the NEI receives funding from corporations or via 
private donations from individuals.  In the 2003-2004 year, NEI 
received a $1,000 donation from Peter Burg, the Chairman and CEO 
of First Energy Corp, and another $1,000 from Anthony Earley Jr, 
Chairman and CEO of DTE Energy.  Still, the Institute is 
relatively small, concentrating its resources on the campaigns of 
those political candidates who look favorably upon the 
organization's ideas.  As of its last report on February 29, 
2004, the NEI had donated $48,320 to federal candidates, with 35% 
going to Democrats and 65% going to Republicans.  The NEI has 
given the lion's share of its donations to Republicans over the 
years.  In the 2002 election year cycle, 68% of $147,527 went to 
Republicans, and 32% went to Democrats.  In 2000, Republicans 
took 71% of $160,391 while Democrats got a scant 29%. In 1998, 
Democrats got slightly more, with 36% of $70,819, while the 
Republicans took 64%.
 

However, the NEI performs other functions besides distributing 
funds for worthy politicians.  Over the last ten years it has 
provided "accurate and timely information on the nuclear industry 
to members, policymakers, the news media, and the public."   On 
its website [http://www.nei.org] , the NEI even has a 
kid-friendly section called Science Club, where it explains the 
intricacies of nuclear power in an entertaining fashion.  The NEI 
also publishes informative booklets in PDF format that are 
available on its website.  


Despite occasional appearances in the major news media, the NEI 
is no Greenpeace or NRA.  This is partially due to the fact that 
its resources are scarce, and its members are few, consisting 
mainly of industry participants.  Also, because the topic of 
nuclear power is often overwhelmed by those who cite fears over 
safety issues and the storage of nuclear waste (as seen with the 
ongoing debate over Yucca Mountain in Nevada), the NEI prefers to 
quietly deliver information to government officials mostly inside 
the Washington beltway. The NEI does not report any kind of 
student organizing or widespread public education, except for the 
information provided on its website. Nor does it seek to become 
controversial in a haughty fashion (i.e. scaling Big Ben to 
protest the Iraq war as Greenpeace members have).
 

In the fight to defend nuclear power, the NEI has performed well 
in keeping politicians informed of the benefits of the split 
atom.  Overall public and governmental support for nuclear energy 
has begun to increase, especially after the East Coast blackout 
in August of 2003.  Says Democratic Senator Bob Graham of 
Florida, "One of the reasons that I have been a supporter of 
nuclear power is because we've had such a good experience in 
Florida, where we have three nuclear farms and they contribute 
about 20 percent of our total energy supply." 


Perhaps the best trophy of success for the NEI, however, won't 
come until the construction of a brand new nuclear power plant -- 
something that last happened in 1978.  In 2001 the Nuclear Energy 
Assembly, the NEI's annual meeting, announced its Vision 2020 
program, calling for the addition of 50,000 megawatts of power to 
the U.S. power grid by that year.  However, difficulties still 
persist for companies who want to build power plants.  The latest 
attempt was by Illinois-based Exelon Generation Co. and 
Virginia-based Dominion Energy, who submitted an early site 
permit to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in September of 2003 
for possible future nuclear plants in Clinton, Illinois and North 
Anna, Virginia.   

One way for the NEI to better promote nuclear power is to launch 
an aggressive media campaign (i.e. television and radio 
commercials) in support of constructing new plants.  In an 
atmosphere of terrorism, it would certainly do no harm for the 
NEI to remind the public that every new power plant built reduces 
America's dependence on foreign oil.  This is something both 
President George W. Bush and Democratic presidential nominee John 
Kerry have stressed in their speeches concerning energy, homeland 
security, and the economy.  Kerry even wants to make the U.S. 
completely self-reliant for its energy needs within ten years.  
Interestingly, energy (or the lack thereof) touches nearly all 
aspects of life in the U.S.  The country can no longer afford to 
turn its back to what very well might bring a host of solutions.  
Nuclear power means cheaper energy, more jobs, a safer, more 
reliable power grid with less chance of allowing a cascading 
effect as seen in the August 03 blackout, a cleaner environment 
(nuclear power plants emit no carbon dioxide), and ultimately, a 
freer, more independent America.     


Spokesmen of the NEI should also visit as many universities as 
possible not only to educate students about nuclear energy, but 
also to inform them of the growing employment needs in the 
industry.  In the aftermath of the 2003 blackout, there is no 
better time for the NEI to inform the country what a cold, dark, 
expensive future awaits its citizens in a world without adequate 
power.  Long the goat of the energy industry, it will not be long 
before nuclear power becomes the lion.
 
Dean M. Brooks is a junior at Loyola University Chicago majoring 
in political science.  He enjoys reading Ayn Rand, discussing 
current events, and watching the Lakers.
 
*****************************************************************
 44 NYT: A 2nd Consortium Wants a Reactor
 
 By THE NEW YORK TIMES

Published: April 1, 2004

[W] ASHINGTON, March 31 — A second consortium of companies has 
made public its own plan to win permission to build what would be 
the nation's first new nuclear power reactor in decades, 
executives of one of the companies said Wednesday.

 The consortium consists of Dominion Resources Inc., Hitachi 
America, Bechtel and an American subsidiary of Atomic Energy of 
Canada Ltd. It applied to the Energy Department on March 17 for 
financial help with work needed to win that permission, from the 
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

But the application was not disclosed until Dominion did so on 
Wednesday, several hours after another consortium, of five power 
companies and two equipment manufacturers, announced as expected 
that it was filing such an application.

 Dominion has already applied to the regulatory commission for 
approval of a reactor site adjacent to its existing North Anna 
reactors, 60 miles northwest of Richmond, Va. Atomic Energy of 
Canada has submitted to the commission a preliminary application 
for review of a design for the new reactor, which would use 
natural uranium and heavy water; Hitachi would build the steam 
turbine and other crucial components; and Bechtel would provide 
engineering services.

 Dominion is proposing to spend $61 million over six years, and 
the other partners combined somewhat more, in an effort to win 
the commission's approval.

*****************************************************************
 45 Manitowoc Herald Times Reporter: Nuclear plant hearings begin
 	 
  Posted Apr. 01, 2004 

By Neil Rhines Herald Times Reporter 

TOWN OF TWO CREEKS — The process to renew the license on the 
reactors at the Point Beach Nuclear Power Plant is under way.

 The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, however, could still say 
no, said Michael Morgan, project manager for license renewal at 
the plant. 

The NRC, responsible for approving the application made by 
Wisconsin Energy Corp. of Milwaukee, the utility operating the 
plant, is also responsible for making sure the plant operates 
safely. 

The two-reactor plant’s licenses expire in 2010 and 2013.

 And, P.T. Kuo, program director for handling license renewals 
and environmental impact statements with the NRC, said if people 
took anything home with them from a meeting on the renewal 
process Wednesday night in the town of Two Creeks, it would be 
“that we are doing it safely.”

 About 40 people gathered at the Town Hall of Two Creeks to learn 
more about how the renewal process works and how they can 
participate. 

According to Morgan, over the next year and a half, the nuclear 
facility must meet several requirements, including an evaluation 
of the plant that addresses safety and environmental concerns.

 Morgan said the NRC does not have to grant approval, and can 
require changes at the plant if necessary.

 In the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, it was determined that the NRC 
would have federal oversight over private utilities operating 
nuclear power stations. Power plants were given an initial 
40-year life, with the option of renewing for up to 20-year 
increments thereafter, Morgan said.

 According to Samson Lee, NRC section chief for license renewals, 
more than 20 nuclear power plants across the country have been 
approved, with 19 now under review. That review means different 
things for different facilities, but essentially means that 
certain requirements could be necessary in order for each 
particular plant to receive the go-ahead.

 Many in the audience were somehow representative of the nuclear 
energy industry or federal oversight process, like Jeff Thompson, 
a maintenance worker at the plant. He, like a few others in the 
audience, wanted to “find out what the future has in store,” he 
said.

 Homeowners living near the energy facility, like Gene LeClair, 
one of 30 volunteer firefighters for the town of Two Creeks, also 
came out to here the message. 

“I’d like to see it keep going,” he said. “They’re a good 
neighbor.”

 The audience also raised several notes of concern. In 
particular, some wanted to know if and how the aging equipment at 
the plant would be accounted for in review process. Another 
concern is where 20 more years of spent nuclear fuel will be 
stored, with the Yucca Mountain site in Arizona not yet secured.

 According to Kuo, the environmental impact statement, on which a 
meeting will be held in June in Two Creeks, addresses the issue 
of spent fuel storage capacity.

 For more information on the NRC or the process, visit 
www.nrc.gov.

Neil Rhines: (920) 686-2105 of Nrhines@htrnews.com 

*****************************************************************
 46 Oak Ridger: Three Mile Island linkage: Old hometown to new hometown 							
 
Story last updated at 11:30 a.m. on April 1, 2004
							 							
By: Dick Smyser | Editor's License

The night of Tuesday, March 27, 1979, we saw "The China 
Syndrome," the Jane Fonda movie about the threat of a disastrous 
nuclear power plant accident. It was at Downtown West off 
Kingston Pike.

It was gripping cinema but I felt it consciously projected the 
strong antinuclear prejudices of its star, prejudices that I did 
not share.

("China Syndrome," a term then only recently in use and 
suggesting a deep hole burned into the earth by a nuclear 
meltdown, was originated by the late W. K. Ergen of Oak Ridge 
National Laboratory. He was the husband of Viola Ergen, recently 
retired from the staff of the Children's Museum of Oak Ridge. 
Charlie Ergen, nationally known combative CEO of Echo Star, 
satellite television firm, is their son.)

The next morning, Wednesday, March 28, I awoke to television 
reports that there had been a problem at the Three Mile Island 
Nuclear Power Plant on an island in the Susquehanna River just 
south of the state capital at Harrisburg and just 17 miles north 
of the modest suburban homes surrounded by rich farmland east of 
York, Pa. that I roamed as a boy.

Oak Ridge, Tenn. and operations - people - nuclear; York County, 
Pa. and the river on its eastern boundary that had been so much a 
part of my young years; breaking news that was then much a part 
of my adult years: there were connects.

At The Oak Ridger that morning we quickly sensed that, while this 
was something that had happened hundreds of miles away, this was 
also an Oak Ridge story. And while we of the news staff of those 
years had always been good at "localizing" many stories - finding 
some local link - the "local angle" as we called it - the Oak 
Ridge aspects of this story were more than just "angles."

Within days Oak Ridge scientists, engineers and technicians and 
Oak Ridge devices - versatile robots that could probe inside the 
damaged reactor - were on their way to the scene in Pennsylvania. 
So was Joe Culver of our news staff. He would spend many days 
there in the months following writing hundreds of words that we 
would later enter in the Public Service contest of the Associated 
Press Managing Editors Association, an example of how a small 
daily can cover a national news event. Our entry was one of five 
finalists.

I would personally add to our coverage several weeks later when I 
made a personal visit to the area to gauge how this accident so 
related to my new hometown had affected my old hometown. The most 
priceless comment I got, and wrote about in my own personal 
series of articles, was that of my then 80-year-old aunt. She 
hadn't been frightened, she declared. Rather, she was delighted 
that she had been able to get a previously difficult-to-get 
appointment with her hairdresser because many who had evacuated 
had canceled theirs.

I also visited several familiar rural communities quite close to 
the reactor site, including Goldsboro to which out of town 
photographers flocked for shots of the now seemingly menacing 
reactor cooling towers, the steam clouds that regularly rise from 
them accentuating their threatening look. As I walked the then 
quiet streets of Goldsboro at midday, the only evidence of the 
reactor problem were souvenir T-shirts saying "I survived Three 
Mile Island" and cans of genuine "Three Mile Island Fallout" on 
sale at the town's only small bar.

Dan Meckley III, my good boyhood friend and later college 
fraternity roommate, reports that the population of Goldsboro, 
virtually in the shadow of those cooling towers, has doubled - 
from 450 to 900 - in the 25 years since the accident. Nor does 
the total area surrounding the reactor complex suggest other 
than, at very least, normal growth as the undamaged of the two 
Three Mile reactors continues, as it has since not long after the 
accident, to generate a significant share of the electricity for 
the thriving area surrounding.

Dan, retired after a career as a leading York industrialist, 
writes in response to my e-mail inquiry: "Except for the 
anniversary date when there is small mention in local papers, TMI 
is seldom mentioned by any of our acquaintances. The March 26th 
edition of the York Daily Record has extensive coverage (of the 
25th anniversary)-- There is a four column headline on the front 
page, 'Echoes of disaster.'"


***


My other Three Mile Island area personal contacts from whom I 
have sought reaction over the years are Bill and Jane Schultz. 
Bill is the retired editor of the Lancaster, Pa. 
Intelligencer-Journal, Lancaster, like York, a city of comparable 
population to the south of Three Mile on the east side of the 
Susquehanna. Jane and I worked together on the Penn State Daily 
Collegian 1941-'43.

Bill writes: "Because we were concerned about whether or not 
radiation -- might be contaminating the area, I was reluctant to 
send reporters to the scene, but we did--. By the time that first 
day was over, just about everyone on the staff was involved.

"My concern as the editor was the message we would give to 
readers in our headlines and stories that next morning. We didn't 
want to create a panic, but neither did we want to offer false 
assurances should the accident be more serious than we were being 
told. As it turns out, of course, it was much, much more serious.

"It was obvious very early that Met Ed and other officials were 
not providing reliable information and the next couple of days 
were somewhat hectic. It was in that uncertain period that many 
families closer to the plant decided to evacuate. Finally, Harold 
Denton (of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in Washington and 
now of Farragut) arrived on the scene and things became much 
better.

"How are things 25 years later? Well, some groups are still 
arguing over how much radiation escaped and what the long-term 
effects might be. From stories that have appeared in area 
newspapers the past couple of weeks, I believe most people would 
say that TMI and Peach Bottom are safer today than they were back 
then. I do not sense that most people are living in fear of 
another accident -- a few perhaps, but not many."

Bill's reference to Peach Bottom notes what has not often been 
noted in media coverage of Three Mile: that there are two nuclear 
power establishments there on the Susquehanna within about 40 
miles of each other. Peach Bottom, where the same Philadelphia 
electric utility has had an operating reactor for more than 25 
years, is south along the river in York County near the Maryland 
line and neighboring the York YMCA camp, yet another childhood 
association with "the nation's worst nuclear power plant 
accident." - RDS 
*****************************************************************
 47 WIStv: V.C. Summer Nuclear Station off-line for repair

Columbia, SC: 

April 1, 2004       

(Columbia-AP) April 1, 2004 - South Carolina Electric and Gas 
Company has taken the V.C. Summer Nuclear Station off-line to 
repair a small leak in an injection pipe. 

The pipe is attached to one of the reactor coolant pumps at the 
plant in Jenkinsville in Fairfield County. The leak was detected 
by monitoring equipment, which led to a controlled shutdown. 

The outage is expected to last less than two weeks. 

SCE&G says it can produce enough power with its existing systems. 

posted 7:37am by Chris   Rees [crees@wistv.com]   
  
[http://www.worldnow.com]     All content © Copyright 2000 -
2004 WorldNow and WISTV. All Rights Reserved.

  

  


*****************************************************************
 48 Rachel's #788: Depleted Uranium Weapons
 
Date: Thu, 1 Apr 2004 14:42:04 -0600 (CST)

 
To stop receiving the Rachel newsletter, send E-mail to
listserv@lists.rachel.org with two words in the body of the
message (not in the subject line): UNSUB RACHEL-NEWS

To subscribe (free) to the Rachel newsletter, send the
words SUB RACHEL-NEWS in a message (not in the
subject line) to listserv@lists.rachel.org.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
RACHEL'S ENVIRONMENT & HEALTH NEWS #788
http://www.rachel.org
April 1, 2004

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

DEPLETED URANIUM WEAPONS OF WAR

Uranium is a naturally-occurring element that is both weakly
radioactive and a toxic heavy metal. Naturally-occurring
uranium contains two main radioactive isotopes: U-238 (99.3%),
and U-235 (0.7%). When uranium is "enriched" to make an A-bomb
(which requires lots of U-235), the leftover "depleted uranium"
(DU) is 99.8% U-238 and retains about 60% of the radioactivity
that was present in the original natural uranium.[1, pg. 3]

Depleted uranium is created by "uranium enrichment" plants that
process natural uranium to extract the U-235, but those same
plants also may process spent nuclear fuel from nuclear power
reactors. For this reason, some DU is known to be contaminated
with very low levels of some of the most dangerous radioactive
substances known to science: Plutonium-238, Plutonium-239,
Plutonium-240, Americium-241, Neptunium-237 and
Technicium-99.[1, pg. 6]

Radioactive decay is a natural process. Radioactive elements
spontaneously emit energetic particles or rays, and in the
process they change from one element into another. When U-238
spontaneously undergoes radioactive decay, it emits alpha
particles (and turns into Thorium-234). You can think of an
alpha particle as something like a tiny cannon ball -- it does
not travel very far (a few centimeters in air), but if it hits
a living cell, the damage can be enormous. Sometimes cells
damaged by alpha particles die immediately, but sometimes they
start to multiply uncontrollably, causing cancer. (The
International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) has
identified "internally deposited radionuclides that emit alpha
particles" as Group I carcinogens, meaning substances known to
cause cancer in humans.[1, pg. 85])

So, DU's alpha particles won't penetrate the outermost (dead)
layer of your skin, but if you get DU inside you -- say, in
your lungs -- it can have deadly consequences. Several studies
of workers in uranium enrichment plants show that they get lung
cancer at higher-than-normal rates.[1, pg. 86]

The half-life of U-238 is 4.5 billion years, which tells us
that it does not decay rapidly and therefore that it does not
emit many alpha particles per second. However, "many" is a
relative term. In absolute numbers, a microgram of DU (a
millionth of a gram, and there are 28 grams in an ounce) will
emit slightly more than 12 alpha particles per second or 390
million alpha particles each year.[1, pg. 6] So one microgram
of DU lodged in your lungs will have more than a million
opportunities EACH DAY to start a cancer growing in your cells.
Obviously, the hazard is greater for children because they have
a longer lifetime ahead of them during which alpha particles
will have an opportunity to start a cancer, plus they are very
likely more sensitive to harm than adults (because they are
growing, so more of their cells are dividing).

In recent decades, as we have manufactured more atomic bombs
and therefore more depleted uranium, there has been growing
pressure to find new uses for our huge stockpile of depleted
uranium.[1, pg. 26] In my opinion, the psychology behind this
is pretty simple: as it becomes crystal clear that subsidizing
nuclear technologies was one of the dumbest mistakes humans
have ever made, there is enormous pressure to show that
something good can come from it. It is the psychology of the
optimist, whom Ronald Reagan defined as the man who enters a
room full of horse manure and says, "There must be a pony in
here somewhere."

Because it is almost twice as dense as lead and not very
radioactive, DU has been used as shielding for medical devices
and in casks for transporting spent fuel from nuclear power
plants. Because it is so dense (and therefore heavy), DU has
also been used as ballast -- weights or counterwights -- on
ships, satellites and aircraft. For example, each Boeing 747
jumbo-jet requires about 1500 pounds of ballast (or
counterweights), and as many as 15,000 DU weights were
manufactured for this purpose. In recent years, DU has been
replaced by tungsten in aircraft ballast, perhaps to avoid
questions about the wisdom of flying radioactive materials
around in planes. A plane that crashed into a row of apartments
in Amsterdam in 1992 was carrying 282 kg (620 pounds) of DU as
ballast, and a Boeing-747 that crashed in England in 2000 was
carrying 1500 kg (3,300 pounds) of DU. [1, pg. 26]

In the Amsterdam crash, some 152 kilograms (334 pounds) of DU
were never found, and the Dutch commission of inquiry concluded
that the fiery crash may have released some of the DU in the
form of a radioactive fume or dust, just as you would expect it
might. DU is pyrophoric, meaning that it catches fire under
some circumstances and turns into a very fine radioactive fume
or dust, which can blow around.[1, pg. 44]

In the past 20 years, DU has found its way into weapons of war
-- both for heavy tank armor and for armor-piercing projectiles
-- again, because it is plentiful and cheap (thanks to
government subsidies) and almost twice as dense as lead. As
noted above, it is also pyrophoric, meaning that under some
circumstances it catches on fire.

When a DU projectile strikes an armored target, such as a tank,
it does not flatten on contact but instead penetrates and "self
sharpens" as it passes through the armor. This occurs because
as the DU projectile is penetrating its target, its outer layer
catches fire, creating a very fine radioactive dust,
essentially lubricating the remaining projectile, helping it
penetrate further. The result is a very clean hole in the
target -- which looks as if it had been drilled -- and a great
deal of radioactive dust. Somewhere between 10% and 70% of a DU
projectile is transformed into radioactive dust when it strikes
a sufficiently hard target.[1, pg. 46]

This dust creates special problems. As noted above, if DU dust
gets into your lungs, it can cause lung cancer.

DU dust is heavy and so it settles to earth within a few
hundred yards of where it was created -- unless it is picked up
again and moved by the wind.

To help get the health threat into perspective, in discussing
DU, I prefer to express the amount of DU in micrograms, on the
assumption that a few hundred micrograms (perhaps less) is a
dangerous amount of DU dust. It is important to remember that
not all (or even most) DU munitions strike hard targets that
would cause them to catch fire and emit radioactive fumes
(dust).

Ground-attack airplanes like the A-10 Warthog fire 30 mm
projectiles at the rate of 70 projectiles per second, and each
30-mm projectile contains 0.27 kg (9.5 ounces, or 270 million
micrograms) of DU. Heavy tanks fire 120 mm rounds, each
containing 4.85 kg (10.6 pounds, or 4.8 billion micrograms) of
DU.

It was reported in 1995 that U.S. arms manufacturers had
produced more than 55 million 30-mm DU penetrators and 1.6
million DU penetrators for tank ammunition.[1, pg. 27] No doubt
more have been manufactured since then.

The U.S. has acknowledged using DU weapons during the Gulf War
against Iraq in 1991, and NATO has acknowledged using DU
weapons during the Kosovo conflict of 1999. DU munitions have
extensively contaminated U.S. military proving grounds and
firing ranges such as the ones at Yuma, Arizona, Aberdeen,
Maryland, Jefferson, Indiana, and Viecques, Puerto Rico.[1, pg.
50]

Scientists at the Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico
have been fooling around with DU for 60 years, during which
time they have dumped an estimated 38.5 tons of DU into a
mountain canyon out back, behind the lab.[1, pg. 49]

During wartime, the greatest civilian threat from DU is assumed
to involve children, who have been photographed in Kosovo and
Iraq playing on burned-out military vehicles including tanks
disabled by DU projectiles.[1, pg. 49] Much of this equipment
is heavily contaminated, inside and out, with radioactive dust.

Many children also eat dirt (9 to 96 mg/day) as a normal part
of growing up, and soil contaminated with DU dust presents a
special hazard in such cases, according to the World Health
Organization.[1, pg. 38]

However, U.S. military officials deny that children -- or any
other civilians -- are at risk from DU.[2] The Pentagon says
only soldiers are at risk. It is clear that the Pentagon
considers DU plenty hazardous to soldiers -- an Army training
manual says that anyone who comes within 25 meters of any
DU-contaminated equipment or terrain must wear respiratory and
skin protection (because DU might enter the body through a
scratch or other open wound).[3]

Once you get DU in your lungs, much of it will stay there for a
long time, irradiating lung cells, and the World Health
Organization says, "The risk of lung cancer appears to be
proportional to the radiation dose received."[1, pg. 85] (In
other words, the only way to have zero risk is to have zero
exposure.) The British Royal Society studied DU and concluded
that its use was not risk-free for anyone involved.[4] The
truth is, DU has been studied remarkably little, given that we
blast tons of it into areas inhabited by civilian populations
for the avowed purpose of helping them. No one has studied the
effects of DU on the immune system, the metabolic system, the
nervous system, the reproductive system, the endocrine system
(and other biological signaling mechanisms), and growth,
development, and behavior. It's amazing what we don't know
about DU and that -- in the face of such ignorance -- anyone
could claim to know that it is safe for use near civilians.

Unfortunately, even many crucial details about the lung cancer
hazard remain missing. Although they have been making and
studying DU since 1940, military scientists still don't know
exactly how long inhaled DU is retained in the lung. They say
that somewhere between 57% and 76% of inhaled DU stays in the
lung with a half-life of "longer than 100 days" but how much
longer they seem not to know.[1, pg. 64] The half-life is the
amount of time it takes for half of a substance to go away. It
is also not clear where inhaled DU goes after it leaves the
lungs. Is it coughed up and excreted, or does it dissolve,
enter the blood stream and then the urine? Or does it lodge
elsewhere in the body? In male rats intentionally contaminated,
uranium collects in the brain and the testicles.[1, pg. 65]

Military specialists like to point out that DU munitions that
miss their target simply bury themselves in the ground. But the
World Health Organization is not so sure the story ends there:

"However, in some instances the levels of contamination in food
and ground water could rise after some years and should be
monitored and appropriate measures taken where there is
reasonable possibility of significant quantities of depleted
uranium entering the food chain... Areas with very high
concentrations of depleted uranium may need to be cordoned off
until they are cleaned up."[1, pg. vi] Cleanup of
DU-contaminated areas has not occurred in Kosovo or Iraq.

Who ever thought that DU in the ground would always stay put?
Between 1970 and 1997, the Starmet Corporation, a military
contractor making DU weapons, dumped DU into an unlined pit in
the ground in downtown Concord, Mass. Now soil in Concord is
contaminated with DU as far as a mile from the dump, and local
wells are contaminated because DU has moved into groundwater.
Who would have expected any other outcome? Nevertheless, we
should acknowledge that the directors of Starmet are not as
dumb as they might appear. Shortly before their radioactive
dump was added to the national Superfund list, Starmet
officials took precautionary action and declared bankruptcy.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) accepted Starmet's
bankruptcy without a peep, so U.S. taxpayers are now paying for
the difficult cleanup.[5]

The U.S. Navy stores DU in San Diego, Calif.; Seal Beach,
Calif.; Crane, Indiana; Indian Head, Md.; Colts Neck, N.J.;
Hawthorne, Nev.; McAlister, Ok.; Charlestown, S.C.; Tooele,
Utah; Dahlgren, Va.; Norfolk, Va.; Sewells Point, Va.; and
Yorktown, Va., and large quantities are reportedly stored at
ten other locations. When the military ships DU around the
country, the containers are not marked "radioactive" even
though the cargo is definitely radioactive as well as
explosive. (See ACTION ALERT, below.)

In addition to being radioactive, DU is toxic; specifically it
is known to be toxic to the genes of humans.[1, pg. 75] Studies
of Gulf War vets living with DU shrapnel in their bodies (from
"friendly fire" during the Gulf War) show evidence of genetic
damage.[6] At least one military scientist -- Alexandra Miller
a radiobiolgist with the Armed Forces Radiobiology Research
Institute in Bethesda, Md. says DU may be more dangerous than
previously believed because its chemical toxicity and its
radioactivity may combine in unexpected ways to cause harm.[7]

Miller also points out that genetic damage (from chemical
toxicity or radioactivity, or both) can be inherited and passed
along to successive generations, so harm may not become
apparent until many generations after the event that caused
it.[7] This puts DU munitions squarely into the class of
weapons known as "weapons of mass destruction or indiscriminate
effect."

U.S. planes, under NATO command, fired 10 tons (9 trillion
micrograms) of DU projectiles at targets in Kosovo in 1999.
During the Gulf War of 1991 against Iraq, the U.S. fired
projectiles containing somewhere between 300 and 338 tons of DU
(or 272 trillion to 302 trillion micrograms).[1, pg. 45]

The total quantity of DU munitions expended during the Iraq War
of 2003 has been estimated to be 100 to 200 tons (90 trillion
to 180 trillion micrograms).[8] Much of it was expended in or
near urban areas where civilian populations live, work, play,
draw water, and sell food.

It seems clear, then, that DU weapons produce special,
continuing hazards to civilians, especially children, and that
the harm from these weapons may be passed to future
generations. No doubt this is why a United Nations
subcommission in 1996 named DU munitions as "weapons of mass
destruction or indiscrimate effect" and recommended that their
use be outlawed.[9]

Tungsten alloy weapons can kill tanks and other hardened
targets as effectively as DU, so continued use of DU weapons by
the U.S. seems unnecessary and a slap in the face to the
principles of public health, international law, world opinion,
and common decency.                          --Peter Montague

============================================================

ACTION ALERT

By June 30, 2004, the U.S. Department of Transportation must
renew (or deny) the military's exemption that allows them to
ship DU weapons without marking them as radioactive or
explosive. In case of accident or fire, first responders need
to know this information. Here's what we can all do about it:

Contact the Department of Transportation Exemptions division
and ask that the DOT immediately terminate and not renew DOT-E
9649. Depleted uranium munitions should have a "Radioactive"
placard and an "Explosives" placard on shipments.

Send correspondence regarding DOT-E 9649 to: Mr. Delmer
Billings DHM-31 Director, Office of Hazardous Materials
Exemptions and Approvals Department of Transportation 400 7th
St. SW Washington, D.C. 20590

Fax: (202) 366-3308 E-mail: delmer.billings@rspa.dot.gov

Information from: http://www.gzcenter.org/DU.htm

============================================================

==========

NOTES and REFERENCES

[1] Department of Protection of the Human Environment, World
Health Organization, Depleted Uranium; Sources, Exposure and
Health Effects (Geneva, Switzerland, April 2001). Available at
http://www.who.int/ionizing_radiation/pub_meet/ir_pub/en/ .

[2] Matthew D. Sztajnkrycer and Edward J. Otten, "Chemical and
Radiological Toxicity of Depleted Uranium," Military Medicine
Vol. 169, No. 3 (2004), pgs. 212-216.

[3] Army manual quoted in Larry Johnson, "Activists want
depleted-uranium munitions labeled; military's exemption is
challenged," Seattle (Wa.) Post-Intelligencer Dec. 4, 2003.

[4] Susan Mayor, "Report suggests small link between depleted
uranium and cancer," British Medical Journal Vol. 322 (June 23,
2001), pg. 1508.

[5] Ed Ericson, "Dumping on History: A Radioactive Nightmare in
Concord, Massachusetts," E/The Environmental Magazine Mar. 5,
2004.

[6] Melissa A. McDiarmid and others, "Health Effects of
Depleted Uranium on Exposed Gulf War Veterans: A 10-Year
Follow-up," Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health,
Part A, Vol. 67 (2004), pgs. 277-296.

[7] Duncan Graham-Rowe, "Depleted uranium casts a shadow over
peace in Iraq," New Scientist Vol. 178, No. 2391 (April 19,
2003), pg. 4.

[8] Dan Fahey, "The Use of Depleted Uranium in the 2003 Iraq
War: An Initial Assessment of Information and Policies."
Berkeley, Calif., June 24. 2003. Available at
http://www.antenna.nl/wise/uranium/pdf/duiq03.pdf

[9] The United Nations Subcommission on Prevention of
Discrimination and Protection of Minorities passed a resolution
condemning the use of depleted uranium weapons during its 48th
session in August, 1996, as described in U.N. Press Release
HR/CN/755, "Subcommission on Prevention of Discrimination and
Protection of Minorities Concludes Forty-Eighth Session."
Relevant section available at
http://southmovement.alphalink.com.au/antiwar/UNres.htm

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
RACHEL'S ENVIRONMENT & HEALTH NEWS
Environmental Research Foundation
P.O. Box 160
New Brunswick, N.J. 08903
Fax (732) 791-4603; E-mail: erf@rachel.org

SUBSCRIPTIONS

Subscriptions are free. To subscribe, send E-mail
to listserv@lists.rachel.org with the words
SUBSCRIBE RACHEL-NEWS YOUR FULL NAME
in the message.

SPANISH EDITION

The Rachel newsletter is also available in Spanish; to learn
how to subscribe in Spanish, send the word AYUDA in an E-mail
message to info@rachel.org.

BACK ISSUES IN ENGLISH AND SPANISH

All back issues are on the web at: http://www.rachel.org in
text and PDF formats.

COPYRIGHT NOTICE

Permission to reprint Rachel's is hereby granted to everyone,
though we ask that you not change the contents and we ask that
you provide proper attribution.

In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107 this material is
distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior
interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes.

Some of this material may be copyrighted by others. We believe
we are making "fair use" of the material under Title 17, but if
you choose to use it for your own purposes, you will need to
consider "fair use" in your own case. --Peter Montague, editor

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
*****************************************************************
 49 Jersey Journal: Radiation detectors installed at Jersey City cargo terminal 

Thursday, April 01, 2004 By Wayne Parry 
Associated Press writer 

A Jersey City seaport is the first in the nation to use new 
radiation detectors that scan incoming cargo containers for 
nuclear or radiological weapons before they leave the port, 
federal officials said. 

They hope to have similar devices in place at 90 percent of the 
nation's seaports by the end of summer. <IMG 
SRC="http://ads.nj.com/RealMedia/ads/adstream_nx.ads/www.nj.com/x 
ml/story/jersey_journal/n/njc/@StoryAd?x"> 
[http://ads.nj.com/RealMedia/ads/click_nx.ads/www.nj.com/xml/stor 
y/jersey_journal/n/njc/@StoryAd?x] 

U.S. Customs and Border Protection Commissioner Robert C. Bonner 
showed off five of the high-tech devices at the Global Marine 
Terminal near the Bayonne border yesterday, declaring they have 
greatly enhanced the nation's capability to keep out deadly 
terrorist weapons. 

"America is safer, and the American people are safer," he said. 
"The best way to prevent a terrorist attack is by preventing 
terrorists or terrorist weapons from entering our country in the 
first instance." 

The terminal is equipped with five of the 20-foot-high units, 
which resemble inverted football goal posts. Every container that 
has been taken off a ship and loaded on a truck must pass through 
one of four primary screening units before leaving the terminal. 

If radiation is detected, the container is then put through a 
secondary unit for a closer scan and, if necessary, intensive 
scrutiny with hand-held or truck-mounted devices that can 
accurately pinpoint the type and amount of radiation present. 

"It's like a giant Geiger counter," said Hal Katchner, an 
assistant lab director with the Customs Department, which is part 
of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security. "It can take an 
entire gamma spectrum of the radiological material, and an 
inspector can download that spectrum, and a scientist can look at 
it and say, 'This is cesium-60; is there medical equipment 
inside?'" 

If a shipment is deemed potentially hazardous, it is isolated, 
and an emergency response process is initiated involving customs, 
police and other agencies to secure and remove it and minimize 
the danger to the public. 

The two substances that would cause the greatest alarm would be 
plutonium or highly enriched uranium-235, which can be used to 
make nuclear weapons, Bonner said. 

There are 248 of the portals already in use at border crossings 
with Canada and Mexico, he said. 

The seaport units, which were installed late last month at a cost 
of nearly $1 million, have already flagged radiation in loads of 
cargo, said Richard O'Brien, the port's deputy chief inspector. 

In each case, he said, there has been an adequate explanation, 
such as natural radiation emitted by pottery or ceramic tiles, or 
by radiological material destined for hospitals. 

Before the new scanners came online, O'Brien said, only about 8 
percent of the terminal's cargo containers were examined for 
signs of radiation. Now all 500 or so containers that leave the 
Global Marine Terminal each day will be screened. 

O'Brien said about 28 of the units should be in use at Port 
Newark-Elizabeth by the end of this year. 

Copyright 2004 The Jersey Journal. Used with permission.
*****************************************************************
 50 Scotsman: Death toll from nuclear strike on UK put at 12m
 
[http://www.scotsman.com/]                                             

Thu 1 Apr 2004   			 			
 		     	 
OFFICIALS feared 12 million people would be killed instantly and 
four million seriously injured in a nuclear attack on Britain in 
the 1950s and 60s, according to newly unveiled documents. 

Papers passed to the Cabinet outlined the consequences of a 
massive nuclear attack which could have annihilated around a 
quarter of the population in the event of a Soviet strike. 

Military officials also made detailed plans to govern Britain 
from a series of highly fortified bunkers - one of which would be 
located in Edinburgh - and made contingency plans about how to 
launch retaliatory action in the event of the Prime Minister’s 
death. 

Many of the plans were so sensitive that even Cabinet ministers 
would only have been shown details on a need-to-know basis. 

The details emerged at the Secret State exhibition at the 
National Archives at Kew, in south-west London, due to open 
tomorrow. 

The exhibition also details how 210 senior Whitehall staff and 
ministers would have been evacuated to a top-secret bunker, 
believed to be situated at Corsham Quarry in the Cotswolds, 
currently the site of RAF Rudloe Manor. 

The rest of the country would have been governed principally from 
a series of 12 regional centres - including one in the Capital - 
housing a total of 350 officials.               [ border=]   
	 
    [http://www.scotsman.com/]  | 
*****************************************************************
 51 Deseretnews: EPA not releasing vital data, Demos say
 
[deseretnews.com] 
 	
Thursday, April 1, 2004
 	   	 
Senators vow to fight 2 nominees to fed agency

By Lee Davidson Deseret Morning News

WASHINGTON — Utahn Charles Johnson breezed through a confirmation 
hearing Wednesday toward becoming chief financial officer of the 
Environmental Protection Agency — but three fellow EPA nominees 
were not so lucky.

       Democrats on the Senate Environment and Public Works 
Committee charged that the EPA is not releasing data they 
request. Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., vowed to fight two nominees he 
said he feels are not willing enough to change that: Benjamin 
Grumbles as EPA assistant administrator and Ann Klee as general 
counsel.

       Democrats also grilled at length Stephen L. Johnson, 
nominated to be EPA Administrator Mike Leavitt's top deputy, 
about EPA openness. However, they did not vow to fight his 
nomination.

       Sen. Jim Jeffords, I-Vt., the committee's ranking minority 
member, said he and Democrats have been stonewalled by EPA in 
requests for data that may show it is rolling back protection of 
air and water. Wyden said the only time he receives any is when 
an EPA nominee is pending, and he vows to fight them unless data 
comes.

      Jeffords complained, "Despite a promise from Administrator 
Leavitt during our EPA budget hearing in early March, we have 
heard no response from the agency" for a variety of data.

       Charles Johnson — who was once chief of staff to Leavitt 
in the mid-1990s when Leavitt was governor — vowed to be open 
with financial data that he would oversee.

       "Once information is factual — we know it's right, we know 
it's timely . . . if it is in my purview, it will be released 
promptly," Johnson testified.

       Committee Chairman James Inhofe, R-Okla., said many 
members of Congress are also concerned that some who receive EPA 
grants are not complying with law, and that the EPA may be 
awarding some grants without sufficient publicity to allow all 
interested parties to apply, and then to tell everyone afterward 
who actually won.

       Johnson vowed that as chief financial officer, "The more 
we can be forthcoming and open about the process and allow people 
to have that privilege (of applying for grants), the better off 
we are."

       Amid questions, Johnson also vowed to help EPA plan 
further into the future, instead of simply one budget year to the 
next.

       "It's very obvious to me there are funding gaps in several 
areas," he said. "We need to make sure we are matching priorities 
with the way our funds are being spent. . . . It would be my plan 
to add a great deal of future planning."

       Johnson worked in accounting for 31 years. He also has 
served as chairman of the Utah Board of Regents and as a member 
of both the Economic Development Corporation of Utah and the Utah 
Sports Commission. More recently, he has been the president of 
the Huntsman Cancer Foundation.

       While Johnson attracted no criticism at the hearing, 
Democrats especially attacked fellow EPA nominee Grumbles because 
when he was acting head of the EPA's congressional office last 
fall, he wrote letters denying Democrats' requests for 
information.

       Grumbles said he was merely following policy since 1980 
that when individual members of Congress seek information that 
would be deniable under the Freedom of Information Act, that it 
be withheld. Wyden said such policy does not follow court 
decisions, and vowed to try to block Grumbles' confirmation.

       He vowed also to fight Klee when she refused to give an 
opinion about whether Grumbles action was legal and correct.

       Stephen Johnson avoided such vows as he promised to be as 
forthcoming with information as possible — although he was 
grilled at length about that.

       Inhofe said his committee plans to debate and possibly 
vote on the nominees at a business meeting next week.

E-mail: lee@desnews.com [lee@desnews.com] 
	 
 © 2004 Deseret News Publishing Company 
*****************************************************************
 52 Las Vegas SUN: Energy Department studying trucking waste to Nevada nuclear dump
 
March 31, 2004 

ASSOCIATED PRESS 

LAS VEGAS (AP) - The federal Energy Department is dusting off a 
backup plan to ship radioactive waste by truck through rural 
Nevada in the first years of the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste 
repository. 

"It's possible that we won't have a rail line when we are ready 
to ship, and so we have to have a contingency," Energy Department 
and Yucca Mountain spokesman Allen Benson told the Las Vegas 
Review-Journal for a Tuesday report. 

"You have to be prepared, and that's what this is," he said. 

Nuclear waste casks would be placed on rail cars at nuclear 
reactors in 39 states and shipped to a Nevada transfer station, 
possibly at Caliente, according to an internal Energy Department 
analysis performed this month. 

The casks would be rolled onto specially designed 
tractor-trailers and hauled across the state to the repository, 
90 miles northwest of Las Vegas. 

An Energy Department document obtained this week by the 
Review-Journal indicates a probable 330-mile truck route north 
and west to Tonopah along federal and state roads, and then south 
on U.S. Highway 95 to Yucca Mountain. 

The contingency assumes a railroad line would be up and running 
by 2016, but nuclear waste would be shipped to the repository by 
truck for the first six years after the Energy Department opens 
the dump in 2010. 

The Energy Department is expected soon to formalize a 319-mile 
corridor from Caliente to the repository as its preferred rail 
route. 

A seven-page analysis completed by Energy Department's Office of 
National Transportation for the Yucca Mountain Project did not 
say how many truck shipments would be made through Nevada over 
the six-year period. 

Robert Halstead, a consultant for Nevada's state Agency for 
Nuclear Projects, said the state was examining the department's 
study. 

He estimated truck shipments through rural Nevada could increase 
from about 600 the first year to 2,200 a year in the fourth, 
fifth and sixth years. 

Benson would not comment on the estimate, saying the Energy 
Department was developing its numbers. 

Benson said the existence of a backup plan did not mean the 
Energy Department was conceding it cannot have a railroad built 
by 2010. 

However, the department estimates it could take almost four years 
to build a Nevada rail line. Officials say they can't break 
ground until they get construction authorization from the Nuclear 
Regulatory Commission, in 2007 or 2008 at the earliest. 

Halstead said state officials will demand the Energy Department 
perform more detailed environmental studies or would consider 
another Nevada lawsuit against the Yucca Mountain program. 

The Energy Department plans by the end of the year to submit to 
the Nuclear Regulatory Commission an application to open the 
repository by 2010. Congress has approved the plan to entomb at 
Yucca Mountain 77,000 tons of the nation's most radioactive 
waste. 

The Energy Department studied the truck-cask-on-railcar concept 
years ago, but concluded it was not practical over an entire 
24-year shipping campaign. 

Information from: Las Vegas Review-Journal 

*****************************************************************
 53 Las Vegas SUN: Reid upset by Energy Department legal bill for Yucca license

Today: April 01, 2004 at 11:00:58 PST 

ASSOCIATED PRESS 

LAS VEGAS (AP) - Sen. Harry Reid criticized an Energy Department
contract with a law firm that was hired to handle an application
to operate a radioactive waste repository in Nevada. 

Reid, D-Nev., said at a Senate budget hearing Wednesday in
Washington, D.C., that he wants details of the contract awarded
last week to Hunton &Williams of Richmond, Va. 

The firm could be paid up to $45 million over the next five
years to represent the Energy Department before the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission. Reid said the contract was excessive. 

"Forty-five million for a license application? What a soft deal
that is," Reid said. "And then they're paying a firm $4.5
million to do nothing." 

Reid referred to an Energy Department agreement to pay $4.5
million to another firm, New York-based LeBoeuf, Lamb, Greene
&MacRae, to settle a related nuclear waste contract lawsuit. 

Energy Department spokesman Joe Davis said the Hunton &Williams
contract reflects "the likelihood that the licensing will be one
of the most contentious that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission
has ever conducted." 

The DOE plans to submit a license application to the NRC by the
end of the year. It wants to open the Yucca Mountain repository
in 2010 to entomb 77,000 tons of the nation's most highly
radioactive waste now stored at commercial and military sites in
39 states. 

Hunton &Williams replaced Winston &Strawn LLP, a Chicago-based
firm that quit in 2001 amid conflict allegations. Winston
&Strawn had a $16.5 million contract and had spent two years on
the Yucca Mountain licensing program. 

Nevada has paid between $4 million and $6 million since 2001 to
its nuclear waste law firm, Virginia-based Egan, Fitzpatrick,
Malsch &Cynkar. 

Bob Loux, director of the state's Agency for Nuclear Projects,
said Nevada's legal bill for Yucca Mountain licensing matters
could range from $5 million to $7 million annually for the next
four to five years. He said the state was trying to recoup the
money through lawsuits. 

Information from: Las Vegas Review-Journal 

-- 



*****************************************************************
 54 NRC: Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste; Notice of Meeting
 
                         FR Doc 04-7313 
[Federal Register: April 1, 2004 (Volume 69, Number 63)] 
[Notices] [Page 17243-17244] From the Federal Register Online via 
GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr01ap04-120]                         
 
The Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste (ACNW) will hold its 
149th meeting on April 20-22, 2004, Room T-2B3, 11545 Rockville 
Pike, Rockville, Maryland. The entire meeting will be open to 
public attendance. The schedule for this meeting is as follows: 
Tuesday, April 20, 2004 1 p.m.-1:10 p.m.: Opening Statement 
(Open)--The Chairman will open the meeting with brief opening 
remarks, outline the topics to be discussed, and indicate items 
of interest.
 
1:10 p.m.-2:40 p.m.: Update on West Valley and Performance 
Assessment (PA) Plan (Open)--The Committee will hear from 
representatives of the NRC staff on the West Valley Demonstration 
Project and its Performance Assessment plans.
 
2:55 p.m.-4:30 p.m.: Risk-Informed Regulation for NMSS Activities 
(Open)--The Committee will hear presentations by and hold 
discussions with representatives of the NRC NMSS Risk Task Group 
regarding the current status of incorporating risk-informed 
regulations in NMSS activities.
 
4:45 p.m.-6 p.m.: Preparation of ACNW Reports (Open)--The 
Committee will discuss proposed ACNW reports on matters 
considered during this meeting regarding reports on West Valley 
Performance Assessment Plans, Risk-Informed Regulation for NMSS 
Activities, Biosphere Working Group, Public Interactions during 
November 2003 Nevada Field Trip (tentative), and ACNW Annual 
Report on Waste-Management-Related Research.
 
Wednesday, April 21, 2004 8:30 a.m.-8:40 a.m.: Opening Statement 
(Open)--The Chairman will make opening remarks regarding the 
conduct of today's sessions.
 
8:40 a.m.-10 a.m.: EPA, 40 CFR Chapter 1, Advance Notice of 
Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR) ``Approaches to an Integrated 
Framework for Management and Disposal of Low-Activity Radioactive 
Waste'' (Open)--The Committee will hear an information briefing 
by a representative of the EPA on its proposed ANPR which 
discusses alternatives for the disposal of waste containing low 
concentrations of radioactive material.
 
10:15 a.m.-11:15 a.m.: Update on Risk Insights (Open)--The 
Committee will hear a briefing by and hold discussions with the 
NRC staff on the recently published HLW Risk Insights Report.
 
11:15 a.m.-12:15 p.m.: DOE Schedule for Responses to Key 
Technical Issue Agreements--The Committee will hear a briefing by 
and hold discussions with a DOE representative on their amended 
timetable for responding to the 293 KTI agreements.
 
2 p.m.-4 p.m.: DWM Evaluation of DOE Bundling Approach 
(Open)--The Committee will hear presentations by and hold 
discussions with representatives of the NRC staff on its 
evaluation of the DOE Bundling Approach. It is anticipated that 
the Biosphere bundle will be used as a representative sample.
 
4:15 p.m.-6 p.m.: Preparation of ACNW Reports (Open)--The 
Committee will discuss proposed ACNW reports on matters 
considered during this meeting.
 
Thursday, April 22, 2004 8:30 a.m.-8:35 a.m.: Opening Statement 
(Open)--The Chairman will make opening remarks regarding the 
conduct of today's sessions.
 
8:35 a.m.-12 Noon: Preparation of ACRS Report. (Open)--The 
Committee will continue its discussion of the proposed ACNW 
letter reports.
 
12 Noon-12:15 p.m.: Miscellaneous (Open)--The Committee will 
discuss matters related to the conduct of Committee activities 
and matters and specific issues that were not completed during 
previous meetings, as time and availability of information 
permit.
 
Procedures for the conduct of and participation in ACNW meetings 
were published in the Federal Register on October 16, 2003 (68 FR 
59643). In accordance with these procedures, oral or written 
statements may be presented by members of the public. Electronic 
recordings will be permitted only during those portions of the 
meeting that are open to the public. Persons desiring to make 
oral statements should notify Mr. Howard J. Larson, Special 
Assistant (Telephone 301/415-6805), between 7:30 a.m. and 4 p.m. 
e.t., as far in advance as practicable so that appropriate 
arrangements can be made to schedule the necessary time during 
the meeting for such statements. Use of still, motion picture, 
and television cameras during this meeting will be limited to 
selected portions of the meeting as determined by the ACNW 
Chairman.
 
Information regarding the time to be set aside for taking 
pictures may be obtained by contacting the ACNW office prior to 
the meeting. In view of the possibility that the schedule for 
ACNW meetings may be adjusted by the Chairman as necessary to 
facilitate the conduct of the meeting, persons planning to attend 
should notify Mr. Howard J. Larson as to their particular needs.
 
Further information regarding topics to be discussed, whether the 
meeting has been canceled or rescheduled, the Chairman's ruling 
on requests for the opportunity to present oral statements and 
the time allotted therefore can be obtained by contacting Mr. 
Howard J. Larson.
 
ACNW meeting agenda, meeting transcripts, and letter reports are
 
[[Page 17244]] available through the NRC Public Document Room at 
pdr@nrc.gov [pdr@nrc.gov] , or by calling the PDR at 
1-800-397-4209, or from the Publicly Available Records System 
(PARS) component of NRC's document system (ADAMS) which is 
accessible from the NRC Web site at 
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html 
[http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/leaving.cgi?from=leaving 
FR.html&log=linklog&to=http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html] 
or http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/ 
[http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/leaving.cgi?from=leaving 
FR.html&log=linklog&to=http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collecti 
ons/]  (ACRS & oc-collections/ (ACRS & ACNW Mtg 
schedules/agendas).
 
Videoteleconferencing service is available for observing open 
sessions of ACNW meetings. Those wishing to use this service for 
observing ACNW meetings should contact Mr. Theron Brown, ACNW 
Audiovisual Technician (301/415-8066), between 7:30 a.m. and 3:45 
p.m. e.t., at least 10 days before the meeting to ensure the 
availability of this service. Individuals or organizations 
requesting this service will be responsible for telephone line 
charges and for providing the equipment and facilities that they 
use to establish the video teleconferencing link. The 
availability of video teleconferencing services is not 
guaranteed.
 
The ACNW meeting dates for Calendar Year 2004 are provided below.
 
----------------------------------------------------------------- 
------- ACNW meeting No.                       Meeting dates 
----------------------------------------------------------------- 
------- 150.............................  May 25-27, 2004. 
151.............................  June 22-24, 2004. 
152.............................  July 20-22, 2004. August 
2004--No Meeting.
 
153.............................  September 21-23, 2004 (Las 
Vegas, Nevada).
 
154.............................  October 19-21, 2004. November 
2004--No Meeting.
 
155.............................  December 7-9, 2004. 
----------------------------------------------------------------- 
------- Dated: March 26, 2004.
 
Andrew L. Bates, Advisory Committee Management Officer.
 
[FR Doc. 04-7313 Filed 3-31-04; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P

 
*****************************************************************
 55 Herald: Dounreay wind-down 50 years ahead of schedule   
 
Web Issue 1975     April 02 2004      

    
  DAVID ROSS, Highland Correspondent     April 02 2004   
    
  The Ł4bn decommissioning of Dounreay will be completed more
than 50 years ahead of schedule, it was announced yesterday.

 The programme of work at the Caithness plant should be finished
by 2047. However, the UK Atomic Energy Authority is hoping that
the timescale can be even shorter. This was confirmed yesterday
as the UKAEA announced its works schedule over the next two
years, which is worth Ł313m.

 The decommissioning already has given an economic lift to
Caithness rivalled only by the original establishment of the
nuclear plant 50 years ago. It is worth an estimated Ł80m a year
to the local economy and one in five jobs in Caithness and
northern Sutherland now depend on decommissioning.

 Until 1998, it was estimated that decommissioning Dounreay
would take 100 years, but in that year the Nuclear Installations
Inspectorate and the Scottish Environment Protection Agency
instructed the UKAEA to try to cut this in half.

 In 2000, the UKAEA produced its site restoration plan which
estimated a maximum of 60 years, but in February Dipesh Shah,
the new UKAEA chief executive asked for a further reduction.

 Norman Harrison, UKAEA's Dounreay director, yesterday confirmed
the 2047 target date. 
"But we are not going to stop at 2047. We are going to take
every opportunity we can to really compress this programme."

 The timescale could be cut in half as a result of technological
advances and because original planning had assumed that a long
period was needed to allow radioactive decay.

 According to Sandy McWhirter, the decommissioning programme
manager, that was no longer necessarily the case at Dounreay:
"This is because many of the features and facilities we are
decommissioning are not reactors.

 "If we don't have to wait for radioactive decay, but just go in
and do it as soon as it is safe and environmentally responsible
to do so, we could bring that forward to 2060. We were then
challenged again to see if we could better, and we are getting
very good at this business. So consequently we now find that
what we were going to do by 2060, we can now do 13 years
earlier."
   
  Copyright © Newsquest (Herald & Times) Limited. All Rights
Reserved   
[http://www.pressnow.co.uk/] 
*****************************************************************
 56 The Spectrum: Nuke-waste dump clearly isn't ready - Opinion - 

thespectrum.com
 
Thursday, April 1, 2004   

  IN OUR VIEW 

Recent concerns regarding shipments of nuclear waste to Yucca 
Mountain provide yet more evidence that the federal dumping 
ground for the highly toxic waste isn't ready. 

And that means the entire process -- from shipment to storage -- 
might not be safe. 

The latest issue arose when the Energy Department announced that 
it was preparing a back-up plan for moving the approximately 
77,000 tons of nuclear waste to Yucca Mountain, about 90 miles 
northwest of Las Vegas. The plan might be necessary because rail 
lines, the preferred mode of travel for the waste, likely won't 
be ready until 2016. The problem is that the waste is supposed to 
begin arriving at the repository in 2010. 

The backup plan calls for more over-the-road shipments of casks 
containing nuclear waste. That means more trucks carrying nuclear 
waste will be on our nation's roads. A consultant for Nevada's 
state Agency for Nuclear Projects has said that the backup plan 
could increase the number of truck shipments through rural Nevada 
from 600 the first year to as many as 2,200 a year before the 
rail lines are ready. 

That almost certainly means more and more trucks will travel 
along Interstate 15 -- through the middle of Cedar City, St. 
George, Mesquite and others -- on the way to Yucca Mountain. 

Yucca Mountain proponents point to studies that show the casks in 
which the waste will be shipped as being safe. They argue that 
people shouldn't be afraid to have nuclear waste traveling down 
the highway because the casks can withstand extreme punishment. 

If that's the case, then we are left to ask why it is necessary 
for the spent fuel rods from nuclear power plants and other 
sources of the waste to be moved from their current locations at 
all? 

The transportation methods haven't been finalized. The Energy 
Department hasn't even filed its application to open the 
repository by 2010, perhaps a testimony to how many issues remain 
unresolved. 

Using Yucca Mountain as a nuclear landfill puts too many people 
in danger. Congress should reopen its discussion and question 
again whether this is the appropriate place to store radioactive 
waste. 

With all the uncertainty over shipping nuclear waste, what's one 
more question? 

Originally published Thursday, April 1, 2004
 
*****************************************************************
 57 Las Vegas RJ: Spending on Yucca lawyers criticized 
 
Thursday, April 01, 2004

Reid tells all about $45 million contract By STEVE TETREAULT
STEPHENS WASHINGTON BUREAU

WASHINGTON -- Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., on Wednesday criticized
Energy Department spending on Yucca Mountain lawyers, saying
attorneys must be slapping "high fives" at the prospect of a
government payday.
 
 At a Senate budget hearing, Reid said he plans to ask the DOE
to detail a contract awarded last week to Hunton &Williams, a
Richmond, Va., law firm that will shepherd the department's
license application for a nuclear waste repository at the Yucca
site.
 
 The firm would be eligible to earn up to $45 million over the
next five years based on the time its lawyers spend performing
the government work, DOE officials have said.
 
 Reid also noted the DOE has agreed to pay $4.5 million to
another firm, LeBoeuf, Lamb, Greene &MacRae, to settle a related
nuclear waste contract lawsuit.
 
 "Having been a lawyer, I'll bet they are giving high fives
every morning," Reid said of Hunton &Williams partners.
"Forty-five million for a license application? What a soft deal
that is. And then they're paying a firm $4.5 million to do
nothing."
 
 At the meeting, Reid told Margaret Chu, the director of DOE's
Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management, that the size
of the Hunton &Williams contract seemed excessive to him. 
The Energy Department has handled license preparations in-house
so far, Reid said.
 
 "Given the incredibly technical nature of the application, how
is it possible for a bunch of attorneys, even ones with
knowledge of the regulatory process, to add $45 million in value
to the process?"
 
 DOE spokesman Joe Davis said the contract reflects the
department's "thorough understanding of the work entailed and
the likelihood that the licensing will be one of the most
contentious that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has ever
conducted." 
Hunton &Williams was hired to replace Winston &Strawn LLP, a
Chicago-based firm that worked on Yucca Mountain licensing
matters for two years before leaving the program and a $16.5
million contract in 2001 amid conflict allegations.
 
 Nuclear industry executives reportedly were urging DOE to hire
new outside counsel with experience in handling complex cases
before the NRC.
 
 Nevada has paid its nuclear waste law firm, Virginia-based
Egan, Fitzpatrick, Malsch &Cynkar, between $4 million and $6
million since 2001 to handle Yucca-related litigation, according
to Bob Loux, director of the state's Agency for Nuclear Projects.
 
 Loux estimated Nevada's legal bill for Yucca licensing matters
could range between $5 million to $7 million annually for the
next four to five years, money it is trying to recoup through
lawsuits.
 
 
Copyright Las Vegas Review-Journal
*****************************************************************
 58 Las Vegas RJ: Nuclear shipments to test site to start in September 
 
Thursday, April 01, 2004

By TONY BATT STEPHENS WASHINGTON BUREAU

WASHINGTON -- The government plans to begin shipping 2 tons of
weapons-grade nuclear materials from New Mexico to the Nevada
Test Site in September as part of a federal laboratory move, the
National Nuclear Security Administration announced Wednesday.
 
 The material will include plutonium and highly enriched uranium
from the Technical Area 18 site at Los Alamos National
Laboratory.
 
 The Device Assembly Facility, a largely unused high-security
storehouse in a remote section of the test site, will store the
material.
 
 "Getting this material out of TA-18 and to Nevada will assist
NNSA in more quickly establishing critical national security
missions in Nevada while consolidating special nuclear materials
in a newer, more secure facility," NNSA Administrator Linton
Brooks said in a statement.
 
 The test site, 65 miles northwest of Las Vegas, will begin
receiving the first 50 percent of the TA-18 special nuclear
materials in September, agency officials said. 
NNSA is designing modifications to the test site so it will be
able to store the rest of the materials from Los Alamos within
18 months after the first shipment, Brooks said.
 
 TA-18 at Los Alamos is considered a high-risk facility after
security breaches occurred there during a series of war games.
 
 Earlier this month, Rep. Jim Greenwood, R-Pa., chairman of the
House Energy and Commerce subcommittee on oversight and
investigations, expressed dismay that NNSA had not yet begun
transferring the materials from TA-18.
 
 "When NNSA finally moves these materials from Los Alamos to the
Nevada Test Site, it will achieve improved security and a
significant reduction in security costs," Greenwood said.
 
 In planning the move, NNSA officials were delayed last year
after discovering the projected costs had tripled to more than
$310 million. The discovery prompted a re-evaluation of the
proposal.
 
 The NNSA announcement did not disclose costs.
 
 Peter Stockton, a nuclear weapons security expert for the
Project on Government Oversight has described the Device
Assembly Facility as "probably the most secure facility in the
world."
 
 
Copyright Las Vegas Review-Journal
*****************************************************************
 59 Las Vegas RJ: YUCCA MOUNTAIN SHIPMENT ROUTE: DOE: Rail line won't be ready 
 
Thursday, April 01, 2004

Nevada officials question plan to haul nuclear waste to state
via roadways By STEVE TETREAULT
STEPHENS WASHINGTON BUREAU
 
WASHINGTON -- Considering the challenge of building a 300-mile
railroad, state and local officials expressed little surprise
Wednesday that the Department of Energy has revived the
possibility of shipping nuclear waste across Nevada by truck to
a repository at Yucca Mountain.
 
 Whether they welcomed the prospect is another thing.
 
 "This isn't really new except its taken on new life perhaps
with the realization that the department may not have a railroad
done by 2010," said Caliente Mayor Kevin Phillips.
 
 Yucca Mountain Project director Margaret Chu said Wednesday she
remains hopeful the DOE will have a 319-mile Nevada rail line
built in time to ship nuclear waste to the repository for a
planned 2010 opening.
 
 Discussions about backup truck shipments were part of the
department's "robust planning," she said, adding: "We want to be
sure when we open the repository that we can begin shipping."
 
 DOE officials did not provide further information about the
possible number of shipments that Nevada motorists may encounter
if trucks are employed during the first years of repository
operations.
 
 A department analysis this month assumed nuclear waste would be
hauled by truck for six years while a railroad is being built.
While it did not specify a route, it indicated a likely 330-mile
path from Caliente to Tonopah on state roads and then south on
U.S. Highway 95 to Yucca Mountain.
 
 Under the scenario, nuclear waste would be shipped by rail from
power plants to a transfer station in Caliente, then loaded onto
semi-trailers for the final leg.
 
 A transportation consultant for the state of Nevada estimated
this week that truck shipments on rural highways could number
about 600 the first year to 2,200 annually by the fourth year.
 
 "That would be the worst possible scenario for Nye County,"
said County Commission Chairman Henry Neth. "The infrastructure
for those types of trucks would just devastate. They would be
going right through the middle of every small town in Nye
County. Right through the middle." 
In Lincoln County the idea got a more welcome reception from the
Caliente mayor. Phillips and other county leaders have lobbied
the government for a nuclear waste transfer station, which they
view as an economic development tool.
 
 He said he saw the Yucca program as providing a good living for
truck drivers hauling nuclear waste and others working for the
government.
 
 "A Teamster could live here, make his run, drop his load, pick
up an empty, come back through Vegas and make the round trip in
one day shift," Phillips said. "I have Teamsters who are just
hoping this comes about so they can be home with their families
and have a decent job."
 
 Nevada elected officials reacted strongly against the idea.
They renewed arguments that waste shipments could become
involved in tragic accidents or come under attack by terrorists.
 
 "That's a lot of truckloads," Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., said.
"And this more than just a truckload of fertilizer.
 
 "DOE just doesn't know what they are doing," he said. 
Nuclear industry representative David Blee said safety fears are
unfounded. Blee said casks are licensed to specifications set by
the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and risks would be minimal.
 
 "Obviously a truck cask presents a smaller target and carries a
smaller payload. In many respects it would be less vulnerable,"
said Blee, spokesman for the U.S. Transport Council, an
association of nuclear material shipping firms.
 
 Rep. Jim Gibbons, R-Nev., whose district includes towns along
the likely truck route, "believes this is a bad idea and
something he would not support," said Amy Spanbauer, his deputy
chief of staff. 
Gibbons was particularly concerned about the ability of rural
first responders to handle accidents involving nuclear waste,
Spanbauer said.
 
 
Copyright Las Vegas Review-Journal
*****************************************************************
 60 RGJ: Energy Department dusts off backup waste-shipping plan
 
Thursday | Apr 1, 2004

Reno Gazette-Journal] 
 			 			   			     			     		 		
ASSOCIATED PRESS

LAS VEGAS — The federal Energy Department is dusting off a backup 
plan to ship radioactive waste by truck through rural Nevada in 
the first years of the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository.

“It’s possible that we won’t have a rail line when we are ready 
to ship, and so we have to have a contingency,” Energy Department 
and Yucca Mountain spokesman Allen Benson said. “You have to be 
prepared, and that’s what this is.”

Nuclear waste casks would be placed on rail cars at nuclear 
reactors in 39 states and shipped to a Nevada transfer station, 
possibly at Caliente, according to an internal Energy Department 
analysis performed this month.

The casks would be rolled onto specially designed 
tractor-trailers and hauled across the state to the repository, 
90 miles northwest of Las Vegas.

An Energy Department document obtained this week by the Las Vegas 
Review-Journal indicates a probable 330-mile truck route north 
and west to Tonopah along federal and state roads, and then south 
on U.S. 95 to Yucca Mountain.

The contingency assumes a railroad line would be operating by 
2016, but nuclear waste would be shipped to the repository by 
truck for the first six years after the Energy Department opens 
the dump in 2010.

The Energy Department is expected soon to formalize a 319-mile 
corridor from Caliente to the repository as its preferred rail 
route.

A seven-page analysis completed by Energy Department’s Office of 
National Transportation for the Yucca Mountain Project did not 
say how many truck shipments would be made through Nevada over 
the six-year period.

Robert Halstead, a consultant for Nevada’s state Agency for 
Nuclear Projects, said the state was examining the department’s 
study. He estimated truck shipments through rural Nevada could 
increase from about 600 the first year to 2,200 a year in the 
fourth, fifth and sixth years.

Benson would not comment on the estimate, saying the Energy 
Department was developing its numbers.

Benson said the existence of a backup plan did not mean the 
Energy Department was conceding it cannot have a railroad built 
by 2010.

However, the department estimates it could take almost four years 
to build a Nevada rail line. Officials say they can’t break 
ground until they get construction authorization from the Nuclear 
Regulatory Commission, in 2007 or 2008 at the earliest.

Halstead said state officials will demand the Energy Department 
perform more detailed environmental studies or would consider 
another Nevada lawsuit against the Yucca Mountain program.

The Energy Department plans by the end of the year to submit to 
the Nuclear Regulatory Commission an application to open the 
repository by 2010. Congress has approved the plan to entomb at 
Yucca Mountain 77,000 tons of the nation’s most radioactive 
waste.

The Energy Department studied the truck-cask-on-railcar concept 
years ago but concluded it was not practical over an entire 
24-year shipping campaign.      

© Copyright Reno Gazette-Journal, a Gannett 
*****************************************************************
 61 The Australian: Kakadu mine resumes operation 

[April 01, 2004]

ENERGY Resources of Australia (ERA) today said mining had resumed 
at its controversial Ranger uranium mine in Kakadu National Park.

The mine has been shut since March 24 after the drinking water 
supply was found to be contaminated with uranium.

 An ERA spokeswoman said authorities granted the company 
permission to resume mining last night.

 However, the mine's processing plant remained shut, she said.

 "We welcome the agreement of the regulator to allow mining to 
begin," the spokeswoman said. 

Twelve ERA workers had presented with health complaints, such as 
nausea, stomach cramps or vomiting, after the drinking or 
showering in the contaminated water before it was discovered on 
March 24.

 Contaminated water also overflowed from a holding tank into a 
nearby creek system in the world famous national park, but there 
was no environmental damage.

 Investigations have revealed human error was the cause of the 
contamination, with the contaminated processed water mistakenly 
connected to the drinking water supply.

 A similar incident occurred at the mine in 1983.

 The ERA spokeswoman said workers on night shift began mining the 
open pits again last night after the mine had been shut for eight 
days.

 "The ore will be allowed to be placed in a stock pile," she 
said.

 "Permission for processing has not yet been granted."

 She could not say how much the eight-day closure had cost the 
company.

 The NT government, the regulator of the mine, is still 
investigating the incident and whether it should prosecute the 
company.

 A spokeswoman for Northern Territory Minister for Mines and 
Energy Kon Vatskalis confirmed the government had granted 
permission for mining to restart.

 The go ahead was given at 5.45pm (CST) yesterday.

 The company had not yet been granted permission to begin 
processing operations, which was expected to take a couple more 
days, the spokeswoman said.

 Workers began returning to the NT mine on Tuesday night to 
conduct maintenance ahead of the resumption of mining. 
		 		 		 	 	   		 		
  privacy            © The Australian   
*****************************************************************
 62 Contra Costa Times: Navy reaches deal with S.F. on land at Hunters Point

| 04/01/2004 | 

By Lisa Leff

 ASSOCIATED PRESS

SAN FRANCISCO - U.S. Navy and San Francisco officials have ironed 
out their differences over transferring a polluted former 
shipyard to the city, a deal that paves the way for the 
one-of-a-kind waterfront property to be cleaned up and developed. 

The agreement signed by the Navy on Wednesday appeared to end 
more than a decade of friction between federal and local 
officials over the fate of the old Hunters Point Naval Shipyard, 
which closed in 1974 and has been on the list of highly 
contaminated Superfund sites since 1989. 

The 936-acre site, of which about 443 acres are usable, is the 
largest tract of undeveloped land in San Francisco. Located on 
the city's southeastern corner, it abuts the Bay and a 
neighborhood that once housed shipyard workers but has become 
plagued by poverty and persistent violence. 

City officials hope their plans for the parcel will serve as an 
economic engine that can help revitalize the Bayview-Hunters 
Point area. 

"Finally getting this document approved by the Navy means we can 
move forward with economic development," said Jesse Blout, 
director of the city's Office of Economic and Job Development. 
"We are talking about jobs, we are talking about affordable 
housing and we are talking about open space." 

The plan has been in the works for years but repeatedly stalled 
as the Navy and the city haggled over who would pay to rid the 
shuttered shipyard of radioactive waste, asbestos and PCBs. Under 
the agreement, the Navy will be responsible for the cleanup, 
giving selected parcels to the city when they meet environmental 
standards for their various future uses, Blout said. 

The first 78 acres, which is close to receiving regulatory 
approval, could be transferred to the city's control as early as 
late May, he said. The city's plans call for 1,600 housing units 
and 300,000 square feet of commercial space to be built by a 
private developer on the parcel, with another 34 acres remaining 
as open space. 

Other parcels will cede to the city over the next few years as 
they are rid of hazardous materials from past military activity. 
So far, the federal government has committed $313 million toward 
the restoration of Hunters Point, which the Navy actively 
operated from 1939 to 1974. 

"This is a crucial agreement for the Bayview Hunters Point 
community, which establishes important environmental 
protections," said House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, who helped 
broker the agreement over the long negotiations. "It is a strong 
step toward economic revitalization and opportunity, a safe 
environment, and a renewed sense of community."   

*****************************************************************
 63 Carlsbad Current-Argus: State won’t attend waste talks
 
Updated: March 31, 2004 - 10:12:17    

 By Victoria Parker-Stevens/Current-Argus staff writer

CARLSBAD — Sen. Pete Domenici announced Wednesday New Mexico 
would now be included in talks about changing the classification 
of some high-level waste so it could go to the Waste Isolation 
Pilot Plant.
 
But the state Environment Department isn’t interested in 
attending.
 
The federal Energy Department would like to reclassify the waste 
— now in tanks in Washington, South Carolina and Idaho — to a 
lower level. Federal law prohibits disposing of “high-level” 
waste at WIPP.
 
State officials had previously expressed displeasure that 
discussions between the Energy Department and other states were 
occurring “behind closed doors.” 

“The state sees no basis for these talks and has no plans to 
participate at this time,” stated state Environment Secretary Ron 
Curry Wednesday in a release. “Gov. Richardson and this 
department have been very clear. We don’t believe any 
reclassified high-level waste belongs at WIPP.”
 
Domenici, R-N.M., said he had “gained a commitment” from Jessie 
Roberson, DOE assistant secretary for environmental management, 
that New Mexico would be included in strategy discussions and 
negotiations.
 
Roberson was at a meeting Wednesday of the Senate Energy and 
Water Development Appropriations Subcommittee, chaired by 
Domenici. The subcommittee was reviewing fiscal year 2005 budget 
requests.
 
“Including New Mexico in these talks now is a good thing. There 
are a number of issues that will have to be resolved related to 
getting (these) wastes shipped to WIPP,” Domenici states in a 
release.
 
Issues would include how the Energy Department would remove the 
fission products that could be shipped to WIPP.
 
Domenici said there were ongoing difficulties facing the Energy 
Department related to the waste — known as “waste incidental to 
reprocessing.” 

The Energy Department would like to spend $350 million in fiscal 
year 2005 to clean up WIR material, he said.
 
“Part of the debate over WIR involves the rather unclear 
definition of high-level waste. Now we identify waste depending 
on how it was generated, not how radioactive it is,” Domenici 
said. “I don’t think that makes much sense.”
 
He recommended a National Academy of Sciences study.
 
The Energy Department has said the waste meets radiation-level 
requirements for disposal at WIPP. 

Last fall, the Energy Department tried to get Domenici’s support 
for federal legislation to clear the way for the waste to be 
shipped, but he said he wasn’t ready to back it.
 
The proposed legislation came after a federal court ruling 
blocked the reclassification plan. Attorneys general from the 
four affected states recently asked a federal appeals court to 
uphold the ruling.
 
“This issue is rapidly becoming our No. 1 priority,” Curry said 
Wednesday, noting an agreement had recently been reached with the 
Energy Department over cleanup at Los Alamos National Laboratory.
 
Earlier this month, the state said a focus on LANL had resulted 
in delays in a permit change process Richardson had begun to try 
to keep the waste out of WIPP.
 
Since then, the Energy Department has released $43 million that 
was contingent on reaching an agreement for accelerated cleanup 
at LANL.
 
“I am very pleased with the outcome. I hope DOE and New Mexico 
move past fighting over the same old issues that could compromise 
the cleanup work we need to accomplish,” Domenici said. 

Copyright © 2004 Carlsbad Current-Argus, a Gannett Co., Inc. 
*****************************************************************
 64 CBC: Cameco Corp. and partner to develop Inkai uranium deposit in Kazakhstan
 
   [http://www.cbc.ca/]

  10:14 PM EST Apr 01       

SASKATOON (CP) - Cameco Corp. and the National Atomic Co. of 
Kazakhstan announced Thursday that they will develop a uranium 
deposit in Kazakhstan. 

The companies will develop the Inkai deposit through their Inkai 
Joint Venture, which is 60 per cent owned by Cameco, the 
uranium-mining and energy company based in Saskatoon. The cost to 
build the mine will be $38 million US, and Cameco will lend the 
joint venture $40 million US, to be repaid through Inkai 
production. 

Subject to regulatory approval, it is expected to achieve 
commercial production in 2007 and ramp up to 2.6 million pounds 
annually by 2009. 

The mine will employ up to 200 workers during construction and 
230 once full production is reached. About 97 per cent of the 
employees will be hired locally, Cameco said. 

Cameco estimated there were 91.5 million pounds of proven and 
probable reserves that would provide an estimated mine life of 
more than 30 years. 

Cameco bills itself as the world's largest uranium producer. 

Its shares (TSX:CCO) traded up 65 cents at $65.88 in Thursday 
trading on the Toronto stock market. 

© The Canadian Press, 2004
[http://www.cp.org/] 
*****************************************************************
 65 Scotsman: Inverness - Dounreay clean-up cut to 43 years
 
Friday, 2nd April 2004    	 

JOHN ROSS 

WORK to clean up the Dounreay nuclear plant will be completed in 
the next 43 years, and perhaps earlier, according to plans 
published yesterday. 

The new timescale was revealed by the UK Atomic Energy Authority 
(UKAEA), which is to spend ÂŁ313 million over the next two years 
decommissioning the plant. 

In the past six years, the timescale for shutting down the 
140-acre Caithness complex and returning it to a near-greenfield 
has been reduced by more than half a century. 

It was originally predicted that the clean-up, which will cost 
ÂŁ4.5 billion, would take 100 years, but that forecast has now 
been cut. 

Norman Harrison, the director at Dounreay, said: "We have a 
target of 2047, but we will take every opportunity to compress 
this programme." 

Spending at the site is now running at ÂŁ155 million a year, 
almost double the level of the mid-1990s, with ÂŁ80 million going 
into the Highland economy and much of it to Caithness and 
Sutherland.               [ border=]             


   &copy;2004 Scotsman.com [http://www.scotsman.com/]  | contact
*****************************************************************
 66 fremontneb.com: State tax hike talk lacks consensus (LLW Decision)

Fremont, Nebraska's Community Newspaper
 
LINCOLN (AP) — State lawmakers can't agree on whether to raise
taxes, which tax to raise or by how much.

They can't even agree on whether now is the time to increase
them.

"Everyone seems to be against virtually everything," said Sen.
Mick Mines of Blair during a daylong debate Wednesday on tax
hikes.

The discussion on Thursday began with debate of increasing sales
taxes by 1/2 a cent for one year to raise $122 million. The
current state sales tax is 5 1/2 cents per dollar.

Lawmakers are trying to decide whether to increase taxes now to
raise the money needed to pay a potential $151 million low-level
nuclear waste judgment. The money also could be held to help
with a projected $296 million budget shortfall for the next
budget cycle.

But neither of those problems have to be dealt with this year,
said Omaha Sen. Pat Bourne.

The judgment is not final and the current budget will balance
without any tax increases.

The public expects the Legislature to do something now to deal
with the lawsuit judgment, argued Lincoln Sen. Chris Beutler. 


  <IMG border="0"
SRC="http://oas.lee.net/RealMedia/ads/click_nx.ads/fremontneb.com
/news/Middle/1@Top,TopLeft,Middle,Bottom,x01,x02,x03,x04,x05,x06,
x07,x08!Middle">
[http://oas.lee.net/RealMedia/ads/click_nx.ads/fremontneb.com/new
s/Middle/1@Top,TopLeft,Middle,Bottom,x01,x02,x03,x04,x05,x06,x07,
x08!Middle]   



"There's nothing left in this session anywhere near as
important," he said.

Three ideas were floated Wednesday — increasing income taxes,
issuing bonds and increasing the gas tax to pay for them, and
imposing a surcharge on electric bills.

The only unreasonable option is doing nothing, said Sen. Roger
Wehrbein of Plattsmouth, chairman of the budget-writing
Appropriations Committee.

"We really ought to be looking at which of the three you
prefer," he said.

A fourth option, raising the state sales tax by 1/2 a cent, was
supported by Gov. Mike Johanns, but rejected by the Revenue
Committee earlier this session.

While the judgment against the state is not final, few expect
Nebraska to prevail on its appeals.

"We are literally at the end of our rope with respect to this
litigation," said Omaha Sen. Kermit Brashear, an attorney.

Brashear supports issuing bonds to pay for roads projects,
thereby freeing up cash from the highway trust fund to pay for
other state agency operations.

Under his idea, $160 million would be freed up to pay damages
plus interest in the low-level nuclear waste lawsuit.

Beutler argued for a three-year, 5 percent electric bill
surcharge that would raise $160 million. If a settlement is
reached and the damages are reduced, the surcharge could be
lowered or ended early, he said.

Sen. Paul Hartnett is supporting an income tax increase that
would raise $104 million.

"Which of the poisons do you want to drink?" asked Lincoln Sen.
Mike Foley. "And when do you want to drink it?"

When they decided against supporting the tax increase idea,
members of the Revenue Committee said they wanted to wait until
the judgment actually comes due before backing any tax increase.

The earliest the judgment could come due, assuming all the
state's options for appeal fail, is early November. Doing
nothing this session to prepare for paying the damages probably
would force the Legislature back in special session.

Lincoln Sen. Marian Price said something needs to be done now.

"It's just like a big boulder that's going to come down the
mountainside and crush us," she said. "Let's build up an account
so when they say pay up we are able to pay up."

But Omaha Sen. Mike Friend said people won't support any higher
taxes.

"I do believe the people are maxed out," he said. 

                                
                                
  
Email this story
[http://www.fremontneb.com/articles/2004/04/01/news/news3.eml]  
  
Print this story
[http://www.fremontneb.com/articles/2004/04/01/news/news3.prt]   

[oas:fremontneb.com/news:Bottom] -->   

    





<IMG border="0"
SRC="http://oas.lee.net/RealMedia/ads/click_nx.ads/fremontneb.com
/news/x01/1@Top,TopLeft,Middle,Bottom,x01,x02,x03,x04,x05,x06,x07
,x08!x01">
[http://oas.lee.net/RealMedia/ads/click_nx.ads/fremontneb.com/new
s/x01/1@Top,TopLeft,Middle,Bottom,x01,x02,x03,x04,x05,x06,x07,x08
!x01] 

<IMG border="0"
SRC="http://oas.lee.net/RealMedia/ads/click_nx.ads/fremontneb.com
/news/x02/1@Top,TopLeft,Middle,Bottom,x01,x02,x03,x04,x05,x06,x07
,x08!x02">
[http://oas.lee.net/RealMedia/ads/click_nx.ads/fremontneb.com/new
s/x02/1@Top,TopLeft,Middle,Bottom,x01,x02,x03,x04,x05,x06,x07,x08
!x02] 

<IMG border="0"
SRC="http://oas.lee.net/RealMedia/ads/click_nx.ads/fremontneb.com
/news/x03/1@Top,TopLeft,Middle,Bottom,x01,x02,x03,x04,x05,x06,x07
,x08!x03">
[http://oas.lee.net/RealMedia/ads/click_nx.ads/fremontneb.com/new
s/x03/1@Top,TopLeft,Middle,Bottom,x01,x02,x03,x04,x05,x06,x07,x08
!x03] 

<IMG border="0"
SRC="http://oas.lee.net/RealMedia/ads/click_nx.ads/fremontneb.com
/news/x04/1@Top,TopLeft,Middle,Bottom,x01,x02,x03,x04,x05,x06,x07
,x08!x04">
[http://oas.lee.net/RealMedia/ads/click_nx.ads/fremontneb.com/new
s/x04/1@Top,TopLeft,Middle,Bottom,x01,x02,x03,x04,x05,x06,x07,x08
!x04] 

<IMG border="0"
SRC="http://oas.lee.net/RealMedia/ads/click_nx.ads/fremontneb.com
/news/x05/1@Top,TopLeft,Middle,Bottom,x01,x02,x03,x04,x05,x06,x07
,x08!x05">
[http://oas.lee.net/RealMedia/ads/click_nx.ads/fremontneb.com/new
s/x05/1@Top,TopLeft,Middle,Bottom,x01,x02,x03,x04,x05,x06,x07,x08
!x05] 

<IMG border="0"
SRC="http://oas.lee.net/RealMedia/ads/click_nx.ads/fremontneb.com
/news/x06/1@Top,TopLeft,Middle,Bottom,x01,x02,x03,x04,x05,x06,x07
,x08!x06">
[http://oas.lee.net/RealMedia/ads/click_nx.ads/fremontneb.com/new
s/x06/1@Top,TopLeft,Middle,Bottom,x01,x02,x03,x04,x05,x06,x07,x08
!x06] 

<IMG border="0"
SRC="http://oas.lee.net/RealMedia/ads/click_nx.ads/fremontneb.com
/news/x07/1@Top,TopLeft,Middle,Bottom,x01,x02,x03,x04,x05,x06,x07
,x08!x07">
[http://oas.lee.net/RealMedia/ads/click_nx.ads/fremontneb.com/new
s/x07/1@Top,TopLeft,Middle,Bottom,x01,x02,x03,x04,x05,x06,x07,x08
!x07] 

<IMG border="0"
SRC="http://oas.lee.net/RealMedia/ads/click_nx.ads/fremontneb.com
/news/x08/1@Top,TopLeft,Middle,Bottom,x01,x02,x03,x04,x05,x06,x07
,x08!x08">
[http://oas.lee.net/RealMedia/ads/click_nx.ads/fremontneb.com/new
s/x08/1@Top,TopLeft,Middle,Bottom,x01,x02,x03,x04,x05,x06,x07,x08
!x08]   
  
This Page Last Updated Apr 01, 2004 - 12:03:52 pm CST 


  Copyright © 2004  Fremont Tribune
   

  

  


*****************************************************************
 67 Reid: Reid Statement On Shipping Nuclear Waste By Truck
      
Wednesday, March 31, 2004 

Sen. Harry Reid released the following statement today regarding 
recent reports that the Department of Energy is considering 
shipping nuclear waste by truck. 

“Yesterday, the Department of Energy admitted that it is 
considering shipping nuclear waste by truck on Nevada’s 
highways and roadways. To highlight the extreme danger and 
absurdity of such a plan, we need look no further than the latest 
truck accident that occurred last week in Connecticut. The 
accident resulted in a truck fire that burned hot enough to 
actually melt a portion of Interstate 95, a primary truck 
shipping route. The truck was carrying home heating fuel when it 
collided with a car and burst into flames. The fire burned for 
more than two hours at temperatures as high as 2,000 degrees. 

“The Department of Energy has admitted that it can not 
guarantee the safety of its transportation casks at temperatures 
higher than 1475 degrees Fahrenheit for more than 30 minutes. If 
nuclear waste had been what that truck was carrying last week, 
first responders called to the scene would have faced more than 
just extreme temperatures and a melting highway. Those called 
upon to contain the situation would have faced potential exposure 
to fatal doses of radiation. And yet the Department of Energy 
continues to try and deceive us that they can guarantee the 
safety of nuclear waste shipments. 

“Whether it’s digging the tunnel, skimping on the science or 
defaulting on transportation plans, the Department of Energy has 
shown complete incompetence with the Yucca Mountain project. I 
will work to cut their budget, and find other ways to slow down 
the project so we have time to expose all their faults before 
they are able to ram the project through.” 

*****************************************************************
 68 Las Vegas SUN: Utah Lawmaker Apologizes for Remark

 
ASSOCIATED PRESS 

SALT LAKE CITY (AP) - A Utah lawmaker apologized for an insult
that prompted nuclear waste activists to call for his
resignation. 

In a letter to the Healthy Environmental Alliance of Utah, state
Sen. Curt Bramble said he regretted saying that the group's
acronym, HEAL, stood for "Help Educate Anal Liberals." 

"I apologize," the Republican lawmaker wrote in a letter dated
Monday. "Those of you who have scrutinized the issue know the
context in which my remarks were given, and that no harm was
intended." 

Bramble made the remark on March 5 at a rally supporting
Envirocare, which operates a landfill in Utah that is one of
just three in the nation that accepts low-level radioactive
waste. 

Bramble co-chairs the Legislature's Hazardous Waste Regulation
and Tax Policy Task Force, which is to make recommendations next
year on whether Envirocare should be allowed to accept hotter
radioactive wastes than its current state and federal licenses
allow. 

HEAL activists had called for Bramble's resignation, expressing
concern he could not remain neutral on the issue. 

Bramble promised the group he would act fairly, but HEAL
Director Jason Groenwold said he was not sure what to make of
the apology. 

"It does nothing to resolve his bias toward Envirocare,"
Groenwold said. 

-- 



*****************************************************************
 69 Whitehaven News: NUCLEAR SAFETY OKAY, BNFL TOLD 

Published on 01/04/2004 
 
SELLAFIELD does conform to both national and international 
standards when it comes to looking after nuclear materials, 
operator BNFL has been told by the British government.

The assurance follows a threat from the European Commission to 
take the UK to court for allegedly failing to provide proper 
information about Sellafield’s radioactive waste storage. 

It all centres on a demarcation-type dispute over whether British 
or EU appointed officials should have responsibility for making 
sure the right safeguards are in place to stop the material 
falling into the wrong hands.

Questions are being asked about one particular Sellafield 
facility — the 50-year-old B30, one of the original ponds for 
storing spent nuclear fuel under water, before it is reprocessed 
to extract uranium and plutonium. Commonly known as “dirty 
thirty” because of its higher radiation levels. B30 is currently 
being decommissioned.

From a safety point of view, the Nuclear Installations 
Inspectorate, which issues Sellafield with its licence to 
operate, has expressed concerns over possible low-level radiation 
leaks from B30, BNFL spokesman, Alan Hughes, said this was a 
safeguards issue. 

BNFL, he said, had been told by the Department of Trade and 
Industry that Sellafield did comply with the strict requirements.

The accountability lay with the DTI, whose spokesman, Neil 
Burrows, said that reports and records of all nuclear material 
shipped to and from Sellafield were supplied to Euratom, the EU’s 
atomic energy agency, which carried out annual inspections at the 
site. As far as the DTI was concerned, Sellafield had met all of 
the European Commission’s safeguard requirements. 

The EU’s threatened court action was apparently contained in a 
leaked document. “We have not yet seen this document so we don’t 
know the full facts,” said Mr Burrows.

It is understood that the British government has been given until 
May 1 to come up with an adequate response to the EU’s concerns 
or face possible legal action in the European Court of Justice.

Neil Kinnock, one of two British commissioners on the EU 
Executive, has insisted that the UK should have more time to 
respond.

The May 1 deadline coincides with the arrival of 10 new EU member 
states,some of which have been asked to upgrade outdated nuclear 
power stations built during the days of the Soviet bloc. 

[http://www.whitehaven-news.co.uk
*****************************************************************
 70 Whitehaven News: ‘NEAR-CRASH AT SELLAFIELD’ STORY DEEMED UNTRUE 

Published on 01/04/2004 

A POPULAR Sunday newspaper’s claim that an RAF fighter jet came 
very close to hitting Sellafield has been dismissed as a flight 
of fancy.

“It simply did not happen,” said BNFL spokesman Alan Hughes.

According to The Sunday Express front-page story, proclaimed as a 
world exclusive, the jet from RAF Leeming in Yorkshire came 
within 100ft of crashing into a cooling tower at Calder Hall 
power station, which closed down months ago.

The paper also claimed that the incident occurred last December 
and was hushed up.

Mr Hughes said: ”The Sunday Express didn’t contact us and I don’t 
know who their source is but the facts don’t stack up. 

“In fact, no such incident happened either with a jet or any 
other aircraft.”

Tony Parrini, the RAF’s regional community relations officer 
based at Penrith, said: “I have checked with BNFL, the Ministry 
of Defence and the Dept of Trade and Industry, which is 
responsible for Sellafield, and they know nothing about it.

“Certainly, we’ve had no complaints from local people about low 
flying and you would expect complaints if an aircraft was flying 
that low.”

A low-flying exclusion zone forbids aircraft from flying too 
close to the nuclear site, which holds big stocks of plutonium 
and other hazardous material such as high-level liquid waste 
which anti-nuclear campaigners have claimed could cause a nuclear 
catastrophe if released into the atmosphere by a high-velocity 
impact.

Mr Hughes said he was not aware of any tightening of the 
exclusion zone or any plans to change flying restrictions.

He said the Calder Hall cooling towers did not contain any fuel 
or radioactive content, they were merely concrete structures. 


www.whitehavennews.co.uk" 
*****************************************************************
 71 TV Barn Ticker: Full details on NOW with Bill Moyers

[http://www.tvbarn.com]      

posted by srhodes on April 1, 2004 08:27 PM 

NOW with Bill Moyers Friday, April 2 at 9PM on PBS (Check local
listings at http://www.pbs.org/now/sched.html) 

This week on NOW: 

John Dean told the truth about the Nixon, now he says the Bush
Administration is Worse than Watergate. A Bill Moyers
interview. 
  + 

A new nuclear age? Bill Moyers gives us a look into the
Administrations plan for the future of Americas nuclear
weapons arsenal in BOMBS AWAY? 
  + 

Unthinkable violence against Americans in Iraq. With less than
three months until the US turns the country over to the Iraqis,
can the US provide a safe transition? David Brancaccio sits down
with NPRs Deborah Amos. 
  + 

A David Brancaccio essay on Energy. 

JOHN DEAN 

John Dean is in the news again. Thirty years ago as counsel to 
Richard Nixon he mesmerized the country with his testimony in the 
Watergate hearings about a cancer growing on the presidency. 
Eventually Nixon would resign and John Dean would go to prison 
for his role in the Watergate scandal. 

Now Dean has written a new book - his sixth - in which he 
concludes that the obsessive secrecy and deception in Washington 
today is Worse Than Watergate. The conversation with Bill 
Moyers is Deans first television interview on the hidden agenda 
of a White House shrouded in secrecy and a presidency that seeks 
to remain unaccountable and his book WORSE THAN WATERGATE: THE 
SECRET PRESIDENCY OF GEORGE W. BUSH. 

BOMBS AWAY? 

Is America on the threshold of a new nuclear arms race? In the
months following 9/11, the administration issued an ambitious
plan for the future of Americas nuclear weapons arsenal. 

That plan envisions new, specialized nuclear weapons and other
devices that could be used in a first strike against terrorists
and rogue dictators. NOW weighs the potential impact of a
renewed nuclear arms development program and examines how
efficient some of these new weapons might be against a terrorist
enemy. 

With the Bush administration asking for $500 million to fund
research, the program gives viewers a look at the possibilities
for Americas nuclear arms future. 

DEBORAH AMOS 

Following the ambush, murder, and mutilation of four US security
contractors in Iraq on Wednesday, US troops vowed an
overwhelming response to the brutal killings. With less than
three months until June 30, the day President Bush wants to turn
the country over to Iraqis, how do these recent developments
bode for the transition? With continued killings, suicide
bombings, civilian deaths, and increased tension between Iraqi
factions, will the US be able to safely transfer power back to
the Iraqi people? 

David Brancaccio interviews NPRs Deborah Amos who has been
reporting from the troubled region for years. 

NOW WITH BILL MOYERS continues online at PBS.org
(www.pbs.org/now). Log on to the site for a look at the past,
present and possible future of underground nuclear weapons
testing; for a history and where we stand now on nuclear test
and weapons treaties; for resources for more research; for gas
prices around the country and competing ideas for meeting US
gasoline needs; for a look back at Watergate and issues of
government secrecy; and more.   	 
  Ticker main page | Press releases | Show summaries   


*****************************************************************
 72 Las Vegas SUN: Weapons-grade nuclear material to go from New Mexico to Nevada

Today: April 01, 2004 at 10:36:00 PST 

ASSOCIATED PRESS 

LAS VEGAS (AP) - The federal government plans to begin shipping
weapons-grade nuclear materials in September to the Nevada Test
Site from a New Mexico complex that critics contend is
vulnerable to terrorist attack. 

The National Nuclear Security Administration announced Wednesday
that the shipments from Technical Area 18 site at Los Alamos
National Laboratory will take about 18 months. 

A government watchdog group called the move "a big win-win" for
the Energy Department, but criticized the planned pace of the
shipments and the plan to move only half the material from Los
Alamos. 

"It will not only significantly increase national security, but
will also save taxpayers about $30 million a year," said
Danielle Brian, executive director of the Project on Government
Oversight. 

Pete Stockton, an investigator for group in Washington, D.C.,
said shipments should be done in a year instead of 18 months,
and said moving only half the material doesn't solve problems of
security and cost. 

Officials said 2 tons of plutonium and highly enriched uranium
will be moved to the Device Assembly Facility, a high-security
storehouse in a remote section of the test site, a vast federal
reservation 65 miles northwest of Las Vegas. 

In a statement issued Wednesday, NNSA Administrator Linton
Brooks said the move will help consolidate special nuclear
materials in a newer, more secure facility. 

Technical Area 18 at Los Alamos is considered a high-risk
facility after security breaches occurred there during a series
of war games. 

Last month, Rep. Jim Greenwood, R-Pa., chairman of the House
Energy and Commerce subcommittee on oversight and
investigations, expressed dismay that the Nuclear Security
Administration had not yet begun transferring the materials. 

"When NNSA finally moves these materials from Los Alamos to the
Nevada Test Site, it will achieve improved security and a
significant reduction in security costs," Greenwood said. 

NNSA and the U.S. Department of Energy decided in December 2002
to move the materials after an analysis of the technical site's
old facilities and high cost of security. 

The transfer was put on hold last summer after cost estimates
soared from the original projection of $100 million to about
$310 million. 

The Los Alamos site stores and uses materials for criticality
experiments that investigate controlled nuclear chain reactions.
It was the site of a September 2002 test that used neptunium,
rather than uranium or plutonium, to achieve a critical mass for
the first time. 

The announcement that shipments will start did not disclose
costs, and NNSA spokesman Brian Wilkes in New Mexico said the
cost issue had not been resolved. 

-- 



*****************************************************************
 73 Seattle Post-Intelligencer: Don't go nuclear over a banana
 	 	 	 	 	 
[seattlepi.com]     

Thursday, April 1, 2004 

 It's just one of the weird things that trip Geiger counters at
security checkpoints 

By SUE VORENBERG SCRIPPS HOWARD NEWS SERVICE

ALBUQUERQUE, N.M. -- David Mercer never knows when he'll get his 
next 2 a.m. phone call that someone's Geiger counter is clicking. 

The Los Alamos scientist spends about a week each month on call, 
helping U.S. customs inspectors, the FBI and the Department of 
Energy identify mysterious sources of radiation. The goal is to 
protect the country from terrorists who might bring in a nuclear 
weapon. 

Finding a weapon with a radiation detector might seem easy 
enough, but seemingly innocent things also set detectors off. One 
day it might be a shipment of medical isotopes, the next it might 
be a truck full of bananas or cocoa powder, Mercer said. 

Wait a minute: bananas and cocoa powder? 

"Cocoa power, like bananas, has potassium 40 in it," he said. 
"It's not harmful to humans, but it does set the detectors off. 
There are lots of things around us every day that have radiation 
in them. We even had a shipment of toilet tanks set off a 
detector once." 

Porcelain, it turns out, has a bit of thorium and uranium in it. 

Other weird things on the list: granite, which has a hint of 
thorium and uranium; camping lanterns, with thorium; propane, 
with radium 226; Brazil nuts, with potassium 40; kitty litter, 
with thorium and potassium 40; pottery, with uranium and thorium. 

"We're rapidly learning what the normal radiological world looks 
like," Mercer said. "Nobody was really looking at that very hard 
before (Sept. 11, 2001) -- now we're finding many new things." 

Mercer and a group of about 50 scientists from Los Alamos, Sandia 
and Lawrence Livermore national laboratories all spend time on 
call answering radiation questions from various agencies. 

It's something they volunteer for, outside their regular 
scientific jobs at the labs. 

"We're all experienced (understanding different radiation types), 
some with 25 years of doing this kind of work," Mercer said. "We 
do it to serve our country. Also, it's exciting work. You never 
know what's going to hit you. Of course, you also never know if 
you'll sleep through the night." 

The scientists are part of two programs started after the Sept. 
11 attacks to protect the United States from terrorists. 

The first started in January 2002 and is called the radiological 
triage program. It supports the FBI, Department of Defense, 
police, fire and other agencies. 

The second started in August 2003 and is called the secondary 
reachback program. It supports the U.S. Bureau of Customs and 
Border Protection lab, which in turn supports frontline customs 
officers. 

"Everybody on the front lines is coming up to speed on radiation 
detection technology, but to be confident they want experts in 
the field who can review their analysis," said Mark Abhold, a 
scientist in the Los Alamos Center for Homeland Security. "When 
they find something strange, and they need help, we have an 
expert look at the data who can call back with recommendations 
within an hour to an hour and a half." 

If inspectors or police come across something strange, they call 
a phone number at Lawrence Livermore in California. From there, a 
manager will page two experts, each from a different lab, to 
check the data, Abhold said. 

About 95 percent of the calls are for something innocent, like 
bananas or cat litter, Mercer said. 

And the other 5 percent? 

"So far we've seen no major terrorist activity, although we have 
seen some smuggling," he said, adding that he couldn't give more 
details for security reasons. 

The three labs also are building a database of radioactive 
objects in the natural environment, which will ultimately help 
customs and other agencies rely less on lab experts, Mercer said.                 

  [Seattle Post-Intelligencer] 101 Elliott Ave. W. Seattle, WA 
98119 (206) 448-8000
 
 Send comments to  [newmedia@seattlepi.com] 
*****************************************************************
 74 Las Vegas SUN: Los Alamos nuclear program will be moved to Test Site

Today: April 01, 2004 at 10:42:47 PST 

By Mary Manning 
<manning@lasvegassun.com [manning@lasvegassun.com] >

A key Energy Department nuclear weapons program will begin a
move from New Mexico's Los Alamos National Laboratory to the
Nevada Test Site in September, the National Nuclear Security
Administration said Wednesday.

 The move involves relocating sensitive nuclear materials,
including several tons of plutonium, enriched uranium and other
bomb-making devices.

 Los Alamos' Technical Area 18, or TA-18, facility is used for
testing and measuring nuclear materials, as well as training,
the DOE said.

 It will take an estimated 18 months to ship all of the nuclear
materials to the Device Assembly Facility at the Test Site, 65
miles northwest of Las Vegas, officials said.

 Critics have said the New Mexico site is vulnerable to a
terrorist attack. Officials with a government watchdog group,
Project on Government Oversight, have praised the Energy
Department for moving the nuclear facility from New Mexico to
Nevada.

 NNSA Administrator Linton Brooks said, "Getting this material
out of TA-18 and to Nevada will assist the NNSA in more quickly
establishing critical national security missions in Nevada while
consolidating special nuclear materials in a newer, more secure
facility."

 While security has been strengthened at TA-18, more than a ton
of special nuclear material has already been removed because it
is no longer required, Brooks said.

 The Device Assembly Facility, or DAF, was built at the Nevada
Test Site in the late 1980s to support handling of nuclear
materials before underground nuclear experiments. The U.S.
halted underground nuclear explosions in September 1992.

 The DAF is used to support subcritical experiments, underground
explosions that do not sustain a nuclear chain reaction.

 



*****************************************************************
 75 Oak Ridger: BWXT Y-12 volunteers improve climate of Children's Museum
 
Story last updated at 12:31 p.m. on April 1, 2004
							 							 							
from staff reports

On a cool Saturday morning in March, BWXT Y-12 employees from 
Local 718, Pipefitters, Air Conditioning Mechanics and Welders, 
could be found at the Children's Museum of Oak Ridge performing 
maintenance on the six massive units that heat and cool the 
museum.

"This project is just one more example of the caring hearts of 
BWXT Y-12 employees," said A. C. Hollins, manager of the 
Facilities, Infrastructure and Services Division at the Y-12 
National Security Complex. "When the community is in need, BWXT 
Y-12 employees are eager to help, not only with their money but 
also with their time and energy."
                                                                  
Pictured are the volunteers who worked at the Children's Museum 
of Oak Ridge. In the back row are David Castleberry and Steve 
Jones. Selma Shapiro, executive director of the Children's 
Museum, is pictured in the middle row along with John Whalen, Tim 
Milligan, Harold Wilson and Jim Harris. Kneeling are Anthony 
Whalen, Tyler Milligan and Danny Kaczmar.
					   				 			
Tim Milligan, David Castleberry, Harold Wilson, Steve Jones and 
John Whalen - all volunteers from BWXT Y-12 Facilities, 
Infrastructure and Services Division - gave up their Saturday 
morning to help maintain the heating and cooling units at the 
museum. BWXT Y-12 manages Y-12 for the federal government.

Milligan and Whalen brought their sons, Tim and Anthony. Both 
boys stayed busy inside the museum helping out with activities 
for the Girl Scouts when they were not outside working alongside 
their dads.

One volunteer from Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Jim Harris, 
even brought a friend, Danny Kaczmar, who is employed elsewhere.

The museum staff helped out by furnishing the volunteers with hot 
coffee and tasty homemade egg sandwiches. Selma Shapiro, 
executive director of the Children's Museum, stopped by to give 
the workers an encouraging word and to relate her warm 
appreciation. Jonestone Supply in Knoxville provided a discount 
rate on set-back thermostats to be installed by the volunteers 
that will ease the monthly utility burden on the museum.

The volunteers also cleaned, oiled and changed filters in the 
units to increase their efficiency.

This project came about when Hollins visited the museum in 
January to present them with a contribution from BWXT Y-12. He 
was concerned when he saw volunteers and visitors wearing coats 
inside the building to stay warm.

When Hollins returned to Y-12, he mentioned the situation to some 
of his employees who immediately began to make plans to fix the 
problem. Volunteers organized the group and made all the 
arrangements to help out this Oak Ridge educational resource. 

*****************************************************************
 76 Oak Ridger: Out with the old 							 							 							
 
Story last updated at 11:44 a.m. on April 1, 2004

IN WITH THE NEW: Construction is around 50 percent complete on a 
new ORNL visitors' center that will welcome people to the federal 
research facility. 

By: Paul Parson | Oak Ridger Staff [paul.parson@oakridger.com] 

A 50-plus-year-old Oak Ridge National Laboratory visitor center, 
which hasn't been operational since late 2000, will soon vanish 
from the federal facility's footprint.

Steve Laman, the ORNL manager for the project, said Building 5000 
was constructed in 1952 to serve as a visitor processing center 
and main gate to many people. However, as a result of an ongoing 
facelift at ORNL, the building is one of many out-of-date 
structures earmarked for demolition in favor of modernized space.

"It's coming down as we speak," Laman said this morning.

Marie Moffitt/Staff Building 5000, a visitor center constructed 
in 1952, will soon be demolished at Oak Ridge National 
Laboratory. A new visitor center will be part of a building that 
is 50 percent complete. The demolition and construction work are 
both part of a modernization effort at ORNL.                                                                                                 

What that means is that workers have been clearing out 
non-asbestos material and will remove the asbestos within the 
next week or two. During the asbestos removal, the building will 
be secured so that the material poses no threat to ORNL workers 
and visitors.

When asked this morning, Laman said it would be "really 
difficult" to provide a breakdown of the amount of asbestos in 
the building due to the different types and measurements of the 
material.

AMC Demolition Specialists Inc. will do the actual physical 
demolition of the building on a Saturday after all of the 
asbestos is removed and transported to a landfill on the Oak 
Ridge Reservation. Laman said the demolition will involve a 
machine with a "claw" attached to it that will essentially crush 
the former visitor center.

Once the building is down, Laman said the area will be paved and 
will ultimately be used for about 47 parking spaces, according to 
Laman. Building 5000 takes up nearly 5,000 square feet.

ORNL ceased using Building 5000 for a visitor center in October 
2000 and established an interim checkpoint in the neighboring 
Building 5002. A new visitor center will be part of a new ORNL 
facility.

The Research Support Center will not only be used to welcome 
visitors, but it will also house state-of-the-art conference 
facilities as well as a kitchen and dining area. Construction is 
around 50 percent complete, and work on the 
50,000-plus-square-foot facility is scheduled to be finished by 
the end of September.

Building 5002 - the interim visitor center - will be used to 
house employees associated with legal and audit work, officials 
said. 

*****************************************************************
 77 lamonitor.com: DOE releases cleanup monies 

The Online News Source for Los Alamos
 

MONITOR STAFF REPORT

The U.S. Department of Energy has released $43 million for
accelerated cleanup projects at its Los Alamos National
Laboratory facility as a result of the recent state, DOE
agreement. 

The agreement with the New Mexico Environment Department follows 
discussions by DOE and state officials and Sen. Pete Domenici.

The agreement accelerates environmental legacy cleanup at Los 
Alamos by 20 years, a DOE press release stated. 

The agreement covers more than 800 cleanup sites and 43 square 
miles, focusing cleanup on the highest priority areas first. The 
agreement clears the way for release of funds for accelerated 
cleanup.

Headquarters has provided $27 million for accelerated cleanup and 
$16 million currently held by Los Alamos National Laboratory. "We 
have made significant progress with our accelerated cleanup 
programs and we look forward to significant improvements in 
cleanup operations at Los Alamos," said Jessie Roberson, 
assistant secretary for environmental management. "We are pleased 
that a tentative agreement has been reached to continue that 
progress at Los Alamos."

Jon Goldstein, spokesperson for NMED, said today the agreement 
was expected to become publicly available on May 1. "A few more 
typos are being looked at by the technical staffs on both sides," 
he said, and then Attorney General Patricia Madrid will review 
it.

A 60-day public comment period will follow the release of the 
document, including a public meeting around the middle of May.

DOE's Accelerated Cleanup Program, launched in 2002, is an effort 
to streamline cleanup operations by working with states and 
regulators to target and reduce the greatest health and 
environmental cleanup risks at the country's Cold War nuclear 
weapons production facilities, while assuring compliance with all 
applicable legal and regulatory requirements.

Revised plans to accelerate risk reduction, with regulator 
agreement, have now been put in place at 18 sites.   

  © 2003 Los Alamos Monitor All Rights Reserved.   
*****************************************************************
 78 Paducah Sun: Unlikely DOE cleanup at plant -
 
 Joe Walker jwalker@paducahsun.com--270.575.8650
 
Thursday, April 01, 2004
 
The Bush administration tells the local Citizens Advisory Board 
is told the site will have no use besides hazardous waste
 
The Department of Energy seems uninterested in cleaning up its 
users after the factory closes early next decade. 

That's the view of Bill Tanner, chairman of the plant Citizens 
Advisory Board, which sent 12 recommendations Tuesday to DOE 
officials in Washington. The group wants the department to clean 
up the plant sufficiently to protect the public and preserve jobs 
after operator USEC Inc. replaces it with a new gas centrifuge 
plant in Piketon, Ohio, around 2010. 

"I'm afraid the Paducah site will never be usable for anything 
else," Tanner said. "I think it will basically end up being just 
a dedicated hazardous waste site." 

Tanner said his concern stems from working with DOE officials in 
recent months as the board compiled the recommendations. DOE has 
taken a much more conservative approach to the cleanup during the 
Bush administration, he said. 

Tanner cited a recent speech in which Jessie Roberson, DOE 
assistant secretary for environmental management, said cleanup 
would be achieved based on the health risk that contamination 
poses. "I think that's the handwriting on the wall," he said. 

A DOE draft "vision" document assumes that massive groundwater 
contamination beneath the Paducah plant would be left for nature 
to clean up, rather than spend as much as $140 million trying to 
eliminate sources of the pollution. The board wants DOE to clean 
up the sources and eliminate all burial grounds to prevent 
pollution from migrating. 

The recommendations were accompanied by support letters from the 
Paducah Area Community Reuse Organization, a DOE-funded economic 
development group, and from the Active Citizens for Truth, a 
plant neighbor group. Tanner said he hopes to secure similar 
letters from other local organizations this month. Various 
community leaders have said it is critical that the 1,300-worker 
plant be cleaned up enough to have an industrial life after it 
closes. 

Other recommendations: 

Clean up the plant for further industrial use and continued 
recreational use of the wildlife management land around the 
plant. 

Characterize any post-closure contamination with the idea of 
eliminating liability for future industrial users. 

Move "reindustrialization" forward by making parts of the plant 
more accessible, decontaminating buildings, improving 
infrastructure, and talking with PACRO and other groups about the 
value and reuse potential of plant assets. 

 Rather than building a controversial landfill, consider using 
the plant's four huge process buildings (the two largest ones 
cover 26 acres) to store hazardous waste sealed in concrete. The 
buildings have little value for future industrial use. 

Within two years, establish permanent agreements with 121 homes 
and businesses that now receive free municipal water because of 
real or threatened groundwater contamination, or "buy out" owners 
of contaminated property. 

As soon as possible, educate the community on issues such as the 
long-term taxpayer costs of dealing with environmental problems 
after the plant closes. 

Provide plant facilities for companies dealing with cleanup 
technology and for University of Kentucky research to clean up 
and recycle plant waste, such as nickel and depleted uranium. 
Explore plant development of hazardous material and emergency 
response training facilities, and an energy research technology 
park. 

Building a consensus for the recommendations has shown how little 
people really know about plant cleanup, Tanner said. "They think 
DOE is cleaning it up, and when it's done, the plant will be 
clean, which isn't necessarily the case." 

*****************************************************************
 79 Idaho Statesman: Cleanup workers find broken drum at INEEL

[http://www.idahostatesman.com]   
                 
IDAHO FALLS — A project removing buried waste at the Idaho 
National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory was temporarily 
stalled after workers discovered a broken waste drum buried only 
4 feet below the soil´s surface. 

Radioactive and chemically hazardous wastes were buried in the 
Subsurface Disposal Area between 1954 and 1970. Now a Superfund 
site, workers are trying to excavate and clean the 97-acre area 
to prevent waste from getting into the groundwater. 

A Bechtel BWXT Idaho crew had been working on preparing a portion 
of the site called Pit 4 for two days before an excavator 
uncovered the broken drum on March 20, officials said. Digging 
was stopped that day to give officials time to re-evaluate the 
work, Department of Energy Project Manager Jeff Perry said. 

“We want to look at what went wrong and what could happen next,” 
he said. 

It was no surprise that the drum was broken, said Tim Jackson, 
spokesman for the Department of Energy. Many of the waste 
containers buried in the area are either broken or decomposing. 

But the drum was buried about 2 feet higher than expected, he 
said. 

“We were going to leave about 2 feet of soil over the drums until 
we built the containment structure over that section of the pit,” 
Jackson said. “Now we´re re-evaluating exactly how to prepare 
that section of pit before we build the containment structure.” 

The drums contain high concentrations of plutonium as well as 
other radioactive wastes and volatile chemicals used as solvents 
and degreasers. 

The worker who discovered the shallow drum was not exposed to 
anything dangerous, Jackson said. The crew covered the drum up 
with clean soil and suspended work. 

Edition Date: 04-01-2004 
		
[http://www.idahostatesman.com
*****************************************************************
 80 [progchat_action] Fw: U.S. TAKES STEP TOWARD WEAPONS IN SPACE
 
Date: Thu, 1 Apr 2004 11:23:08 -0600 (CST)

 
----- Original Message -----
From: Global Network
To: Global Network
Sent: Wednesday, March 31, 2004 7:28 PM
Subject: U.S. TAKES STEP TOWARD WEAPONS IN SPACE

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/SciTech/US/space_weapons_040330.html

Weapons in space may be the next frontier for the U.S. military
U.S. Military Takes First Step Towards Weapons in Space

By Marc Lallanilla
ABCNEWS.com

Mar. 30- For all of human history, people have looked at the stars
with a sense of wonder. More recently, some U.S. military planners have
looked skyward and seen something very different - the next
battlefield.

While the military's presence in space stretches back decades, now there
appears to be a new emphasis. Officials in the Bush administration and
the Department of Defense are actively pursuing an agenda calling for
the unprecedented weaponization of space.

The first real step in that direction appears to be coming in the form
of a little-noticed weapons program at the U.S. Missile Defense Agency.
The agency has now earmarked $68 million in 2005 for something called
the Near Field Infrared Experiment.

The NFIRE satellite is primarily designed to gather data on exhaust
plumes from rockets launched from earth, and defense officials claim it
is therefore designed as a defensive, rather than offensive weapons.

But the satellite will also contain a smaller "kill vehicle," a
projectile that takes advantage of the kinetic energy of objects
traveling through low-Earth orbit (which move at several times the speed
of a bullet) to disable or destroy an oncoming missile or another
orbiting satellite.

As one senior government official and defense expert described the
program, which has seen cost-related delays and increased congressional
scrutiny: "We're crossing the Rubicon into space weaponization."

Blueprint for Lasers Weapons, Rod Bundles

"A lot of folks in the Air Force are leery of lobbing weapons
into space, so they want to creep up on this issue," added the official,
who asked to remain unnamed. "It's very hard to kill anything in the
Missile Defense Agency budget - it's politically protected."

The missile agency was reborn from the Ballistic Missile Defense
Organization in the wake of the September 11, 2001, terror attacks, with
a mission to develop integrated missile defense systems, including the
use of space-based platforms.

But the agency's program is far from the only effort to bring weapons to
space.

A wide-ranging outline of possible weaponization came from the U.S. Air
Force last November. That Transformation Flight Plan outlines planned
weapons programs including air-launched anti-satellite missiles, laser
strike weapons and metal projectiles called "hypervelocity rod bundles"
to hit ground targets from space.

The USAF weapons programs are, however, still in the conceptual phase
and not yet budgeted for development.

"There are two paths and we're at a crossroads now," warns one critic of
such efforts. Says Laura Grego, space weapons expert at the Washington,
D.C.-based Union of Concerned Scientists, "Space is a beautiful research
laboratory above the atmosphere. Putting that in danger to fulfill a
Star Wars fantasy doesn't make sense."

'A Space Pearl Harbor'

The militarization of space is nothing new. After the former
Soviet Union's launch of Sputnik 1 in 1957, the U.S. military began to
develop and deploy satellites for communications and reconnaissance.

By 1978, the military deployed the first global positioning system
satellite, a technology now widely used for both military and commercial
purposes. GPS - which has provided for the military what Lt. Col.
Peter Hays, USAF, and executive editor of Joint Force Quarterly,
describes as a "radical improvement and a kind of quantum leap in the
use of space" - is but one example of how satellites are part of the
daily lives of Americans, going far beyond satellite TV and weather
forecasts.

With that ubiquity in mind, the current administration has been building
its emphasis on space-based weapons since even before President Bush
took office.

Shortly before his appointment as secretary of defense, for instance,
Donald Rumsfeld chaired a blue-ribbon commission investigating the role
of space in national security. It concluded in January 2001 the
likelihood of an attack on U.S. space systems needed to be taken
seriously to prevent another "space Pearl Harbor."

Land, sea and air have seen conflict, the report noted, asserting space
will be no different.
"Given this virtual certainty, the U.S. must develop the means to both
deter and to defend against hostile acts in and from space."

The report remains consistent with the Defense Department's current
position on weapons in space, a Defense spokesperson confirmed.

Space as 'Public Good'?

But the idea of weapons in space is greeted coldly by some.

"Weapons in space are not inevitable. If it were, it would have happened
already," argued the senior defense expert, adding, "We should instead
be taking the lead to make [weapons] agreements with other countries."

Indeed, other nations have moved for the non-militarization of space. As
early as 1967, for example, the United Nations brokered the Outer Space
Treaty, which prohibits the use of weapons of mass destruction in space.
The United States is a signatory to the treaty.

Summarizing the differences between the United States and European views
on space was Jean-Jacques Dordain, head of the European Space Agency,
who said in a recent interview: "For the U.S., space is an instrument of
domination - information domination and leadership. Europe should be
proposing a different model - space as a public good."

Criticism of the U.S. plans to weaponize space is not limited to
Europeans. The Washington, D.C.-based Center for Defense Information, a
non-governmental organization founded by retired senior U.S. military
offices, said in a 2002 report, "Space is already 'militarized' by both
military and commercial satellites. The only practical place to draw the
line today is space weaponization."

Concluded the report: "The United States has and will continue to have
more interests in space assets both civil and military than most
countries, and it will retain a net benefit if no one [including the
United States itself] has weapons in space."

Global Network Against Weapons & Nuclear Power in Space
PO Box 652
Brunswick, ME 04011
(207) 729-0517
(207) 319-2017 (Cell phone)
http://www.space4peace.org
globalnet@mindspring.com
*****************************************************************
 81 Google News Alert - nuclear
 
Date: Thu, 01 Apr 2004 13:11:23 -0800 (PST)

 
WILL America Go Nuclear?
Motley Fool - USA
... Over the course of the next seven years, the consortium will spend
a projected total of nearly $50 million to design a next-generation nuclear
power plant and ...
<http://www.fool.com/News/mft/2004/mft04040109.htm>
See all stories on this topic:
<http://news.google.com/news?ie=utf8&oe=utf8&persist=1&num=30&hl=en&client=google&newsclusterurl=http://www.fool.com/News/mft/2004/mft04040109.htm>

RUSSIAN Nuclear Agency presented its annual report for 2003
Bellona - UK
Former Minatom’s chief Alexander Rumyantsev reported about last year
achievements in the Russian nuclear industry. He informed ...
<http://www.bellona.no/en/international/russia/npps/33198.html>
See all stories on this topic:
<http://news.google.com/news?ie=utf8&oe=utf8&persist=1&num=30&hl=en&client=google&newsclusterurl=http://www.bellona.no/en/international/russia/npps/33198.html>

WEAPONS-GRADE nuclear material to go from New Mexico to Nevada
KRNV - Reno,NV,USA
The federal government plans to begin shipping weapons-grade nuclear materials
from New Mexico to the Nevada Test Site in September. ...
<http://www.krnv.com/Global/story.asp?S=1755171&nav=8faOLyYn>
See all stories on this topic:
<http://news.google.com/news?ie=utf8&oe=utf8&persist=1&num=30&hl=en&client=google&newsclusterurl=http://www.krnv.com/Global/story.asp%3FS%3D1755171%26nav%3D8faOLyYn>

THREE Mile Island: 25th Anniversary of The Worst Nuclear Accident ... 
Democracy Now - USA
Twenty-five years ago this week, the Three Mile Island nuclear reactor
at Harrisburg, Pennsylvania malfunctioned, sparking a meltdown that resulted
in the ...
<http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=04/04/01/1621228>
See all stories on this topic:
<http://news.google.com/news?ie=utf8&oe=utf8&persist=1&num=30&hl=en&client=google&newsclusterurl=http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl%3Fsid%3D04/04/01/1621228>

EUROPEANS decry Iran's nuclear plans
International Herald Tribune - Paris,France
... But after that agreement and a round of international inspections,
Iran admitted that it had concealed aspects of its nuclear development
program for some 18 ...
<http://www.iht.com/articles/512949.htm>
See all stories on this topic:
<http://news.google.com/news?ie=utf8&oe=utf8&persist=1&num=30&hl=en&client=google&newsclusterurl=http://www.iht.com/articles/512949.htm>

COOLANT leak closes nuclear plant
Charleston Post Courier (subscription) - Charleston,SC,USA
The Jenkinsville nuclear power plant, co-owned by Santee Cooper and Scana
Corp., has been shut down after monitors discovered a radioactive coolant
leak. ...
<http://www.charleston.net/stories/040104/sta_01nuclear.shtml>
See all stories on this topic:
<http://news.google.com/news?ie=utf8&oe=utf8&persist=1&num=30&hl=en&client=google&newsclusterurl=http://www.charleston.net/stories/040104/sta_01nuclear.shtml>

S.KOREA to restart nuclear reactors soon-official
Forbes - USA
SEOUL, April 1 (Reuters) - South Korea plans to soon restart two nuclear
power reactors, one of which was shut due to a radioactive leak, after
third-party ...
<http://www.forbes.com/markets/newswire/2004/04/01/rtr1319951.html>
See all stories on this topic:
<http://news.google.com/news?ie=utf8&oe=utf8&persist=1&num=30&hl=en&client=google&newsclusterurl=http://www.forbes.com/markets/newswire/2004/04/01/rtr1319951.html>

NORDION Nuclear Issues
580 CFRA Radio - Ottawa,Ontario,Canada
The US is trying to gradually get international customers to switch from
highly-enriched uranium (which can be used to produce nuclear weapons)
to the low ...
<http://www.cfra.com/headlines/index.asp?cat=3&nid=12767>
See all stories on this topic:
<http://news.google.com/news?ie=utf8&oe=utf8&persist=1&num=30&hl=en&client=google&newsclusterurl=http://www.cfra.com/headlines/index.asp%3Fcat%3D3%26nid%3D12767>

DEATH toll from nuclear strike on UK put at 12m
The Scotsman - Edinburgh,Scotland,UK
OFFICIALS feared 12 million people would be killed instantly and four million
seriously injured in a nuclear attack on Britain in the 1950s and 60s,
according ...
<http://news.scotsman.com/uk.cfm?id=371432004>
See all stories on this topic:
<http://news.google.com/news?ie=utf8&oe=utf8&persist=1&num=30&hl=en&client=google&newsclusterurl=http://news.scotsman.com/uk.cfm%3Fid%3D371432004>

NUCLEAR plant hearings begin
Manitowoc Herald Times Reporter - Manitowoc,WI,USA
By Neil Rhines. TOWN OF TWO CREEKS — The process to renew the license
on the reactors at the Point Beach Nuclear Power Plant is under way. ...
<http://www.wisinfo.com/heraldtimes/news/archive/local_15505405.shtml>
See all stories on this topic:
<http://news.google.com/news?ie=utf8&oe=utf8&persist=1&num=30&hl=en&client=google&newsclusterurl=http://www.wisinfo.com/heraldtimes/news/archive/local_15505405.shtml>

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/
*****************************************************************
 82 Japan Times: Kitty Hawk successor to be nuclear-powered

  Friday, April 2, 2004   

 WASHINGTON (Kyodo) The commander of the U.S. Pacific Command in 
Hawaii indicated Wednesday that the conventionally powered USS 
Kitty Hawk will be replaced by an advanced nuclear-powered 
aircraft carrier around 2008.

 The 80,800-ton Kitty Hawk, the navy's oldest active aircraft 
carrier, is deployed to the Yokosuka Naval Base in Kanagawa 
Prefecture. The possible deployment of a nuclear-powered carrier 
in Yokosuka is expected to draw strong objections from local 
residents and antinuclear groups.

 "We would hope to replace her with one of our most capable 
aircraft carriers," Adm. Thomas Fargo told the House of 
Representatives Armed Services Committee. "This is . . . a 
subject that we'll talk to the Japanese about and collaborate 
with them and work through as we do with all issues with a very 
strong alliance partner."

 Fargo said he hopes Japan will understand the importance of the 
deployment of such a vessel for regional stability.

 "Of course, Japan has been a great host to the 7th Fleet over 
many, many years, and their support has been absolutely critical 
to our security in East Asia and the Western Pacific," he said.

 The Kitty Hawk, commissioned in 1961, has been based in Yokosuka 
as the successor to the USS Independence since July 1998.

 It was dispatched to the Indian Ocean in 2001 to join the U.S. 
military campaign in Afghanistan and to the Persian Gulf in 2003 
to participate in the U.S.-led war on Iraq.

 There have been virtually no conventionally powered U.S. 
aircraft carriers that can replace the Kitty Hawk.

 Among such aircraft carriers, the Constellation was 
decommissioned in 2003. The remaining one, the USS John F. 
Kennedy, has already been in the reserves.

 Separately, in a written statement submitted to the House 
committee, Fargo urged Japan to promptly implement a 1996 
bilateral accord on the relocation of the U.S. Marine Corps 
Futenma Air Station in Okinawa.

 "We continue to emphasize to the government of Japan that a 
complete replacement facility as identified in the SACO final 
report -- not just the offshore portion -- is required before 
Futenma can be fully returned," he said.

 A report adopted in 1996 by the Japan-U.S. Special Action 
Committee on Okinawa calls for returning the Futenma base site in 
Ginowan, central Okinawa, within five to seven years, after 
"adequate replacement facilities are completed and operational" 
in Okinawa.

 Japan decided in 2002 to build a military-civilian airport on 
reclaimed land off the northern Okinawa city of Nago to relocate 
the Futenma base's helicopter operations.

 But eight years after the accord, construction has yet to begin.

 The Okinawa government has demanded a 15-year use limit as a 
condition for its acceptance of the relocation plan by the 
Japanese government. The U.S. has rejected the demand.

 Locals said concerned Staff report

 Citizens of Yokosuka, Kanagawa Prefecture, voiced concern and 
opposition Thursday after hearing media reports that the United 
States may deploy a nuclear-powered aircraft carrier at the naval 
base in the city around 2008.

 Adm. Thomas Fargo, commander of the U.S. Pacific Command, 
reportedly told a congressional committee in Washington on 
Wednesday that the U.S. Navy hopes to replace the USS Kitty Hawk, 
which is currently deployed to Yokosuka and is the last 
conventionally powered active U.S. carrier, with a more modern 
vessel.

 "That would be extremely dangerous, since an accident 
(concerning such a vessel) in this heavily populated region, not 
far from Tokyo, could affect millions of people," reckoned 
Masahiko Goto, leader of a local antinuclear group.

 The group, established in 1998, has already submitted two 
petitions, with a total of 100,000 signatures, to Yokosuka Mayor 
Hideo Sawada.

 Antinuclear sentiment runs high in Japan, and past visits by 
U.S. nuclear-powered vessels triggered large-scale protests in 
the naval ports of Yokosuka and Sasebo, Nagasaki Prefecture.

 Goto said Sawada holds the key to the issue because under 
Japanese law, mayors have jurisdiction over ports.

 Sawada said in a statement Thursday that he expects the central 
government to contact the city in advance if the U.S. proposed to 
replace the Kitty Hawk, adding that he has confirmed through the 
Foreign Ministry that the U.S. has made no decision as yet.

 In a separate news conference, Chief Cabinet Secretary Yasuo 
Fukuda said the government has never discussed the matter with 
the U.S.

 The Japan Times: April 2, 2004 (C) All rights reserved 
*****************************************************************
 83 Physics Today: DOE Warms to Cold Fusion

April 2004: 

[http://www.aip.org/

[http://physicstoday.org

Whether outraged or supportive about DOE's planned reevaluation 
of cold fusion, most scientists remain deeply skeptical that it's 
real. 

  Hot air?   

The cold fusion claims made in 1989 by B. Stanley Pons and Martin 
Fleischmann didn't hold up. But they did spawn a small and 
devoted coterie of researchers who continue to investigate the 
alleged effect. Cold fusion die-hards say their data from the 
intervening 15 years merit a reevaluation-- and a place at the 
table with mainstream science. Now they have the ear of the US 
Department of Energy. 

"I have committed to doing a review" of cold fusion, says James 
Decker, deputy director of DOE's Office of Science. Late last 
year, he says, "some scientists came and talked to me and asked 
if we would do some kind of review on the research that has been 
done" since DOE's energy research advisory board (ERAB) looked at 
cold fusion nearly 15 years ago. "There may be some interesting 
science here," Decker says. "Whether or not it has applications 
to the energy business is clearly unknown at this point, but you 
need to sort out the science before you think about 
applications." 

DOE is still working out the details, Decker says, but a review 
of cold fusion will begin in the next month or so and "won't take 
a long time--it's a matter of weeks or months." 

Turning up the heat 

Last summer, after the 10th International Conference on Cold 
Fusion in Cambridge, Massachusetts, participants came away 
energized, says the conference's organizer, MIT theorist Peter 
Hagelstein. About 150 people attended the conference; the number 
of people working on cold fusion or, as some of them prefer to 
call it, low- energy nuclear reactions, is perhaps several 
hundred worldwide, most of them outside the US. Says Hagelstein, 
"Everyone was convinced things would start changing. The question 
on the table is, Can we establish to the satisfaction of the 
scientific community that there is science here?" 

"The field has made a huge amount of progress," Hagelstein says. 
"In 1989, it was not clear if there was an excess heat effect or 
not. Over the years, it's become clear there is one. It wasn't 
clear if there was a low-level emission of nuclear products. Over 
the years it's become clear that, yes, there is. In addition, 
other new effects have surfaced." 

"It's either my good luck or my bad luck, but I discovered there 
was something worthy of pursuit," says Michael McKubre, an 
electrochemist at SRI International, a nonprofit research 
institute in Menlo Park, California. McKubre's experiments are 
along the lines of Pons and Fleischmann's. A typical setup 
consists of a palladium cathode at the center of a helical 
platinum anode in a solution of heavy water with lithium salt. An 
applied current dissociates the deuterium, and deuterons load 
into the palladium. Experiments take a couple of weeks and 
"leaving them to sit is where most of the tricks are," says 
McKubre. Among the tricks, he says, are loading the palladium 
with sufficient concentrations of deuterons and increasing the 
signal-to-noise ratio in heat and helium measurements. "The 
numbers are what you expect for two deuterons fusing to produce 
helium-4, with about 24 MeV per helium nucleus. There is a 
nuclear effect that produces useful levels of heat. I know it's 
true." 

"With knowledge comes responsibility," continues McKubre. "We 
know that this has economic implications and, potentially, 
security implications. The main application that cold fusion 
enthusiasts foresee following from their work is a clean source 
of energy; transmutation of nuclear waste and tritium production 
to augment weapons are also on their list. But, says McKubre, to 
solve "the various problems in scaling up the effect to make it 
more easily studied and potentially useful, we have to involve 
the scientific community." 

As it is, the scientific community generally shuns cold fusion. 
"There is pretty much no possibility for funding in the area at 
this time, and no possibility of getting published," says 
Hagelstein. "Because the area is tainted, colleagues don't want 
to be seen talking about it." Adds Randall Hekman, a former judge 
and founder of Hekman Industries, an energy exploration company 
in Grand Rapids, Michigan, "There seems to be a scientific 
McCarthyism that puts a chilling effect on anyone who gets into 
this field. I feel for the scientists who do this work and who 
are being ostracized. That's got to change." 

Change is exactly what cold fusion researchers hope will follow 
from the DOE review: They want vindication, funding, and, with 
those, better chances of developing applications of cold fusion. 
Says Hagelstein, "If the review is done properly, it should come 
back with a thumbs up." 

A long shot 

Among scientists, skepticism about the credibility and 
reproducibility of cold fusion remains widespread. "Nobody is 
smart enough to say it is absolutely impossible, but 
extraordinary claims demand a very high standard of proof," says 
Steven Koonin, who recently took a leave from Caltech to become 
chief scientist at the London-based energy company BP and who 
served on the original ERAB panel. The best route to 
respectability, he says, would be for cold fusion researchers to 
publish in respected refereed journals. "I think a review is a 
waste of time," says Princeton University physicist Will Happer, 
another member of the earlier ERAB panel and former head of DOE's 
Office of Energy Research (now the Office of Science). "But if 
you put together a credible committee, you can try to put the 
issue to bed for some time. It will come back. The believers 
never stop believing." 

And the skeptics are raising their eyebrows at DOE because of the 
appearance of political favors in setting up the meeting between 
Decker and cold fusion researchers. According to Hekman, "I am 
from Michigan. [Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham] is from 
Michigan. I know him. That opened the door." But, he adds, "we 
had to jump through hoops. We had to make a prima facie case 
first before any meeting would be set." Another Michigan 
connection is representative Vernon Ehlers (R-MI), a physicist by 
training, who says that he is "personally very skeptical" about 
cold fusion, but "it's likely time for a new review because there 
is enough work going on and some of the scientists in the arena 
are from respected institutions." Ehlers says that although he 
made an inquiry to DOE about a cold fusion review, "there was no 
political pressure." 

Some scientists, too, are sympathetic to the cold fusion cause. 
"There are quite a few people who are putting their time into 
this. They are working under conditions that are bad for their 
careers. They think they are doing something that may result in 
some important new finding," says MIT's Mildred Dresselhaus, an 
ERAB panel veteran and former head of DOE's Office of Science. "I 
think scientists should be open minded. Historically, many things 
get overturned with time." Noting that DOE's science budget has 
not increased in years, she adds, "When you feel poor, you don't 
invest in long shots. This is kind of a long shot." 

"The critical question is, How good and different are [the cold 
fusion researchers'] new results?" says Allen Bard, a chemist at 
the University of Texas at Austin. "If they are saying, 'We are 
now able to reproduce our results,' that's not good enough. But 
if they are saying, 'We are getting 10 times as much heat out 
now, and we understand things,' that would be interesting. I 
don't see anything wrong with giving these people a new hearing." 
In ERAB's cold fusion review in 1989, he adds, "there were 
phenomena described to us where you could not offer alternative, 
more reasonable explanations. You could not explain it away like 
UFOs." 

Toni Feder 

Physics Today

    
*****************************************************************

NOTE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107 this 
material is distributed without profit or payment to those who 
have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for 
non-profit research and educational purposes only. For more 
information go to: 
<http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml> 
    
*****************************************************************