*****************************************************************
05/03/04 **** RADIATION BULLETIN(RADBULL) **** VOL 12.106
*****************************************************************
RADBULL IS PRODUCED BY THE ABALONE ALLIANCE CLEARINGHOUSE
*****************************************************************
Send News Stories to news@energy-net.org with title on subject
line and first line of body
NUCLEAR POLICY
1 US: IHT: Loose nuclear arms are the biggest threat
2 US: AxisofLogic: Loose nuclear arms are the biggest threat
3 US: The Nation: No Record, No Accountability
4 US: AlterNet: Inside the Lies
5 AU The AGe: NZ opposition to review nuke policy -
6 UK Independent: Closer ties depend on nuclear issue, EU tells Iran
NUCLEAR REACTORS
7 US: [CMEP] Coalition Files Legal Arguments in Fight Against Three
8 US: projo.com: Welch: Yankee won't get `four little words' this year
9 BBC: Bulgaria to build nuclear plant
10 US: Brattleboro Reformer: VY Uprate
11 FT: Tepco to restart nuclear plants
12 BNN: Bulgaria push to open a 2nd reactor
13 US: TheChamplainChannel.com: Vermont Yankee Waste Control Decision P
14 US: Brattleboro Reformer: VY Uprate
15 US: NRC: Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collecti
16 US: Brattleboro Reformer: A chronology of events (VY)
17 Sofia Morning News: Bulgaria Unfreezes N-plant Project
18 Sofia Morning News: Closures Down Bulgaria's N-plant Profits
NUCLEAR SAFETY
19 [du-list] unmitigated disaster
20 [DU Information List] Gulf War syndrome veteran starts hunger
21 US: [du-list] Military officials dismiss depleted uranium fears
22 Rocky Mountain News: 'Dirty bomb' cleanup
23 US: NRC: ASLBP No.
24 US: DHHS: Advisory board on radiaiton and worker health meeting 5/17
NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE
25 Las Vegas RJ: GOP adopts plan to seek Yucca benefits
26 Las Vegas SUN: Yucca may be creating rift in GOP ranks
27 US: Las Vegas SUN: New look given to nuke shipment
28 US: Las Vegas SUN: Senate may begin talks to classify nuke waste
29 US: U.S. Newswire: Scientists to Show Nuclear Waste Storage Casks
30 NRC: NRC to Host Open House on May 10 in Nevada
NUCLEAR WEAPONS
US DEPT. OF ENERGY
31 Seattle Post-Intelligencer: Cleanup deadlines await approval
32 IEER: Comments on Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory Draft EIS
33 Oak Ridger: Study looks at historic preservation effort
34 Oak Ridger: Personal tour of K-25 'amazing'
35 DOE: Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board, Hanford
36 DOE: Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board, Savannah
37 Albuquerque Tribune: Los Alamos Lab chief boasts of changes
38 Oak Ridger: S Auerbach Science division founder dies
OTHER NUCLEAR
39 Categorynet: Nuclear Terrorism Exercise/News Conference
*****************************************************************
*****************************************************************
FULL NEWS STORIES
*****************************************************************
*****************************************************************
1 IHT: Loose nuclear arms are the biggest threat
Amitai Etzioni IHT
Monday, May 3, 2004
The war on terror
WASHINGTON The confluence of the terrorist attack on Madrid's
trains and the American presidential election is pushing the Bush
administration further down the wrong road. It is focusing on
garden-variety terrorists, especially Al Qaeda, while neglecting
the black market in nuclear weapons and loose nuclear bombs that
terrorists may commandeer. As horrible as the Sept. 11 and March
11 attacks were, the deaths that would result from the use of
nuclear weapons by a terrorist group or rogue state would be
much, much worse.
The first priority ought to be given to curbing the trade in such
weapons, removing them from the arsenals of rogue states, and
guarding them much more closely elsewhere.
But that is not what the United States and its allies are doing.
Nor are opponents to the Bush administration pushing it to do so.
The Democrats have accused President George W. Bush of pursuing
weapons of mass destruction at the expense of the hunt for
terrorists.
The attacks on Madrid were also a reminder that two and half
years after the Sept. 11 attacks, we are still far from
extinguishing Al Qaeda.
Nowhere is this misguided focus on terrorism more apparent than
in Pakistan. The United States has expended a lot of energy
pushing President Pervez Musharraf of Pakistan to hunt down
terrorists in the treacherous tribal areas in the north.
Yet, at the same time, Washington has been relatively silent
about the admission by Pakistan's former chief nuclear scientist,
Abdul Qadeer Khan, that he sold nuclear designs and material to
Libya and North Korea.
The United States pretends to have been convinced by the
political theater of the absurd - whereby Khan agreed to take a
symbolic spanking and then be immediately pardoned by the
Musharraf government - as if the extensive and prolonged program
of selling nuclear designs, material, and expertise were a
one-person rogue operation that should no longer cause any
concern.
Indeed, in the days that followed, the United States granted
Pakistan a new elevated status, as a "major non-NATO ally," a
standing enjoyed by only 12 other nations.
One yearns for the days when key elements of foreign policy had
bipartisan backing and were not considered material for election
dogfights.
If we Americans could retrieve even a bit of that spirit, we
would agree on the opposite strategy to the one that is being
followed: The United States should inform the Pakistani
government that we will, for the time being, continue to ignore
its lackluster attempts to help us find the remnants of the
Taliban and Qaeda forces, its undemocratic nature (Musharraf came
to power during a coup in 1999), and its abuse of human rights.
But Pakistan must immediately desist in feeding the global black
market nuclear material, and accept that its experts work under
close supervision, and above all, that its nuclear weapons be
much more carefully guarded.
Focusing on nuclear weapons is more important in our dealings
with Pakistan than with North Korea and Iran.
Compared to Pakistan, Iran and North Korea have relatively
stable, if beleaguered, governments.
Terrorists are unlikely to walk away with nuclear bombs from
these nations, unless the regimes so desire - and they know the
bitter consequences of such a horrendous act.
In Pakistan, terrorists may get their hands on the bombs without
the full collaboration of the central government, or after
toppling it.
Our first priority ought to be to demand that our forces will be
used to protect these weapons much more effectively; to warn that
a high price will be exacted if they are sold to third parties.
In the longer run, the international community needs to work to
resolve the Indian-Pakistani conflict and to guarantee the border
between these nations so that Pakistan - which has much weaker
conventional forces than India - will feel less of a need for a
nuclear deterant.
Meanwhile, we Americans better have Special Forces standing by to
take possession of Pakistan's nuclear weapons on short notice if
the Musharraf government is toppled, rather than have them end up
in caves in the hands of Osama bin Laden and his associates.
The terrorists are simply the carriers; we should mind most what
they may carry.
Amitai Etzioni, a professor of sociology at George Washington
University, is the author of "From Empire to Community: A New
Approach to International Relations."
Copyright © 2004 the International Herald Tribune All
*****************************************************************
2 AxisofLogic: Loose nuclear arms are the biggest threat
www.axisoflogic.com
By Amitai Etzioni
May 3, 2004, 11:12
The confluence of the terrorist attack on Madrid's trains and
the American presidential election is pushing the Bush
administration further down the wrong road. It is focusing on
garden-variety terrorists, especially Al Qaeda, while neglecting
the black market in nuclear weapons and loose nuclear bombs that
terrorists may commandeer. As horrible as the Sept. 11 and March
11 attacks were, the deaths that would result from the use of
nuclear weapons by a terrorist group or rogue state would be
much, much worse.
The first priority ought to be given to curbing the trade in
such weapons, removing them from the arsenals of rogue states,
and guarding them much more closely elsewhere.
.
But that is not what the United States and its allies are doing.
Nor are opponents to the Bush administration pushing it to do
so. The Democrats have accused President George W. Bush of
pursuing weapons of mass destruction at the expense of the hunt
for terrorists.
The attacks on Madrid were also a reminder that two and half
years after the Sept. 11 attacks, we are still far from
extinguishing Al Qaeda.
Nowhere is this misguided focus on terrorism more apparent than
in Pakistan. The United States has expended a lot of energy
pushing President Pervez Musharraf of Pakistan to hunt down
terrorists in the treacherous tribal areas in the north.
Yet, at the same time, Washington has been relatively silent
about the admission by Pakistan's former chief nuclear
scientist, Abdul Qadeer Khan, that he sold nuclear designs and
material to Libya and North Korea.
The United States pretends to have been convinced by the
political theater of the absurd - whereby Khan agreed to take a
symbolic spanking and then be immediately pardoned by the
Musharraf government - as if the extensive and prolonged program
of selling nuclear designs, material, and expertise were a
one-person rogue operation that should no longer cause any
concern.
Indeed, in the days that followed, the United States granted
Pakistan a new elevated status, as a "major non-NATO ally," a
standing enjoyed by only 12 other nations.
One yearns for the days when key elements of foreign policy had
bipartisan backing and were not considered material for election
dogfights.
If we Americans could retrieve even a bit of that spirit, we
would agree on the opposite strategy to the one that is being
followed: The United States should inform the Pakistani
government that we will, for the time being, continue to ignore
its lackluster attempts to help us find the remnants of the
Taliban and Qaeda forces, its undemocratic nature (Musharraf
came to power during a coup in 1999), and its abuse of human
rights.
But Pakistan must immediately desist in feeding the global black
market nuclear material, and accept that its experts work under
close supervision, and above all, that its nuclear weapons be
much more carefully guarded.
Focusing on nuclear weapons is more important in our dealings
with Pakistan than with North Korea and Iran.
.
Compared to Pakistan, Iran and North Korea have relatively
stable, if beleaguered, governments.
Terrorists are unlikely to walk away with nuclear bombs from
these nations, unless the regimes so desire - and they know the
bitter consequences of such a horrendous act.
In Pakistan, terrorists may get their hands on the bombs without
the full collaboration of the central government, or after
toppling it.
Our first priority ought to be to demand that our forces will be
used to protect these weapons much more effectively; to warn
that a high price will be exacted if they are sold to third
parties.
In the longer run, the international community needs to work to
resolve the Indian-Pakistani conflict and to guarantee the
border between these nations so that Pakistan - which has much
weaker conventional forces than India - will feel less of a need
for a nuclear deterant.
Meanwhile, we Americans better have Special Forces standing by
to take possession of Pakistan's nuclear weapons on short notice
if the Musharraf government is toppled, rather than have them
end up in caves in the hands of Osama bin Laden and his
associates.
The terrorists are simply the carriers; we should mind most what
they may carry.
Amitai Etzioni, a professor of sociology at George Washington
University, is the author of "From Empire to Community: A New
Approach to International Relations."
*****************************************************************
3 The Nation: No Record, No Accountability
thenation.com
04/29/2004 @ 08:23am
In another illustration of the current administration's
commitment to keeping the American people in the loop, the White
House demanded that there be no recording or formal transcription
of today's joint interview of President George W. Bush and Vice
President Dick Cheney by the 9/11 commission.
The members of the independent commission investigating the
September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center
and the Pentagon have accepted this ridiculous pretense because
they know it is the only way to get the president and the vice
president to aid efforts to understand and combat the threat of
terrorism.
The lack of a recording or an official transcript will, legal
scholars suggest, afford Bush and Cheney an opportunity to deny
statements, question interpretations and challenge conclusions.
"It gives them more maneuverability in case someone slips up or
says something he regrets," explains New York University law
Professor Stephen Gillers.
In other words, in the unlikely event that Bush or Cheney might
let a snippet of truth slip out, the elaborate White House spin
machine will be able to take advantage of the deliberately vague
record to "clarify" the statement.
The absence of a taped record also allows the administration to
avoid the embarrassment of having to explain why, when the
commander-in-chief is asked questions, the vice president
answers.
The reason for the tandem testimony by Bush and Cheney is, of
course, all too obvious. Were the pair to testify apart from one
another, their stories might well be different, as there is some
doubt about the extent to which Bush was kept in the loop.
Despite the fact that the tandem testimony is necessary in order
for Bush and Cheney to keep their stories straight, it is still
awfully embarrassing. Does anyone really believe that the rest of
the world has failed to notice that, when the leader of the most
powerful country on the planet is asked to address paramount
issues of national security, he must be accompanied by a minder?
The absurdity of the president and vice president demanding that
there be no official record of their meeting with the commission
would be the subject of a congressional outcry and a constant
media battering of the administration if Bush and Cheney were
members of another political party. Just imagine if Bill Clinton
had asked that there be no official record of obviously troubling
and politically damaging statements he made during the interviews
and inquisitions of the Republican-sponsored "sexgate"
investigations of the late 1990s. The screams of outrage would
still be echoing today.
Of course, the issues being explored by the 9/11 commission are
far more serious matters than those involved in the Clinton
investigations, which argues even more strongly for a permanent
and precise record of what is said.
But Bush and Cheney will get their pass from the commission, the
Congress and a cheerleading media. The willingness of major media
to go along with the charade is particularly galling, but not
surprising in an era when the White House press corps tends to
ask probing questions along the lines of "how high?" in response
to presidential press secretary Scott McClellan's regular
requests that they jump to the right.
As has so often been the case during this dark passage in the
American journey, citizens seeking after an accurate report on
the affairs of state will need to turn to "America's finest news
source": The Onion.
The Onion's front page this week features a photo of Bush
speaking as Cheney sips from a glass. The headline: "Cheney wows
Sept. 11 commission by drinking glass of water while Bush
speaks."
OLDER Holtzman to Bush: Testify! Back to top
Every day in every city and town across America, progressives
get up in the morning and go about the work of fighting racism
and homophobia, defending the environment, organizing trade
unions and tackling corporate hegemony. Sometimes they win--on
the picket line, at the ballot box, in the streets and outside
the WTO meetings in Seattle.
The purpose of The Online Beat is to report regularly and with
immediacy on the political, social, economic and cultural
activism that too often goes unremarked in so much of the
mainstream media. The ultimate goal? To reveal the hidden
reality that there is a left in America, and that it's active,
growing and winning more consistently than the pundits or the
politicians want you to know.
Copyright © 2004 The Nation
*****************************************************************
4 AlterNet: Inside the Lies
[http://www.moveon.org/]
By David Corn, [http://www.thenation.com]
May 3, 2004
On the morning of July 14, 2003, I was reading Bob Novak's column
in The Washington Post. He was doing his best to defend the Bush
administration from the red-hot charge that George W. Bush had
misled the country during the State of the Union address when he
declared that "Saddam Hussein recently sought significant
quantities of uranium from Africa."
Months after the speech, this sentence triggered a near-scandal,
for it turned out there had been no strong factual basis for the
allegation, which was meant to suggest Hussein was close to
acquiring nuclear weapons. The White House asserted it had had no
reason to be wary about using this piece of information. Then, on
July 6, 2003, former ambassador Joseph Wilson wrote a piece in
The New York Times and publicly revealed that in February 2002 he
had been sent to Niger by the CIA to examine the allegation and
had reported back there was no evidence to support this claim.
Prior to his Times article, Wilson, the last acting U.S.
ambassador in Iraq, had been one of the more prominent opponents
of the Iraq war. Yet, he had not used the information he
possessed about Bush's misuse of the Niger allegation to score
points while debating the war. His much-noticed Times op-ed was a
blow for the White House, and Republicans and conservatives
struck back. One front in that counterattack was the Novak
column.
"His wife, Valerie Plame," Novak wrote, "is an Agency operative
on weapons of mass destruction. Two senior administration
officials told me Wilson's wife suggested sending him to Niger to
investigate" the Niger charge. With this passage, Novak blew the
cover of Wilson's wife, who had worked clandestinely for the CIA
for years. I immediately called Wilson, whom I had gotten to know
over the past months and whom I had recruited to write for The
Nation. Somewhat jokingly, I said, "You never told me Valerie was
CIA." He responded, "I still can't." As we discussed the Novak
column, it became clear to me that this leak apparently part of
an effort to discredit and/or punish Wilson for opposing the
White House had ruined his wife's career as a clandestine
officer, undermined her work in the important field of
counter-proliferation, and perhaps even endangered her and her
contacts.
And it might have been against the law. I told Wilson about the
1982 Intelligence Identities Protection Act, which made it a
serious federal crime for a government official to reveal the
identity of a covert officer. He and his wife were unaware of the
law. The following day, I checked further and concluded that it
was possible that White House officials or "administration
sources," as Novak put it had indeed broken the law.
On July 16, 2003, I wrote a piece noting that the Wilsons had
been [http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20030804&s=corn] by
the Bush administration and that this leak might have harmed
national security and violated the 1982 law. It was the first
article to report that the leak was a possible White House crime.
Few reporters in Washington paid attention to the story, but the
posted piece received a tremendous flood of traffic. Not until
two months later, when the news broke that the CIA had asked the
Justice Department to conduct an investigation, did the Wilson
leak story go big-time.
[book] Since then, Attorney General John Ashcroft has recused
himself from the matter, and Patrick Fitzgerald, the U.S.
attorney in Chicago, has been investigating. Reporters and
observers have spent months guessing and theorizing about the
identities of the leakers and wondering whether the leak
investigation is progressing. In his new book,
[http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/078671378X/qid=108
334339 3/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/002-4348346-9974445?v=glance&s=books]
, Wilson writes that he was told by a source that in March 2002
(months before he went public on his Niger trip but while he was
a vocal critic of the march to war) the Office of the Vice
President held a meeting in which a decision was made to do a
"workup" on Wilson that is, to dig up dirt on him. As for the
leakers, Wilson writes that after talking to reporters and others
he believes it was "quite possibly" Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Dick
Cheney's chief of staff, who exposed his wife's identity. He also
writes, "The other name that has most often been repeated to me
in connection with the inquiry and disclosure into my background
and Valerie's is that of Elliott Abrams, [a National Security
Council aide] who gained infamy in the Iran-Contra scandal during
the first Bush administration." Moreover, Wilson maintains that
Bush strategist Karl Rove was instrumental in disseminating
information about him and his wife.
Wilson doesn't have proof. He is essentially sharing hunches and
leads. (An April 30, 2004, New York Daily News story, citing an
"inside source," reports that Fitzgerald's probe has been focused
on Libby and Rove.) But Wilson's book is far more than an account
of the leak affair and Nigergate. He writes breezily about his
years as a smooth and assertive foreign service officer
(including his rather dramatic face-off against Saddam Hussein in
1990, when Wilson was the last acting ambassador in Iraq before
the first Gulf War), and he passionately chronicles his role in
the public debate that preceded Bush's invasion of Iraq.
(Disclosure: he has several kind references to me in the book.)
The night before his book was to be released, he talked with me
about the leak, his wife, the war and what lies ahead in Iraq.
David Corn: In 2000, you donated $1000 to George W. Bush's
presidential campaign. Why? Any regrets?
Joseph Wilson: I thought he would be the better of the two
Republican presidential candidates then in the running. When he
talked about compassionate conservatism, it seemed as if he was
interested in reprising the first Bush administration. I had been
happy with parts of its foreign policy. But after Bush lost the
New Hampshire primary and tacked hard to the right in South
Carolina to beat John McCain, it was clear to me he was not a
good choice. I declined to sign a letter of former ambassadors
supporting him. About that contribution I was wrong. I admit my
error.
When I called you the morning of July 14, 2003, about the Novak
column, you initially said you were not eager for anyone to write
about the matter. Did you believe that the impact of the leak
could be contained?
It was not that I thought it could be contained. I did not want
to add additional fuel to the fire. I believed that the
appropriate point of inquiry was the CIA. When I first I read it,
I realized that only if 150 people in the entire world had seen
the column, you could be sure that 149 of them were heads of
intelligence services here in D.C. I understood the importance to
Val's career and the security implications. After all, CIA
station chiefs in Beirut and Greece had been assassinated.
You talked with Novak before the column appeared. Did you ask him
not to identify your wife?
He said he had it from a CIA source and he was looking for a
confirmation. I said I would not say anything about my wife. He
then wrote it had come from "two senior administration
officials." I then called him and said, "Well which was it a
CIA source, or administration sources?" He said he had misspoken
the first time. If you're a journalist who's been in this town a
long time, it seems to me you know your way in and out of
questions of sourcing. The serious journalists I've spoken to
over the years have all been very precise about their sources. I
did find this lack of precision curious.
What do you think that means?
I have no idea. And then afterwards, Novak was quoted as saying
he had contacted the CIA and it had told him not to go with the
story. But apparently, he didn't understand some part of that no.
[Editor's note: Novak says he received what he considered to be a
weak request from the CIA not to publish Valerie Plame's name.]
Maybe because they didn't scream he assumed he could get away
with it. And it appears he has.
Why did the leak receive not a lot of notice at first?
I have no idea what drives the news cycle.
Did you try to bring it to the attention of other reporters?
No. Principally because Valerie and I realized that for all the
hardship it may have imposed upon us, the real crime was the
crime against the national security of the country and the
responsibility for investigating that crime lay with the
appropriate authorities. We have tried to avoid giving the
impression that we thought of ourselves as victims. We thought
that the country was the victim.
What's been the attitude at the CIA about the leak?
I only know what I've heard and what I've seen publicly. I have
not been in touch with the CIA since I came back from Niger.
Valerie has, of course, but we don't talk about it. But I think
it's safe to say that those of her former colleagues who have
spoken out publicly have made it very clear that there has been a
breach of trust between the clandestine service of the CIA and
the White House.
Has CIA chief George Tenet said anything publicly about the leak
or the investigation?
I haven't seen anything. I don't know. I probably would have
noticed. But I might not have.
Is Valerie still working at the CIA?
She still works there. She still goes to work every day.
Obviously her job has changed and her ability to do certain
things has been lost. There are things she will not be able to do
in the future. And we'll see in the long term how this works out.
Is she still working in the counterproliferation field?
I can't tell you that.
Have you heard from the federal investigators recently?
Not in a while. I have all the confidence that Pat Fitzgerald and
the FBI investigators who are working with him are proceeding
aggressively and doing everything they can to get to the bottom
of this. At the same time, I'm appalled that they haven't gotten
to the bottom of it yet, and I have to conclude that the reason
is because administration officials in the know are simply
stonewalling. The president made it very clear in a public
comment that he expected his senior officials to cooperate with
the investigation because he wanted to get to the bottom of it.
Now either the president was just not being serious when he made
that statement, or else his senior staff is disobeying him, or
else he doesn't have any authority over his senior staff. You
take your pick. We have both spoken to the FBI. But we don't talk
about the investigation.
But in your book you speculate about the source of the leak
It's not so much that I'm voicing my speculation. It is more that
I am sharing with people outside the Beltway what credible
sources here in Washington have shared with me. And what they
have gleaned is that as early as March there was a meeting in the
offices of the Vice President at which the decision was made to
do a workup on me. The cause of this was my appearance on CNN
when I was asked about forged documents [that contained the
allegation about Iraqi uranium-shopping in Niger] and about the
State Department spokesman's statement that the United States had
simply fallen for these forgeries. I said that I believed that if
the U.S. government looked into its files it would find that it
knew far more about the Niger business than the State Department
spokesman was letting on. And I went further and said that I
thought that the State Department spokesman was either being
disingenuous or else was so far out of the loop he didn't deserve
to pick up the meager salary that they pay those guys. Typical
hyperbole from me.
So you believe this signaled to the White House that you knew
because of your trip to Niger a year earlier that the
we-were-duped cover story was false? And that because of this,
White House officials felt threatened by you and ordered a
so-called "workup" on Joe Wilson?
Which I interpreted to mean they basically mounted an
intelligence operation to find out everything they could on me
and my habits and everything else. Which in and of itself I find
rather appalling. Who's responsible for running intelligence
operations or doing investigations on people? It certainly isn't
the White House.
Maybe in the Nixon administration.
Maybe that's where these guys learned this.
As you know, it is possible that Fitzgerald could conduct a
thorough investigation and still at the end of the day conclude
there is not enough evidence to prosecute anyone. In that case,
have you considered calling for the release of a public report
that would describe what his investigators learned?
I haven't. I've had some chats with people up on the Hill about
this. Given that I'm not a victim, I have no particular standing
to make such a request. The people who have standing to do so are
members of Congress. I think that some would be very interested
in doing this. I believe it's important to understand that
whether or not the special counsel finds evidence of a crime that
enables him to prosecute, it is an irrefutable fact that the
national security of the United States has been violated. The
person who did this falls into the category of what George H.W.
Bush once called the "most insidious of traitors." So they can
hide behind a criminal investigation which is what of course
the administration is doing but that does not get them out from
under the charge that somebody decided that his or her political
agenda was more important than the national security of my
country and that this person was prepared to betray a national
security asset to defend that agenda. And that person could still
be in their position and still have security clearance.
Your detractors on the right say you're a publicity hound who has
tried to exploit the leak and cash in by writing a book. Your
response?
I don't know quite how to respond to that other than to make the
point that for the better part of six months in 2003, I worked
behind the scenes, maintaining my anonymity, to try and encourage
the government to 'fess up to the [uranium-from-Niger] falsehood
that was in the president's State of the Union Address. That was
nothing more or less than doing one's civic duty. I did not
insert those sixteen words into the president's speech, and I
wasn't part of the conspiracy to leak the name of a national
security asset. If you read the book, you find it is far more
than a diatribe against this administration. It also recounts my
career in some of the most difficult places in the world, where I
often was working on issues of war and peace. I would submit to
you that it is probably far more substantive than the recent book
published by [Bush adviser] Karen Hughes.
Before the war, you were one of the few former diplomats
establishment types who were out there vigorously and
consistently opposing the Bush administration on the question of
war in Iraq. Why were there not more? Were you lonely?
There were a number of people who offered thoughtful commentary.
But a number of very close friends of mine found the stridency of
the other side to be really off-putting and found that it was
extraordinarily difficult to have the serious debate that this
country deserved before we went to war. They held back. Those
people are clearly smarter than I am. The people who spoke out
acted on their own consciences and on their own sense of what was
doable. But there was a sense in some parts of this town that the
deal was done and that the key decisions had already been made
which in retrospect seems to have been the case. I always thought
that a vigorous debate would have yielded what I thought was the
right approach: diplomacy backed by the credible threat of force.
You had to be prepared to use force, but if you were going to use
the force, it needed to be targeted at the national security
objective you wanted to achieve. You needed to have in the
calculation some risk/reward, some cost/benefit analyses. It
always seemed to me that the invasion, conquest and occupation of
Iraq as a means of disarming Hussein was the highest risk, lowest
reward option, particularly when it was clear that UN Security
Council Resolution 1441 [which led to revived weapons inspections
in Iraq] was working.
Recently, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said that no one a
year ago including himself predicted that the situation in
Iraq would be so difficult today. Before the war, weren't you,
among others, warning that instability and U.S. casualties could
continue for a long time after the invasion?
I think if you go back and you look at the interview that I did
with Bill Moyers in February of last year, you will see that I
suggested that this was a possible outcome. That interview stands
the test of time.
You are now an adviser to John Kerry's presidential campaign. He
has called for a more multilateral approach to Iraq. But does he
really have much of an alternative plan for U.S. military action
in Iraq? How would he be handling the insurgency and instability
differently than Bush?
I don't speak on behalf of John Kerry. I sit on its foreign
policy advisory group, and I have the title of senior foreign
policy adviser. But the reason I don't speak on behalf of the
Kerry campaign is that I would have to speak on their talking
points and that is way too constraining for me. So I support him,
I speak in support of him, and I offer the campaign my advice
privately. My own sense of where we are now is that the speech
that Kerry gave in September [urging a more multilateral
approach] is clearly where the administration is beginning to
move toward. That's a good thing. Unfortunately, the situation is
deteriorating so fast that and this is not Kerry's position but
my own we need to take some steps rather quickly. The first
thing we need to do is stabilize the situation. We need to
realize that we are fighting a multi-front war, one front against
one or two insurgencies, and a third to ensure public safety and
the provision of basic services.
If you contrast the way they did this war with the way they did
Bosnia when I was political adviser to the commander in chief
of US forces in Europe the differences are absolutely striking.
In Bosnia, we went in heavy and in such an intimidating fashion
that nobody dared take a shot at us, and if they did it was just
going to bounce off the Bradley fighting vehicles. We put 30,000
people 20,000 American into a tiny piece of real estate. In
Iraq, we put in 130,000 into a vast piece of territory, and
they're all lightly armored because the Rumsfeld doctrine is to
move faster, further and more lethally. He didn't factor in what
it would take to occupy the territory. Also, when you go in and
you do an operation, you have to separate the belligerents, and
the first thing you have to do is be responsible for the
provision of all the basic services, even if they are not core
military tasks. It's only when the situation becomes somewhat
stable and when people understand you mean business that you can
begin to transfer some of these non-core activities to the NGO
community, which is better suited to do it but less able to
provide logistical support and security in an unstable situation.
In Iraq, we ended up using not the military but contractors, and
contractors were responsible for their own security and their own
logistical support. This made it problematic because no American
business is better able to contend with a high-risk security
situation than the U.S. military.
But what should be done in the coming weeks and months?
Given the way the situation is deteriorating, if we don't get our
arms around it pretty quickly, the debate is going to turn
serious over the question of abandoning the whole project. For
example, retired general William Odom, the former chief of the
National Security Agency, is now advocating getting out of Iraq
and leaving it to the Europeans to get more involved. In a way, I
like that as a negotiating position. You say this so the
Europeans come to realize that their interests are at stake. We
need to have a new sense that collective, international interests
are at stake in Iraq. I've always thought the Europeans would
eventually recognize that their interests are in play in Iraq.
Still, they need to be encouraged to participate fully in the
reconstruction. We have not done that. And there are a number of
things that need to be done. We need to offer them a significant
place at the table. Senator Joe Biden has talked about a
multilateral board of directors for Iraq under a general U.N.
rubric, bringing together countries that are prepared to put
their military and economic assets into play.
My own sense is that the first countries we should go to are
countries capable of projecting military force such as and I
hate to say it France. France can project military force, and
it has the political will and can take casualties. It is a little
stretched now because it is doing two operations in Africa. But
what we do is go to France and other countries and demonstrate to
them that the leadership model has changed and that they need to
be part of the solution. And we should make the points to them
that the failure of the United States in Iraq will mean that the
U.S. leadership is taken off the table the next time there is a
problem that involves their region and that instability in the
Middle East doesn't play very well for restive populations at
home. We should get rid of this idea that the reconstruction
contracts are primarily for the United States, and see what these
other nations can bring to the table.
Do you have any aspirations to serve in the U.S. government
again?
It is not an ambition of mine. Now, if there was a request, and
it seemed to match my skill set and my experience....
Could you be confirmed by a Republican-controlled Senate?
I have done nothing to impugn my country, to denigrate my
country. I have insisted only, throughout the run-up to the war,
that we have a debate based on a set of commonly accepted facts,
on which we could base a decision to send 130,000 of our sons and
daughters to kill and die for our country. I have also insisted,
as is the right of any citizen, that the U.S. government be held
accountable for what it has said to the American people and to
the Congress of the United States. Neither of those are
disqualifying positions.
David Corn is the Washington editor of The Nation magazine and
author of [http://www.bushlies.com] (Crown Publishers).
© 2003 Independent Media Institute. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
5 AU The AGe: NZ opposition to review nuke policy -
http://www.theage.com.au
May 3, 2004 - 4:05PM
New Zealand's Opposition leader is reviewing New Zealand's
popular 20-year ban on nuclear ships, branding the policy
irrational.
But National Party Leader Don Brash says he will seek public
support before making any change.
Ships that are nuclear-powered or that carry nuclear weapons are
banned from New Zealand under the policy, which has kept New
Zealand out of the ANZUS alliance with Australia and the United
States.
US President George W Bush said last year that New Zealand's
policy on nuclear ships was a problem for the security and
military relationship between the two countries
"I suspect it's much more about national identity than it is
about rational thought processes," Brash told the state National
Radio.
"But it is an area where we need broad-based public support for
any change."
Brash, a former central bank governor, has revived the political
fortunes of his party since taking over its leadership last year.
Earlier this year he ignited debate by denouncing the
government's policy regarding indigenous Maori.
National leads Prime Minister Helen Clark's Labour Party in the
polls, 48 per cent to 37 per cent, while a newspaper poll showed
44 per cent of New Zealanders would prefer Brash as prime
minister, compared with 41 per cent preferring Clark.
However, Brash may have trouble finding support for his latest
stance.
The most recent nationwide public opinion poll on anti-nuclear
policy, done in October 2003, found only 32 per cent of voters
supported nuclear-powered ship visits, while 62 per cent opposed
them and the rest were unsure.
An overwhelming 81 per cent opposed nuclear armed ships visiting
New Zealand, while 14 per cent supported such visits.
Brash said his party was reviewing the nuclear ship ban and once
that was completed he would seek "public and National Party
reaction to it and then formulate a policy".
"If the report suggests that something which is essentially
irrational is costing New Zealand a great deal in one way or
another then it is clearly something we should look at," he said.
Copyright © 2004. The Age Company Ltd.
*****************************************************************
6 UK Independent: Closer ties depend on nuclear issue, EU tells Iran
By Stephen Castle in Brussels
04 May 2004
Iran was told yesterday to show more openness over its nuclear
programme and make better progress on human rights, as the
European Union squared up to Tehran over the prospect of closer
political and economic ties.
On a visit to Brussels, Kamal Kharrazi, the Iranian Foreign
Minister, defended his government's record in opening up its
nuclear sites, but questioned whether the EU was serious about
improving relations with Tehran. The stand-off left efforts to
bring Iran in from the cold, through political engagement, finely
balanced, underlining the volatility of the region.
Last October, the British, French and German foreign ministers
scored a diplomatic coup by visiting Tehran and persuading the
Iranians to meet International Atomic Energy Agency demands for
tougher inspections of its nuclear facilities. The breakthrough
was seen as evidence of effective European diplomacy in the
Middle East, defusing tension with one of the nations damned by
President George Bush as part of an "axis of evil".
Since then there have been growing doubts about Tehran's
commitment to making its nuclear programme transparent, and a
setback on human rights issues. While Iran has suspended the
enrichment of uranium it has continued to acquire centrifuges,
which could be used for that task.
European Union governments have also criticised the management of
February's elections, in which as many as 2,000 pro-reform
candidates were prevented from standing.
Iran wants to deepen its commercial ties with the EU through a
Trade and Co-operation Agreement, which was suspended last year
amid mounting suspicions that the Iranians were trying to
construct a nuclear bomb.
EU diplomats say that no movement will take place until June at
the earliest, and the governments of the UK, France and Germany
are likely to play a decisive role in the decision. By that time
there will have been a new round of nuclear inspections by the
head of the UN's nuclear watchdog, Mohamed ElBaradei. Progress on
the deal is being linked to Iran's compliance with nuclear
inspections, its human rights record, support for
counter-terrorism and role in the Middle East peace process.
In talks yesterday with Mr Kharrazi, Javier Solana, the EU
foreign policy representative and the European Commissioner for
external relations, Chris Patten, both stressed that Iran's
relations with Europe depended on more "transparency" on the
nuclear issue.
One EU official said: "We have invested in the relationship and
we believe that Iran is a very important partner and, frankly, we
are a little disappointed with progress on the nuclear issue. The
elections were also very disappointing because of the exclusion
of so many reformist candidates."
Mr Kharrazi dismissed as "baseless" allegations that Iran was
running a secret military programme to develop nuclear weapons,
alongside its civilian energy programme, which has been opened to
the IAEA. He also denied Iranian opposition reports that the
country's Revolutionary Guard was overseeing 400 experts
mobilised to develop an atomic bomb. "[The] IAEA has been working
with us very closely in different sites and they are continuing
their inspections," he said.
Officials described the tone of the discussion as "frank". The
minister went on the offensive, arguing: "Both sides have to be
serious, to work together on different aspects of their
relations, economic, political co-operation and other issues.
Otherwise Iran may not be interested to push for that."
Mr Kharrazi called on the EU to play a bigger role in the Middle
East peace process, but he was also critical of the US. "What the
Americans have been doing in Iraq, the very brutal actions of
American soldiers, the systematic plan to torture Iraqis, to kill
them, to rape them, is outrageous," he said. "If Americans are in
Iraq to promote democracy, is this the way to do it? American
policy has created hatred all among Islamic countries, and we are
at the stage of developing clashes between different cultures
which is very, very dangerous."
UK Independent Ltd.
*****************************************************************
7 [CMEP] Coalition Files Legal Arguments in Fight Against Three
Date: Mon, 3 May 2004 16:55:25 -0500 (CDT)
***please forward widely***
***apologies for cross-posting***
*** N O T I C E ***
May 3, 2004
Coalition Files Legal Rationale in Fight Against Three New Nuclear
Plant Sites
A coalition of public interest, environmental, and consumer
organizations, which includes Public Citizen, filed today its reasons
with the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) as to why three early
site permits, being sought by Dominion, Exelon, and Entergy, for new
nuclear reactors should be denied.
To read more about the filing in North Anna, Va., please go to:
http://www.citizen.org/cmep/NAintervention
To read more about the filing in Port Gibson, Miss., please go to:
http://www.citizen.org/cmep/GGintervention
To read more about the filing in Clinton, Ill., please go to:
http://www.citizen.org/cmep/ILintervention
Early Site Permits (ESP) allow a company to "bank" the site for 20
years, during which time it can choose a reactor type and apply for a
combined construction and operating license.
Currently, 47,000 metric tons of irradiated nuclear fuel is piling up
at operating reactor sites around the country because of the lack of a
scientifically accepted and proven permanent high-level radioactive
waste storage facility. The proposed Yucca Mountain nuclear waste dump
in Yucca Mountain, Nev., appears to be more uncertain every year; most
recently, the dump's 2010 opening date was cast further into doubt by
the April 30, 2004, U.S. General Accounting Office report "Yucca
Mountain: Persistent Quality Assurance Problems Could Delay Repository
Licensing and Operation."
Taxpayers are funding half the cost of the ESP applications'
preparation and review, estimated at about $14 million each. Further,
as part of a consortium of utilities, construction firms, and reactor
vendors, Dominion, Exelon, and Entergy announced in March that they are
applying for $250 million each from the government to help prepare a
combined construction and operating license for a future nuclear plant.
According to NRC's rules, the companies do not need to choose a site nor
pick a construction date in order to apply for taxpayer dollars.
Brendan Hoffman
Organizer, Nuclear Energy & Waste
Critical Mass Energy and Environment Program
Public Citizen
p: 202.454.5130
f: 202.547.7392
bhoffman@citizen.org
www.citizen.org/cmep
**********
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
*****************************************************************
8 projo.com: Welch: Yankee won't get `four little words' this year
| Providence, R.I. | AP's The Wire
05.03.2004 2:08 P.M.
By DAVID GRAM Associated Press Writer
MONTPELIER, Vt. (AP) - The president pro tem of the Senate said
Monday that giving up legislative say-so over additional
radioactive waste storage at the Vermont Yankee nuclear plant is
not "even remotely doable" this year.
"It's going to have to be looked at by the Natural Resources and
Finance Committees," said Sen. Peter Welch, D-Windsor. "There's
enormous policy implications. It's not at all even remotely
doable this late in the session."
Welch was referring to a push by Vermont Yankee's owners to get
the Legislature to exempt the plant from legislative review of
new radioactive waste storage.
If the Legislature doesn't do that, it could hamper the
company's plan to seek state and federal approval this year to
store highly radioactive spent nuclear fuel in concrete bunkers
called dry casks adjacent to the reactor in Vernon.
Failure to win approval for dry-cask storage could force the
plant to shut down before its license expires in 2012, because
the spent fuel pool where high-level waste currently is stored
is running out of room.
"We feel strongly that the Public Service Board and the Section
248 process is the correct venue" for consideration of the
plant's request to install dry-cask storage, said Entergy
spokesman Robert Williams.
"We went to the Legislature to get clarity," he said, adding
that it did not appear the Legislature would offer that clarity
this year.
Williams declined to say if the company would proceed with its
stated plan to apply this summer to the Public Service Board
under Section 248 of Title 30 of Vermont law for permission to
build the dry-cask storage.
"At this point we're exploring all our options," he said.
A 1977 state law exempted the Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp.
from a requirement that the Legislature approve any new storage
of radioactive waste in the state.
Lobbyists for Entergy Nuclear, which bought the Vernon reactor
in 2002, sought to have a provision attached to the fiscal 2005
budget bill that would extend the exemption to the new owners.
The chairs of the Senate Natural Resources and Energy and
Finance Committees, Sen. Virginia Lyons, D-Chittenden, and Sen.
Ann Cummings, D-Washington, last week expressed dismay that
their committees had not been told about the four words added at
the behest of Entergy's lobbyists to the 134-page money bill.
Entergy lobbyists testified late last week that the legislative
intent in 1977 was to tie the exemption from legislative review
of new waste storage to the Vermont Yankee site and not its
owners. Entergy lawyer John Marshall and lobbyist Gerard Morris
both said their hope was to "clarify" the legislative intent.
But the attorney general's office, in an opinion released
Friday, advised lawmakers that the intent of the 1977
Legislature did not contemplate Vermont Yankee having a new
owner.
"There is nothing in the language of the statute that suggests
that the exemption applies to any entity other than the Vermont
Yankee Nuclear Power Corporation," wrote Assistant Attorney
General Michael McShane in a letter to Welch. "We find nothing
in the legislative history to suggest that the plain meaning of
the language be ignored."
Vermont Yankee's Statehouse setback capped weeks of bad news for
the state's only nuclear plant. Cracking was found in a plant
steam dryer in early April. And two weeks ago, it was discovered
that two highly radioactive fuel segments were missing from the
spot where they were thought to have been stored in the spent
fuel pool. They have yet to turn up.
The leading Senate supporter of granting the storage exemption
to Entergy said Monday that he, too, now believes the issue will
have to wait for next year's legislative session.
"We're going to have to figure out what the legislative body
will do or recommend regarding the storage of waste," said
Senate Majority Leader John Campbell, D-Windsor, said Monday.
"It looks like the people who wanted a seat at the table are
going to get it."
Peter Alexander, executive director of the nuclear watchdog
group New England Coalition, called the legislative decision to
take no action this year excellent news.
"Dry cask storage is an incredibly important issue," he said.
"There is hardly a more appropriate issue for the Legislature to
consider - with full involvement of their constituents."
© Belo Interactive Inc.
*****************************************************************
9 BBC: Bulgaria to build nuclear plant
Last Updated: Monday, 3 May, 2004
[Kozloduy plant]
The Soviet-built Kozloduy plant began operating in 1974
Bulgaria will resume construction of its unfinished nuclear power
plant at Belene on the River Danube, the authorities in Sofia
have announced.
Prime Minister Simeon Saxe-Coburg said his government would
choose a private investor by the end of the year.
Bulgaria's nuclear energy programme has been the focus of
disputes with neighbouring Romania and the EU.
The Sofia government has agreed to close four Soviet-designed
reactors at its only working plant at Kozloduy.
The two oldest reactors there have already been shut down.
At Belene work ended in the early 1990s because of financial
problems, and following protests from environmental groups and
Romania.
The government says completing the project will cost $2bn - but
financing details would be worked out later.
"The plant is necessary to secure stable and affordable energy
for the country," Mr Saxe-Coburg said.
"It will also help Bulgaria keep its leading position on the
energy market after 2010," he added.
Decommissioning of Bulgaria's old nuclear reactors was a
condition for accession talks with the European Union.
*****************************************************************
10 Brattleboro Reformer: VY Uprate
[http://www.reformer.com/]
May 03, 2004 Brattleboro, VT
Two central issues
1. Containment Over Pressure
According to the coalition's expert witness, Paul Blanch, the
uprate will violate a basic NRC regulation having to do with
containment over pressure. Under increased power generation, the
water in the torus, a donut-shaped water tank below the reactor,
will be at a higher temperature.
In the event of a loss of cooling accident, the core will
require water to be pumped in from the torus. The increased
temperature, however, will mean that the water will form steam
bubbles at the inlet of the pumps, making the pumps less
efficient and potentially damaging them over time. Without the
necessary coolant, the core can be exposed, resulting in a
release of radiation.
Vermont Yankee officials say they can increase power and still
meet safety regulations by taking credit for the pressure in the
torus. Sufficient pressure in the torus will prevent the water
bubbles from forming, allowing the pumps to function as expected.
According to Vermont Yankee engineers, taking credit for pressure
is a common practice and does not jeopardize the safety of the
plant.
This is allowed by the NRC under certain circumstances. The
coalition claims that VY is pushing this exception beyond
reasonable limits.
2. Age of the plant
At 33 years old, Vermont Yankee is among the oldest nuclear
power plants in the country. Opponents say that it cannot handle
the increased demands that the uprate will place on it.
Several newer plants, such as Quad Cities and Dresden in
Illinois, have had similar uprates and subsequently experienced
uprate-related problems.
Vermont Yankee officials counter that the plant is inspected on
a regular basis by the NRC and has not had any significant
problems. The plant will also undergo additional review by the
commission as part of its uprate application.
Copyright ©1999-2004 New England Newspapers, Inc.,
*****************************************************************
11 FT: Tepco to restart nuclear plants
By Victor Mallet and David Pilling
Published: May 3 2004 5:00 | Last Updated: May 3 2004 5:00
Tokyo Electric Power (Tepco) expects to restart two of its four
remaining inactive nuclear plants within weeks, bringing its
nuclear capacity back to near-normal levels after last year's
data falsification scandal.
The restoration of nuclear capacity, which advanced this week
with the opening of Kashiwazaki Kariwa power station, will help
Tepco in its effort to draw a line under events that shook public
faith in Japan's nuclear industry.
Last year Tepco, the biggest private electricity generator in the
world, closed all 17 of its nuclear plants after it doctored
safety reports relating to cracks on nuclear shrouds and coolant
pipes. The company now plans to restart two plants in Niigata on
the Sea of Japan and Fukushima in northern Japan.David Pilling
and Victor Mallet, Tokyo
© Copyright The Financial Times Ltd 2004. "FT" and
"Financial Times" are trademarks of the Financial Times.
*****************************************************************
12 BNN: Bulgaria push to open a 2nd reactor
Bnn, Bulgarian news network - online news agency \ Áíì,
['www.bgnewsnet.com / Bulgarian News network' ]
Simeon Saxe-Coburg
UPDATE 2: Updates with Saxe-Coburg quotes
SOFIA (bnn)- Bulgaria's prime minister announced Monday his
government's final decision to resume a mothballed US$2.3 billion
project to build a second nuclear power plant in the Balkan
country.
The plant near Belene is "supposed to secure for the citizens and
the economy enough electric power at affordable prices in the
next 50 years," Prime Minister Simeon Saxe-Coburg Gotha said in
the small Danube port, 250 kilometers (156 miles) northeast of
Sofia.
"This is Bulgaria largest investment project in the past two
decades," Saxe-Coburg said.
He added the Belene plant would help his country retain its
position of a leading regional electricity exporter.
The Belene project was frozen for lack of cash and
environmentalist protests in 1990. The government is resuming it
to make for four reactors at the Kozlodui nuclear power plant,
which Bulgaria has agreed to close in its accession talks with
the European Union.
A Czech-made reactor of the Russian VVER-1,000 model is stored at
the Belene site, but it is not clear yet whether Bulgaria will
use it.
The government has called for bids from potential international
contractors to build the plant.
The basic options for the Balkan country to choose from are
either a VVER-1,000 type of reactor offered by U.S. Westinghouse,
Russia's Atomexportstroy, France's Framatome and Czech Skoda or a
CANDU heavy water reactor offered by a consortium led by the
Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd. (AECL).
AECL has built the same type or reactor in neighboring Romania's
Cernavoda. /bnn/
Bulgarian News Network (BNN)
*****************************************************************
13 TheChamplainChannel.com: Vermont Yankee Waste Control Decision Put Off
[http://www.ibsys.com/]
UPDATED: 10:44 pm EDT May 3, 2004
MONTPELIER, Vt. -- Giving up legislative say-so over additional
radioactive waste storage at the Vermont Yankee nuclear plant is
unlikely to happen this year.
In fact, says Senate President Pro Tem Peter Welch, it is not
"even remotely do-able."
Vermont Yankee's parent company had hoped the Legislature would
grant it the same exemption the body gave the Vernon reactor's
previous owners from the state law requiring legislative approval
of any additional radioactive waste.
The attorney general's office last week advised the Senate that
the transfer of the exemption is not automatic. Now, lawmakers
want to consider the matter.
But with the legislative session in its final weeks, the issue
won't be settled this year, Welch says.
Have a comment about this story? E-mail our newsroom
[newstips@thechamplainchannel.com] . Copyright 2004 by The
Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be
published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
© 2004,Internet Broadcasting Systems, Inc
[http://www.ibsys.com/] .
*****************************************************************
14 Brattleboro Reformer: VY Uprate
[http://www.reformer.com/]
May 03, 2004 Brattleboro, VT
Key groups and figures
Vermont Yankee nuclear power station
Purchased by Entergy Nuclear Corporation of Louisiana in 2001.
Employees
Brian Cosgrove: Director of public affairs
Brian Hobbs: Engineer supervisor/project lead
Gerry Morris: Lobbyist
Craig Nichols: Power uprate project manager
Jay Thayer: Site vice president
George Thomas: Senior project manager
Larry Smith: Corporate and community relations representative
Rob Williams: Spokesman
Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Federal regulatory body assigned to protect the public health and
safety, and the environment from the effects of radiation from
nuclear reactors, materials, and waste facilities. Also regulates
these nuclear materials and facilities to promote defense and
security. The NRC must approve Entergy's request before the plant
can increase its power production. All uprate requests brought
before the commission have been approved.
Employees
Bill Ruland: Uprate project manager/Primary speaker at March 31
uprate meeting in Vernon
Neil Sheehan: Spokesman for Region I
William Travers: Executive director of operations. Author of
letter to U.S. Sens. Jim Jeffords and Patrick Leahy saying that
the NRC did not plan to do any additional inceptions at Vermont
Yankee
Department of Public Service
Advocates for the long range planning, programs, and other
actions that meet the public's need for least cost,
environmentally sound, efficient, reliable, secure, sustainable,
and safe energy, telecommunications, and regulated utility
systems in the state for the short and the long term.
David O'Brien: Commissioner (also chairman of VSNAP)
Bill Sherman: State nuclear engineer (also a member of VSNAP)
Public Service Board
A quasi-judicial board that supervises the rates, quality of
service, and overall financial management of Vermont's public
utilities: cable television, electric, gas, telecommunications,
water and large wastewater companies. It also reviews the
environmental and economic impacts of energy purchases and
facilities, the safety of hydroelectric dams, the financial
aspects of nuclear plant decommissioning and radioactive waste
storage, and the rates paid to independent power producers.
Members
(appointed by governor for six-year terms)
John Burke
David Coen
Michael Dworkin: Chairman
Vermont State Nuclear
Advisory Panel (VSNAP)
The panel meets periodically and considers issues relating to
the present and future use of nuclear power in general, and of
the Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station in particular.
Members
Philip Bartlett: Representative, R-East Dover
Russell Kulas: Member of the public (physicist)
Mark MacDonald: Senator, D-Orange
Elizabeth McLain: Secretary of Natural Resources
Timothy Nulty: Member of the public
David O'Brien: Commissioner
Charles Smith: Secretary of the Agency of Human Services
Panel Staff
Bill Sherman: State nuclear engineer
New England Coalition
Nuclear power watchdog group. Served as an intervenor in uprate
case before Public Service Board.
Employees
Peter Alexander: Executive director
Ray Shadis: Staff advisor
Expert witnesses
Paul Blanch: Electrical engineer. Blanch became a whistleblower
in the late 1980s while working for Millstone Nuclear Power Plant
in Connecticut. Identified what he considers to be the central
flaw in Vermont Yankee's uprate plan, namely net positive suction
head.
Arnie Gundersen: Nuclear engineer. Former senior vice president
of Nuclear Engineering Services in Danbury, Conn. He was fired
after reporting improperly stored radiological material in the
company's office to his boss. Blew the whistle to the NRC.
David Lochbaum: A nuclear engineer who worked in nuclear power
plants for 17 years. In 1992, he identified a safety problem in a
plant where he was working. After being ignored by the plant
manager and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, he went to
Congress with his concerns. Lochbaum is a member of the Union of
Concerned Scientists.
Connecticut River
Watershed Council
Citizen-based group that advocates for the environmental
protection of the river. Served as an intervenor in the uprate
case before the Public Service Board.
David Deen -- River steward
*****************************************************************
15 NRC: Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection:
FR Doc E4-994
[Federal Register: May 3, 2004 (Volume 69, Number 85)] [Notices]
[Page 24197-24198] From the Federal Register Online via GPO
Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr03my04-121]
Comment Request AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC).
ACTION: Notice of pending NRC action to submit an information
collection request to OMB and solicitation of public comment.
SUMMARY: The NRC is preparing a submittal to OMB for review of
continued approval of information collection under the provisions
of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35).
Information pertaining to the requirement to be submitted: 1. The
title of the information collection: NRC Form 212, Qualifications
Investigation (Professional, Technical, and Administrative
Positions (other than clerical positions).
NRC Form 212A, Qualifications Investigation
(Secretarial/Clerical) 2. Current OMB approval number: 3150-0033,
NRC Form 212; 3150-0034, NRC Form 212A.
3. How often the collection is required: On occasion. 4. Who is
required or asked to report: Current/former supervisors,
co-workers of applicants for employment.
5. The number of annual respondents: NRC Form 212: 1200; NRC Form
212A: 400.
6. The number of hours needed annually to complete the
requirement or request: NRC Form 212, 300 hours (15 minutes per
response); NRC Form 212A, 100 hours (15 minutes per response).
1. Abstract: Information requested on NRC Form 212,
``Qualifications Investigation, Professional, Technical, and
Administrative Positions (other than clerical positions)'' and
NRC Form 212A, ``Qualification Investigation
(Secretarial/Clerical)'' is used to determine the qualifications
and suitability of external applicants for employment with NRC.
The completed forms may be used to examine, rate and/or assess
the prospective employee's qualifications. The information
regarding the qualifications of applicants for employment is
reviewed by professional personnel of the Office of Human
Resources, in conjunction with other information in the NRC
files, to determine the qualifications of the applicant for
appointment to the position under consideration.
Submit, by July 2, 2004, comments that address the following
questions: 1. Is the proposed collection of information necessary
for the NRC to properly perform its functions? Does the
information have practical utility? 2. Is the burden estimate
accurate? 3. Is there a way to enhance the quality, utility, and
clarity of the information to be collected? 4. How can the burden
of the information collection be minimized, including the use of
automated collection techniques or other forms of information
technology? A copy of the draft supporting statement may be
viewed free of charge at the NRC Public Document Room, One White
Flint North, 11555 Rockville
[[Page 24198]] Pike, room O-1 F21, Rockville, MD 20852. OMB
clearance requests are available at the NRC Worldwide Web site
[http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/leaving.cgi?from=leaving
FR.html&log=linklog&to=http://www.nrc.gov/public-involve/doc-comm
ent/omb/index.html] . The document will be available on the NRC
home page site for 60 days after the signature date of this
notice.
Comments and questions about the information collection
requirements may be directed to the NRC Clearance Officer, Brenda
Jo. Shelton, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, T-5F52,
Washington, DC. 20555-0001, or by telephone at (301) 415-7233, or
by Internet electronic mail at [INFOCOLLECTS@NRC.GOV] . Dated at
Rockville, Maryland, this 27th day of April, 2004.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Brenda Jo. Shelton, NRC Clearance Officer, Office of the Chief
Information Officer.
[FR Doc. E4-994 Filed 4-30-04; 8:45 a.m.] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
*****************************************************************
16 Brattleboro Reformer: A chronology of events (VY)
[http://www.reformer.com/]
May 03, 2004 Brattleboro, VT
February 2003: Entergy Nuclear applies to the Public Service
Board for a certificate of public good to modify the plant. The
modifications are necessary in order to increase power output by
20 percent. Title 30, section 248 of Vermont Law requires that
electricity-producing plants must receive a certificate of
public good prior to make any physical changes.
June, September and October 2003: Technical hearings before the
Public Service Board.
September 2002: Entergy Nuclear files a request with the
Nuclear Regulatory Commission to amend the plant's operating
license to increase power production by 20 percent or 110
megawatts. A 20 percent increase, known as an extended power
uprate, is the maximum allowed by the NRC.
October 2003: Entergy Nuclear sanctioned by the Public Service
Board for not cooperating with the discovery process. New
England Coalition awarded $51,000 and given more time to review
documents.
November 2003: Entergy Nuclear and Department of Public Service
reach an agreement in which Entergy agrees to set aside $4.5
million for ratepayers protection against uprate related
outages; $2.7 million for crisis assistance to lower income
residents; $7.8 million to the "Clean and Clear Water
Initiative," most of which was slated for Lake Champlain. In the
Public Service Board order of March 15, all the money, except
for the $4.5 million for ratepayer protection, was directed to
the state's general fund.
January 2004: Technical hearings concluded. Entergy completes
its uprate application to the NRC.
February 27: U.S. Sens. Patrick Leahy and Jim Jeffords write to
the NRC, requesting that the commission hold public meetings
concerning the uprate.
March 15: Public Service Board grants Entergy a conditional
certificate of public good. Among the imposed conditions is an
independent engineering assessment to be done by the NRC. The
board retains jurisdiction over the case until all the
conditions are met.
March 16: The State Senate unanimously passes a resolution
supporting the board's order and also calling on the NRC to
conduct additional safety inspections.
March 29: William Travers, executive director of the NRC,
writes a letter to Leahy and Jeffords. The letter states that a
public meeting regarding the uprate will take place on March 31.
It also states that the commission does not plan to augment its
uprate review process. The letter is perceived as rejecting the
board's request for an independent engineering assessment,
prompting a long list of public officials to contact the NRC and
advocate for increased scrutiny of the plant.
March 25: The New England Coalition files a motion for
reconsideration with the Public Service Board. Among the points
the group asks the board to reconsider are the increased costs
of decommissioning if the uprate is approved; the use of
biocides in the plant's cooling tower; the risk of outages
associated with uprate. Vermont Yankee also files a motion with
the board, asking it to amend three points in its order. The
company asked that the board allow only 21 of the 22 fans to
have 200 horsepower installed; that the installation of the fans
take place in the summer of 2005 or 2006, instead of before the
uprate; that the plant shut down at a rate of no more than 10
percent per minute in the event of an accident versus the
board's requirement of at least 10 percent per minute. Vermont
Yankee does not object to the independent engineering
assessment. The board has not responded to the motions.
March 31: Public meeting on the uprate held in the Vernon
Elementary School. The contentious meeting is attended by more
than 500 people. The NRC announces that its letter to Jeffords
and Leahy was not its official response to the board's request.
The commission said it had not yet decided if it would intensify
its uprate review process. Also at the meeting, New England
Coalition expert witness Arnie Gundersen accuses Entergy
Nuclear, General Electric Corporation and the NRC of colluding
to skirt safety concerns in order to push the uprate through.
The related documents are handed over to the staffs of Sens.
Leahy and Jeffords. A formal allegation is filed with the NRC
Office of the Inspector General. At a Vermont State Nuclear
Advisory Panel meeting, the panel unanimously votes to support
the board's request for an independent engineering assessment.
April 7: The Vermont House of Representatives passes a
resolution 69 to 54 supporting the board's request for an
independent engineering assessment.
April 15: The New Hampshire State Senate passes a resolution
calling on the NRC to increase its safety inspections of Vermont
Yankee, prior to the uprate.
April 16: Entergy announces that cracks were discovered in the
plant's steam dryer, which is used to remove moisture from the
steam produced by the reactor.
April 21: Entergy announces that two segments of highly
radioactive fuel rods are missing from the spent fuel pool. The
material was placed in a special container in 1979, because the
cladding around it was damaged. The container was opened at the
request of the NRC on-site inspector.
April 22: The New England Coalition files a petition with the
NRC, requesting that the movement of all fuel at Vermont Yankee
stops, until all fuel can be accounted for. In a move unrelated
to the NEC's petition, the NRC announces that it will conduct a
special investigation into the missing spent fuel.
Copyright ©1999-2004 New England Newspapers, Inc.,
*****************************************************************
17 Sofia Morning News: Bulgaria Unfreezes N-plant Project
SOFIA NEWS AGENCY novinite.com
Top news: 3 May 2004, Monday.
The Cabinet officially announced its decision for resuming the
construction of Bulgaria's second nuclear power plant at Belene.
Prime Minister Simeon Saxe-Coburg and ministers from the Cabinet
visited the Danube port of Belene on Monday and presented the
main stages in the implementation of the project to build a
nuclear plant.
"The plant is necessary to secure stable and affordable energy
for the country," the prime minister said. "It will also help
Bulgaria keep its leading position on the energy market after
2010."
Completing the project will cost some USD 2 B, but financing
details will be worked out later.
The Belene project was shelved in 1992 over protest from
environmentalists and lack of funds.
The government ruled to resurrect the mothballed project at the
end of last year, while sticking to its engagement to close four
Soviet-designed reactors at the nowadays only working plant at
Kozloduy.
The Canadian Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd (AECL), Czech and
Russian companies have declared their interest to bid for the
power station construction.
Earlier in the day the European Integration Council held its
first outdoor session in the Danube town of Vratsa.
Development of the Northwestern Region and projects in the
pre-accession period were on the agenda of the meeting, attended
by the prime minister, Cabinet ministers, representatives of the
Delegation of the European Commission to Bulgaria, the European
Investment Bank, the European Bank for Reconstruction and
Development, the World Bank and the USAID.[ width=]
All Rights Reserved © Novinite Ltd., 2001-2004 - Copyright
Novinite.com (thebulgariannews.com also) is unique with being a
real time news provider in English that informs its readers
about the latest Bulgarian news. The editorial staff also
*****************************************************************
18 Sofia Morning News: Closures Down Bulgaria's N-plant Profits
SOFIA NEWS AGENCY novinite.com
Tuesday 4 May 2004
The Soviet-built Kozloduy power station began operating in
1974. Bulgarian government has engaged to decommission four out
of its six units till 2006. Photo by Archive.
Business: 3 May 2004, Monday.
The net profit of Bulgaria's only nuclear power plant Kozloduy
for 2003 slipped by BGN 3.8 M over the previous year due to the
closure of the two oldest reactors at the end of 2002.
Kozloduy net profit totaled BGN 9,6 M, according to a report of
the company.
Revenues amounted to BGN 741.141 M in 2003 and costs totalled BGN
712.506 M. Supplies of nuclear fuel and transportation of nuclear
waste accounted for 29% of the costs, while maintenance and
operations - for 20%.
The electricity released into Bulgaria's energy system dropped by
14,5% over 2002 when Kozloduy announced record high 20,2 billion
kWh output since it was started twenty-eight years ago. The plant
has invested BGN 96,6 M in the upgrade of the third and fourth
440-MW units.
In 2003 U.S. company Westinghouse and the Kozloduy European
consortium began the upgrade of the 1,000-MW units 5 and 6 in a
bid to extend their operations by 15 years.
The implementation of the project, worth EUR 491 M, will be
complete by 2006.
The country's government has promised to close till 2006 units 3
and 4 widely seen as dangerous in the European Union. This move
stirs a fierce discontent across Bulgaria since locals see the
N-plant as one of the highly profitable engines of national
economy.
All Rights Reserved © Novinite Ltd., 2001-2004 - Copyright
Novinite.com (thebulgariannews.com also) is unique with being a
real time news provider in English that informs its readers
about the latest Bulgarian news. The editorial staff also
*****************************************************************
19 [du-list] unmitigated disaster
Date: Mon, 03 May 2004 14:41:16 -0700
Intervention mag on DU
http://www.interventionmag.com/cms/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=720
Commentary:
Depleted
Uranium: The Toxic Killer
image001.gif
The Bush Administration knows about the health and the environmental
consequences of using depleted uranium but it doesn't care.
By Mick Youther
As the Pope said more than a year ago, Invade Iraq and go without God
Ross Wilcock, arwilcock@sympatico.ca
A good question for the American people.
http://www.interventionmag.com/cms/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=716&POSTNUKESID=4fd5809cafc239e80ccd70a03fc76776
Commentary:
Are
Bush and Neo-Cons Finished?
image001.gif
The publication of Bob Woodward's Plan Of Attack has removed all reasonable
doubt that Bush's war has been an unmitigated disaster, it may also be the
final nail in the Neo-Cons coffin.
By Regis T. Sabol
image002.jpgThe events and revelations of the past two weeks should have,
by now, removed all reasonable doubt that George W. Bushs stewardship of
the nation has been an unmitigated disaster born of willful misjudgments,
willful ignorance, unlawful deceit, and an arrogance rooted in Bushs belief
that he has God on his side.
To unsubscribe from this groups send a message to
du-list-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com. In the body of the message type
unsubscribe and send.
Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
ADVERTISEMENT
173e75.jpg
173efa.jpg
----------
Yahoo! Groups Links
* To visit your group on the web, go to:
*
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/du-list/
*
* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
*
du-list-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
*
* Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the
Yahoo! Terms of Service.
Attachment Converted: image001.gif: 00000001,623b1755,00000000,00000000
Attachment Converted: image0011.gif: 00000001,623b1756,00000000,00000000
Attachment Converted: image002.jpg: 00000001,623b1757,00000000,00000000
Attachment Converted: 173e75.jpg: 00000001,623b1758,00000000,00000000
Attachment Converted: 173efa.jpg: 00000001,623b1759,00000000,00000000
*****************************************************************
20 [DU Information List] Gulf War syndrome veteran starts hunger
Date: Mon, 03 May 2004 14:41:21 -0700
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
Buy Ink Cartridges or Refill Kits for your HP, Epson, Canon or Lexmark
Printer at MyInks.com. Free s/h on orders $50 or more to the US & Canada.
http://www.c1tracking.com/l.asp?cid=5511
http://us.click.yahoo.com/mOAaAA/3exGAA/qnsNAA/KlSolB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->
GULF WAR SYNDROME UK SUPPORT GROUP
PO BOX 2340 STOKE ON TRENT STAFFORDSHIRE
ST2 7WG
01782 765642 or www.gwsuk.org.uk
chairman@gwsuk.org.uk
PRESS RELEASE FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
GULF WAR SYNDROME VETERAN STARTS HUNGER STRIKE
PROTEST.
A DESPERATE VETERAN OR A GULF WAR SYNDROME MATYR?
As of midnight May 1st 2004 Mr Alex Izett a former
soldier and veteran
of the 1990-91 Gulf War has commenced a personal
protest at the
treatment of Gulf War Syndrome veterans by the UK
Ministry of Defence
by going on hunger strike.
In an unprecedented move Mr Izett followed his action
by telling Gulf
War Syndrome UK Support Group that he is now prepared
to jeopardise his
own health and safety and possibly his life in order
to bring attention
to the plight and suffering of all Gulf War Syndrome
veterans.
Although Gulf War Syndrome UK Support Group does not
condone the actions
now being taken by Mr Izett we do hold empathy with
all who have been
affected by their Gulf War service. Many Gulf era
veterans now feel
betrayed by the country they gave loyal service to.
Mr Izett gave service in a standby role during the
Gulf War of 1990-91
and now considers that he suffers with health related
problems
associated with Gulf War Syndrome. Mr Izett now
believes that not
enough has been done to address the issues of Gulf War
Syndrome and
feels that the only way to bring attention to the
outstanding issues is
by embarking on a hunger strike.
Gulf War Syndrome UK Support Group is very concerned
about the action
being taken by Mr Izett and feels that more should be
done in an effort
to address the issues raised. When Mr Izett was asked
to give service
to his country he consented without question, he was
given preparation
for war service and was subsequently held in reserve,
surely this
individual and the many hundreds if not thousands of
sick and disabled
veterans now deserve the right to redress.
Gulf War Syndrome UK Support Group now calls upon the
British Government
and the Ministry of Defence to instigate a full public
inquiry into
Gulf War Syndrome. We would also like to see full and
proper medial
assessment,treatment and compensation for all affected
Gulf War
Syndrome veterans.
This is requested in order to protect the health of
past, present and
future veterans of the Gulf theatre of Operations.
For further details refer Mr Justin Harvey (chair) on
01782 765642
Or Mr Terry Walker (Group Sec) on 01904 449851
____________________________________________________________
Yahoo! Messenger - Communicate instantly..."Ping"
your friends today! Download Messenger Now
http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com/download/index.html
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/pandora-project/
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
pandora-project-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
*****************************************************************
21 [du-list] Military officials dismiss depleted uranium fears
Date: Mon, 03 May 2004 14:45:59 -0700
Military officials dismiss depleted uranium fears
By Sandra Jontz, Stars and Stripes
European edition, Saturday, May 1, 2004
http://www.estripes.com/article.asp?section=104&article=21933
ARLINGTON, Va. — No U.S. troops involved in the war in Iraq
are showing signs of medical problems caused by exposure to
depleted uranium, Pentagon health officials said, negating
recent complaints by some troops to the contrary.
Since the war started last March, about 1,000 troops who
indicated they might have been exposed to depleted uranium
have been tested. Of those, three who have fragments of
depleted uranium ammunition in their bodies have tested
positive for higher-than-normal levels, but none show
adverse health consequences, said William Winkenwerder Jr.,
assistant secretary of defense for Health Affairs.
Recently, National Guard soldiers from New York’s 442nd
Military Police Company complained of maladies from
headaches to soreness, insomnia and breathing problems, and
that independent medical tests of their urine showed high
levels of DU.
But military-run medical tests have shown just the opposite,
Winkenwerder said during a Thursday press roundtable.
Twenty-seven soldiers from the 442nd have had their urine
tested.
“All 27 have normal levels of urine uranium,” said Dr.
Michael Kilpatrick, deputy director for deployment health
support directorate for Health Affairs. Of those tested, the
highest level of natural uranium found was 16 nanograms of
per liter of urine, with the average about seven nanograms,
he said. A nanogram is one billionth of a gram.
Uranium is a natural element found in the air, water, soil
and even food. People have about 100 micrograms of natural
uranium in their bodies, and excrete between 10 to 50
nanograms per liter of urine, Kilpatrick said.
“Servicemembers should know that the potential health risks
of depleted uranium are extremely, extremely low, and we
have no evidence that there are health consequences among
people who, even after many years, have high levels of
exposure,” Winkenwerder said.
The Pentagon’s assertions that DU exposure doesn’t harm are
false, said former Army Maj. Doug Rokke, who headed the
Pentagon’s depleted uranium project in the mid-1990s and now
is a staunch critic of the use of DU and the Pentagon’s
policies allowing it.
“They’re liars and the U.S. continues to lie concerning
depleted uranium munitions,” he said Friday in a phone
interview. “Iraq joins Afghanistan and Bosnia and Vieques in
being a toxic dump for depleted uranium that you just can’t
clean up. It’s there for eternity.”
He said he has 5,000 times the normal levels of radiation in
his body and suffers from respiratory and other medical
problems.
The U.S. military continues to use DU because of its
effectiveness in penetrating armor. Depleted uranium, a
byproduct of enriching uranium for nuclear fuel, is used to
manufacture ammunition because, as a hard, heavy metal, can
pierce armor. While 40 percent less radioactive than natural
uranium, it still is radioactive. DU ammunition ignites when
impacting a target, and when combined with oxygen, forms
toxic dust.
“The bottom line, as long as this is exterior to your body,
you’re not at any risk,” Kilpatrick said. “And the potential
of internalizing it from the environment is extremely,
extremely small.”
Continuous medical evaluations of roughly 70 servicemembers
who served in the 1991 Persian Gulf War and have depleted
uranium shrapnel embedded in their bodies show no health
complications linked to the DU, the health officials said.
The 70 excrete between 150 nanograms to 45,000 nanograms per
liter of uranium in their urine, Kilpatrick said, “and their
kidneys are perfectly normal.” The kidneys are the principle
organs affected by DU exposure.
--
Posted for educational and research purposes only,
~ in accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107 ~
NucNews Links and Expanded Archives - http://nucnews.net
To unsubscribe from this groups send a message to
du-list-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com. In the body of the message type
unsubscribe and send.
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/du-list/
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
du-list-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
*****************************************************************
22 Rocky Mountain News: 'Dirty bomb' cleanup
Decontamination would be tougher than with anthrax
By Jim Erickson, Rocky Mountain News
May 3, 2004
The monumental challenges facing cleanup crews after a "dirty
bomb" attack would dwarf the multimillion-dollar decontamination
effort that followed the 2001 anthrax- letter assaults.
Entire neighborhoods would have to be abandoned or demolished if
decontamination efforts failed to quell public fears after
detonation of a radiological dispersal device - better known as a
dirty bomb.
Daily commerce would grind to a halt in the affected area, and
real estate values would plummet, said Jaime Yassif, one of the
authors of a Federation of American Scientists dirty-bomb study
being released this week at a national physics meeting in Denver.
"A radiological weapon is not a weapon of mass destruction. It
would not kill large numbers of people," Yassif said Sunday at
the American Physical Society meeting.
"It is primarily a weapon of economic and psychological
disruption," she said. "After the panic from a dirty-bomb attack
subsides, public refusal to return to contaminated urban areas
could cause severe economic damage."
A dirty bomb consists of a conventional explosive, such as
dynamite, packaged with radioactive material that scatters when
the bomb explodes. A dirty bomb is not an atomic bomb.
Dirty bombs have not been used by terrorists, but recent events
have raised concerns about the possibility of an attack with
radioactive materials.
In most instances, the conventional explosive in a dirty bomb
would kill and injure more people than the radiation would,
according to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
The blast would be over in an instant, but the psychological
affects could be long-lasting.
"It would be an economic disaster of unbelievable consequences,"
said physicist Peter Zimmerman of King's College in London.
Cleaning the Hart Senate Office Building in Washington, D.C.,
after the 2001 anthrax letter attacks took several months and
cost tens of millions of dollars, Yassif said. Decontaminating
entire city blocks after a dirty bomb attack would require a
Herculean effort "many times larger," she said.
Zimmerman and Yassif participated in a Sunday afternoon news
briefing at the Adam's Mark hotel. About 1,000 physicists are
gathered there for this week's meeting.
In its dirty-bomb study, the Federation of American Scientists
calls for the creation of a comprehensive national
decontamination strategy to address dirty-bomb attacks.
No such plan exists, though the federal Department of Homeland
Security is funding research into new decontamination techniques,
Yassif said.
"We want to be ready to go," Yassif said.
*****************************************************************
23 NRC: ASLBP No.
FR Doc E4-993
[Federal Register: May 3, 2004 (Volume 69, Number 85)] [Notices]
[Page 24198] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access
[wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr03my04-122]
04-827-02-CO]
Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities;
Establishment of Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Pursuant to
delegation by the Commission dated December 29, 1972, published
in the Federal Register, 37 FR 28710 (1972), and the Commission's
regulations, see 10 CFR 2.104, 2.300, 2.303, 2.309, 2.311, 2.318,
and 2.321, notice is hereby given that an Atomic Safety and
Licensing Board is being established to preside over the
following proceeding: State of Alaska Department of
Transportation and Public Facilities (Confirmatory Order
Modifying License Effective Immediately) A Licensing Board is
being established pursuant to a hearing opportunity notice issued
in conjunction with a March 15, 2004 immediately affective NRC
staff confirmatory order modifying the 10 CFR part 30 byproduct
materials license of the State of Alaska Department of
Transportation and Public Facilities (ADOT) authorizing the
possession and use of certain license material in portable
gauging devices (69 FR 13594 (Mar. 23, 2004)). In response to
that notice a request for hearing dated April 9, 2004, has been
filed by petitioners Robert F. Farmer and Alaska Forum for
Environmental Responsibility challenging the confirmatory order,
which requires ADOT to take certain actions to ensure its
compliance with NRC employee protection regulations (10 CFR 30.7)
and to ensure ADOT has established and will maintain a safety
conscious work environment (see 61 FR 24336 (May 14, 1996)).
The Board is comprised of the following administrative judges:
Thomas S. Moore, Chair, Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel,
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001.
Dr. Paul B. Abramson, Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel,
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001.
G. Paul Bollwerk, III, Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel,
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001.
All correspondence, documents, and other materials shall be filed
with the administrative judges in accordance with 10 CFR 2.302.
Issued at Rockville, Maryland, this 27th day of April 2004.
G. Paul Bollwerk, III, Chief Administrative Judge, Atomic Safety
and Licensing Board Panel.
[FR Doc. E4-993 Filed 4-30-04; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
*****************************************************************
24 DHHS: Advisory board on radiaiton and worker health meeting 5/17
FR Doc 04-10046
[Federal Register: May 3, 2004 (Volume 69, Number 85)] [Notices]
[Page 24163-24164] From the Federal Register Online via GPO
Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr03my04-90]
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention
National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Advisory
Board on Radiation and Worker Health
In accordance with section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory
Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463), the Centers for Disease Control
and Prevention (CDC) announces the following committee meeting:
Name: Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health (ABRWH),
National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH).
Time and Date: 9 a.m.-3 p.m., May 17, 2004.
Place: The Cincinnati Airport Marriott, 2395 Progress Drive,
Hebron, Kentucky 41048, telephone 859/586-0166, fax 859/586-0266.
Status: Closed 9 a.m.-3 p.m., May 17, 2004.
Background: The Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health
(``the Board'') was established under the Energy Employees
Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act (EEOICPA) of 2000
to advise the President, through the Secretary, Department of
Health and Human Services (HHS), on a variety of policy and
technical functions required to implement and effectively manage
the new compensation program. Key functions of the Board include
providing advice on the development of probability of causation
guidelines which have been promulgated by HHS as a final rule,
advice on methods of dose reconstruction which have also been
promulgated by HHS as a final rule, evaluation of the scientific
validity and quality of dose reconstructions conducted by the
National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) for
qualified cancer claimants, and advice on the addition of classes
of workers to the Special Exposure Cohort. In December 2000 the
President delegated responsibility for funding, staffing, and
operating the Board to HHS, which subsequently delegated this
authority to the CDC. NIOSH implements this responsibility for
CDC.
Purpose: This board is charged with (a) providing advice to
the Secretary, HHS on the development of guidelines under
Executive Order 13179; (b) providing advice to the Secretary, HHS
on the scientific validity and quality of dose reconstruction
efforts performed for this Program; and (c) upon request by the
Secretary, HHS, advise the Secretary on whether there is a class
of employees at any Department of Energy facility who were
exposed to radiation but for whom it is not feasible to estimate
their radiation dose, and on whether there is reasonable
likelihood that such radiation doses may have endangered the
health of members of this class.
Matters To Be Discussed: The meeting will involve a review
and discussion of the Independent Government Cost Estimate (IGCE)
for task order contracts and proposals
[[Page 24164]]
for work for the performance of these task order contracts. The
Board may revise or accept the IGCE, the task order, and/or some
or all of the ABRWH independent dose reconstruction review of
contractor's bids. These contracts will serve to provide
technical support consultation to assist the ABRWH in fulfilling
its statutory duty to advise the Secretary, HHS, on the
scientific validity and quality of dose estimation and
reconstruction efforts under EEOICPA.
These discussions will include reviews of the technical proposals
to determine adequacy of the proposed approach and associated
contract cost estimates. The information being discussed will
include information of a confidential nature. The ICGEs will
include contract cost estimates, the disclosure of which would
adversely impact the Governments negotiating position and
strategy in regards to these contracts by giving the ABRWH
independent dose reconstruction review contractor undue advantage
in determining the price associated with its bids. The meeting
will be closed to the public in accordance with provisions set
forth regarding subject matter considered confidential under the
terms of 5 U.S.C. 552b ( c)(9)(B), 48 CFR 5.401(b)(1) and (4),
and 48 CFR 7.304(D), and the Determination of the Director of the
Management Analysis and Services Office, Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention, pursuant to Public Law 92-463.
A summary of this meeting will be prepared and submitted
within 14 days of the close of the meeting.
The agenda is subject to change as priorities dictate.
For Further Information Contact: Larry Elliott, Executive
Secretary, ABRWH, NIOSH, CDC, 4676 Columbia Parkway, Cincinnati,
Ohio 45226, telephone 513-533-6825, fax 513/533-6826.
The Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, has
been delegated the authority to sign Federal Register notices
pertaining to announcements of meetings and other committee
management activities for both CDC and the Agency for Toxic
Substances and Disease Registry.
Dated: April 28, 2004. Alvin Hall, Director, Management
Analysis and Services Office, Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention. [FR Doc. 04-10046 Filed 4-29-04; 1:39 pm] BILLING
CODE 4163-19-P
*****************************************************************
25 Las Vegas RJ: GOP adopts plan to seek Yucca benefits
Sunday, May 02, 2004
Some key Republicans maintain opposition despite party platform
By ERIN NEFF
REVIEW-JOURNAL
RENO -- Delegates to the Nevada Republican Convention on
Saturday called for the state to begin seeking compensation for
the Yucca Mountain Project.
The Yucca platform plank, which cleared the platform committee
Friday, wasn't a point of contention, and delegates didn't even
discuss it before it was officially adopted Saturday.
The proposal encourages the state to negotiate "to minimize
negative impacts from federal control and exploitation of
federally-managed lands in Nevada."
It didn't mention Yucca Mountain by name, but delegates from
rural and Northern Nevada made clear their strong belief that
the state should begin seeking compensation for the project.
Robert Adams, vice chairman of the Nye County Republican Party,
worked as an engineer at Yucca Mountain for 10 years and serves
on the federal impact advisory board.
"This could be a boon to rural Nevada," he said of the Yucca
Mountain Project. "This has been going on for decades, and
Nevada hasn't gotten anything out of it. It's about time we get
something."
Prior to Saturday, both major parties in Nevada were on record
opposing the Yucca Mountain Project, which would bury the
nation's most dangerous nuclear waste 100 miles northwest of Las
Vegas.
Politicians from both parties have backed the pending legal
challenges mounted by the state, and several key Republicans
said Saturday they remain opposed to the repository.
"It could create at least some thought in Washington that there
is some sympathy in Nevada," Attorney General Brian Sandoval
said shortly after a breakfast speech in which he stressed the
state's legal fight against the dump.
Sandoval is co-chair of President Bush's re-election campaign in
Nevada and said he sees no conflict in fighting the repository
in court while campaigning for a president who supports the
project.
"I have been to the White House, and I have made it absolutely
clear that I will not vacillate, I will not back down," Sandoval
said.
Rep. Jim Gibbons, R-Nev., maintained his opposition to the
project.
"I do not think it's a good idea to even give the inference of
negotiation," he said.
Rep. Jon Porter, R-Nev., said he strongly opposed any plank that
would encourage the state to negotiate a Yucca Mountain
settlement.
Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., does not support the idea of
negotiating with the federal government, spokeswoman Tessa Hafen
said.
"He does not think that bargaining for benefits is in the best
interest of the people of Nevada and will not be supporting that
ever," she said.
Also Saturday, Gibbons drew a standing ovation from delegates
when he said, "We support the strict interpretation of the
Nevada Constitution and the U.S. Constitution and we oppose
judicial activism as a threat to the separation of powers."
During the convention at the Peppermill hotel, Platform
Committee Vice Chairman William Schaeffer of Lander County began
Saturday's floor debate on the platform with a single motion to
amend a tax plank and -- at the same time -- approve the entire
platform.
John Stanhagen of Las Vegas rose in objection, saying it was "an
underhanded way to get the whole thing approved."
Attempts to discuss individual sections of the platform were
blocked by the convention chairman, Bob Seale. He finally
relented after several procedural votes to rescind a rule that
had limited debate.
Among the planks delegates chose to discuss was one that stated:
"Along with a majority of Americans, we oppose taxpayer funding
of abortion."
The plank won wide support.
Sparks resident Marilyn Brainerd objected, saying the party
opposes taxpayer funding of many entitlements, but that singling
out abortion would keep some people away from the party and its
candidates.
Kathleen Miller of Las Vegas said the national Democratic Party
"declares support for unbridled abortion across the land," and
added that the taxpayer funding angle was tame.
"Anybody who leaves the party over that cannot call themselves
pro-choice, they'd have to call themselves pro-abortion."
The 292 delegates at the convention also elected delegates to
the national convention and heard from Richard Ziser, a
candidate for the U.S. Senate.
Ziser, who led the successful effort banning gay marriage in
Nevada, said Saturday that Reid can be beaten. He also urged
Republicans not to be wooed by Reid's power as the assistant
minority leader, saying: "The anointing process in this state
needs to stop."
"He's not using his power for the right things," Ziser said.
"He's using it for evil things."
Ziser cited Reid's calling Bush a liar as an example.
"That sounds like a desperate candidate who has no idea what
Nevada's interests are," Reid's campaign manager Sean Sinclair
said.
On Friday, a key Bush adviser, Ralph Reed, the former executive
director of the Christian Coalition, stressed grass-roots
politics in a message to about 250 delegates at a gala dinner.
In an interview before his speech, Reed said the Bush-Cheney
campaign strategy appeals to swing voters and is not, as Nevada
Democrats stated in a news release, "fringe."
Reed noted Nevada's support of a gay marriage ban in its
constitution.
"It got 70 percent of the vote," he said, erupting in a sudden,
deep laugh. "If I were John Kerry, if I were looking at Nevada,
I'd much rather be where George W. Bush is on the marriage issue
than where he is."
Copyright Las Vegas Review-Journal
*****************************************************************
26 Las Vegas SUN: Yucca may be creating rift in GOP ranks
Today: May 03, 2004 at 11:34:00 PDT
By Kirsten Searer
RENO -- Republicans downplayed talk that their party is bucking
its traditional stance of opposing Yucca Mountain, but rhetoric
at this weekend's state convention suggests there could be a
growing divide within the party.
The party's top state official, Gov. Kenny Guinn, said it would
be a strategic mistake for the Silver State to negotiate now
with the federal government for benefits as a trade-off for
Yucca.
But some Republicans from rural counties said it's important to
begin negotiations about the project, which they see as
inevitable and a potential cash cow for poor, rural Nevada
counties.
Guinn and many of the state's top Republican leaders quickly
spoke out to say they will continue to battle the proposed
project, which would place the nation's spent nuclear waste 90
miles from Las Vegas.
Now is not the time to open talks with the federal government
over what Nevada could get in exchange for the project, he said.
"When you're at your weakest point, you don't want to start
negotiating," he said, adding that he thinks the state has the
momentum to win any of its six lawsuits in court, where the
issue will be decided on legal merit instead of politics.
"We only have to win one of those and it puts us in a position
where they have to delay, delay, delay," he said.
Guinn said he has always understood that some rural Republicans
support the project. He said that, according to polls he has
seen, the number of people who support the project hasn't
wavered significantly in recent years.
Democrats also expressed disagreement with the planks.
"It seems like it's a real shift between a lot of Republican
office holders and candidates and the Republican party," said
Sean Sinclair, a spokesman for Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev.
Peggy Maze Johnson, executive director of Citizen Alert, said
she doesn't believe that all rural Nevadans support Yucca
Mountain -- just some political leaders who are looking for
money for their counties.
The issue largely played out while the Republican platform
committee worked on Thursday, committee members said. The debate
was closed to the press.
At first, several Republicans from rural counties pushed for a
platform that would specifically call for the state to begin
negotiations with the federal government over the planned Yucca
Mountain project.
The proposed plank read: "We encourage the state of Nevada to
begin negotiating with the federal government and other entities
to minimize any negative impacts and maximize any benefits in
the event that Yucca Mountain becomes a reality."
Tanya Metaska, a Nye County Republican present at the debate,
said the project is inevitable and the state should make the
best of the situation.
"The rural counties, which include Nye County, are always
strapped for money," she said. "Most of our county is federally
managed land."
Several Clark County Republicans immediately objected to the
proposed plank, saying the language was too strong and could be
used against Republicans this election year, said Ed Gobel, a
Republican assembly candidate who attended the platform debate.
"They want money," Gobel said. "It's pure and simple a money
issue."
After compromising, the Republicans passed two planks that
allude to dealing with federal projects.
The final planks, which were passed without debate on Saturday
on the floor of the convention, still called for the state to
negotiate with the government "to minimize negative impacts from
federal control and exploitation of federally managed lands in
Nevada."
Republicans such as Attorney General Brian Sandoval, Rep. Jim
Gibbons and Rep. Jon Porter all said they will maintain resolve
to fight the project.
Sandoval gave a speech to Republicans on Saturday morning about
his efforts to stop Yucca Mountain through several federal
lawsuits. He said dissent in the party won't affect his court
battles.
"Certainly from a perception standpoint it could create at
least some thoughts in Congress and Washington (that) there is
sympathy in Nevada," Sandoval said after the breakfast speach.
Some Republicans, he said, "will agree to disagree."
Yet even the state party's newly elected chairwoman said
Saturday that she understands many rural Nevadans support the
project and that even Clark County Republicans don't see Yucca
Mountain as one of the top issues in the state.
"I just think times have changed," said Earlene Forsythe, who
was elected as the party's chairwoman on Thursday.
"I don't think it's such in the forefront as an issue with the
people in Nevada," she said, adding that when she ran for the
Assembly in Clark County in 2002, people were more concerned
about issues such as education, the moral standing of society
and protection of borders.
Gibbons said he was opposed to the platform planks but did not
talk to Republicans about dropping them.
"I don't believe it's a good idea to raise the white flag on
Yucca Mountain," he said.
Sen. Joe Neal, D-North Las Vegas, has called for the state to
negotiate over Yucca Mountain and said this weekend he thought
the platform plank was on track.
"It is my belief that the waste is going to come, so we should
try to get money for it," he said.
Republicans meeting in Reno also elected delegates to this
year's national convention and heard from party leaders such as
Guinn, former Christian Coalition chief Ralph Reed and senate
candidate Richard Ziser.
Questions or problems? Click here.
*****************************************************************
27 Las Vegas SUN: New look given to nuke shipment
By Suzanne Struglinski
SUN WASHINGTON BUREAU
WASHINGTON -- The Energy Department is evaluating its plan to
ship nuclear waste from Ohio to the Nevada Test Site and will
give the state a 45-day notice before anything gets moved, the
department said Friday.
Attorney General Brian Sandoval threatened to sue the
department last month if it did not stop its plan to move 153
million pounds of uranium waste from the Fernald Site in Ohio to
the Test Site, 65 miles northwest of Las Vegas.
A two-paragraph letter from Marc Johnston, the department's
deputy general counsel for litigation, said the department is
"evaluating the points raised in your letter and at this time we
are unable to state how long that process will take."
The state argues that the makeup of the waste stored in the
silos should not be classified as low-level waste.
The state also wanted the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to
intervene and stop the shipments. Johnston sent a separate
letter to the NRC also saying it is still evaluating the plan.
Marta Adams, a senior deputy Nevada attorney general and Joe
Egan, a Washington-area lawyer who works for the state on
nuclear issues, each said the department "blinked" by issuing
the letter. This is good news for Nevada, but not a solid
victory yet until there is no chance the waste is coming, they
said.
The state plans to issue a letter to the department saying it
will not file a lawsuit if the department commits to leaving the
waste in the silos, Adams said.
Rep. Shelley Berkley, D-Nev., said the fight is not over.
"Nevada dodged a bullet today, but this is not the end of the
story," she said. "The question remains whether or not DOE has
the authority to bury these materials at the Nevada Test Site,
which we know lacks the proper safeguards for this type of
waste. The burden is now on the DOE. ..."
*****************************************************************
28 Las Vegas SUN: Senate may begin talks to classify nuke waste
By Suzanne Struglinski
SUN WASHINGTON BUREAU
WASHINGTON -- A Senate committee could start deciding this week
whether the Energy Department has authority to classify
radioactive waste as high-level or low-level waste.
Sen. Lindsay Graham, R-S.C., is said to be working on language
to be included in the defense authorization bill that would give
the Energy Department the authority, overturning a court ruling
made in July 2003.
The department argues that without the authority, more waste
would go to the potential Yucca Mountain nuclear waste storage
site. But Nevada and critics of the site are more concerned with
the department changing rules it does not like, particularly one
made by a federal court.
The U.S. District Court in Idaho said that under the Nuclear
Waste Policy Act of 1982, the department could not separate
liquid waste at sites in Washington, New York, Idaho and South
Carolina into high-level waste and low-level waste with the
intention of leaving some on site and moving some to Yucca.
Instead, all of the millions of gallons of waste now stored in
tanks would need to be treated and shipped to Nevada.
Since then the Energy Department has unsuccessfully lobbied
Congress to get legislative authority to separate the waste. In
the 2005 budget the department is holding back $350 million in
federal money earmarked to clean up radioactive sites unless
Congress or a court grants it authority to classify radioactive
waste as high-level or low-level material.
The case is on appeal to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
South Carolina and five other states, including Washington and
Idaho, said the district court was right and the case should not
be overturned.
Graham's office would not confirm what would be brought up next
week, if anything, but released a statement saying "Senator
Graham continues to work on a legislative solution that will
give DOE the necessary authorization to continue full-scale
cleanup efforts at Savannah River Site. This is a high priority
for Senator Graham and one he hopes can be pushed through
Congress in the near future."
However, the Natural Resources Defense Council received copies
of potential language to be offered during meetings next week by
Graham's office. The language appears to be created by the
department's Congressional and Intergovernmental Affairs Office.
Sen. Wayne Allard, R-Colo., head of the Senate Strategic Forces
subcommittee, said in February he also wanted the change to be
included in the defense authorization bill.
Sen. John Ensign, R-Nev., sits on the Senate Armed Services
Committee with Graham. The committee will start compiling the
bill during several closed meetings this week.
"DOE has played fast and loose with the rules for storing and
the rules for shipping nuclear waste and we will stand opposed
to it as we have," Ensign's spokesman Jack Finn said. "He will
actively oppose it."
Natural Resources Defense Council attorney Geoff Fettus, who
argued and won the Idaho District Court case, called the
language a "get out of jail free card" for the department since
it would leave waste at sites that it was supposed to clean up.
"This is case of DOE changing the rules of the game, just like
that they've done at Yucca Mountain," Fettus said.
*****************************************************************
29 U.S. Newswire: Scientists to Show Nuclear Waste Storage Casks
Will Last Less than 200 Years, Not 10,000; Experiment
Demonstration May 12
5/3/2004 1:05:00 PM
To: Assignment Desk, Energy and Science reporters
Contact: Kris Phillips, 202-965-6680, for State of Nevada's
Office of Nuclear Projects
WASHINGTON, May 3 /U.S. Newswire/ -- Catholic University and
Geosciences Management Institute scientists will conduct
experiments at a press briefing for reporters May 12, showing
that the metal casks in which DOE intends to store the nation's
nuclear waste will only last about 200 years in the conditions
found in Nevada's Yucca Mountain region, not 10,000 years as DOE
claims.
Located about 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas, Yucca Mountain may
begin receiving waste as early as 2010. About 77,000 tons of
highly radioactive waste at commercial and military sites in 36
states would be stored in metal canisters in underground tunnels.
------
Press Briefing: Yucca Mountain's Nuclear Waste Storage Debate:
Will America be Safe or Sorry?
Experiments conducted by:
-- Dr. April Pulvirenti of Catholic University
-- Dr. Don Shettel, GMI
When: Wednesday, May 12, at 9:30 a.m.
Where: The National Press Club's First Amendment Room 529 14th
St., N.W., 13th floor, Washington, D.C.
SEATING LIMITED. To reserve a seat, call John Beatty at
202-965-6680 ext. 21
http://www.usnewswire.com/ [http://www.usnewswire.com/]
/© 2004 U.S. Newswire 202-347-2770/
*****************************************************************
30 NRC: NRC to Host Open House on May 10 in Nevada
News Release - 2004-05
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
Office of Public Affairs Telephone: 301/415-8200
Washington, DC 20555-0001 E-mail: opa@nrc.gov
No. 04-052 May 3, 2004
Nuclear Regulatory Commission representatives in Nevada will
host an informal open house on Monday, May 10, in Pahrump,
Nevada, to discuss their role in regulating the safety of the
proposed high-level nuclear waste disposal facility at Yucca
Mountain, Nev., with citizens of the local community.
The session is scheduled for 6 to 9 p.m. at the Bob Ruud
Community Center, 150 N. Highway 160 in Pahrump. Members of the
public are encouraged to attend, meet the NRC staff
representatives, provide comments and ask questions.
The NRCs on-site representatives in Nevada are Robert Latta,
Jack Parrott and Vivian Mehrhoff. NRC nuclear waste management
and transportation officials from headquarters in Rockville,
Md., will also be present and available for one-on-one
discussions. Experts from the Center for Nuclear Waste
Regulatory Analyses in San Antonio, the NRCs independent
federally funded research and development center, will also be
in attendance.
For additional information, please contact Mr. Latta at (702)
794-5048, Mr. Parrott at (702) 794-5047 or Ms. Mehrhoff at (702)
794-5053.
Last revised Monday, May 03, 2004
*****************************************************************
31 Seattle Post-Intelligencer: Cleanup deadlines await approval
[seattlepi.com]
Monday, May 3, 2004
SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER STAFF AND NEWS SERVICES
YAKIMA -- The Environmental Protection Agency and the Energy
Department have reached a tentative agreement on new deadlines
for cleaning up pools of spent nuclear fuel at the Hanford
Nuclear Reservation.
The EPA had set a May 1 deadline for the Energy Department to
come up with a new plan for removing radioactive sludge in the K
East and West basins, or face fines of up to $500,000. The
indoor, leak-prone pools of water once held 2,300 tons of spent
nuclear fuel about 400 yards from the Columbia River. About 85
percent of the fuel has been removed.
Once the fuel is removed, what will remain is sludge from
corroded spent nuclear fuel stored in the huge water-filled
basin, along with dust and dirt and sloughed material from the
basin walls.
The Energy Department missed a legal deadline established under
the 1989 Tri-Party Agreement -- the legal pact governing cleanup
at Hanford -- to begin removing the sludge by Dec. 31, 2002. The
EPA fined the agency $76,000 last year.
The new agreement will require a review by the state Department
of Ecology and the public before it becomes final.
"It's unfortunate that we're so far behind on getting started on
the sludge, but it's a positive that we're finally getting
started," EPA spokesman Nick Ceto said Friday.
"We can't go back in time and meet the deadlines they already
missed, so our goal was to get an overall strategy for dealing
with the sludge that was better than before."
The previous plan called for removal of all fuel, debris and
water, as well as both basins, by the end of July 2007.
Under the new agreement, the deadline would be bumped to spring
2009, but a new deadline was added to remove one basin that has
been known to leak by March 31, 2007.
[Seattle Post-Intelligencer] 101 Elliott Ave. W. Seattle, WA
98119 (206) 448-8000
Home Delivery: (206) 464-2121 or (800) 542-0820
©1996-2004 Seattle Post-Intelligencer
*****************************************************************
32 IEER: Comments on Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory Draft EIS
Index [http://www.ieer.org/webindex.html]
Comments of the Institute for Energy and Environmental Research
on the Draft Supplemental Site-Wide Stockpile Stewardship and
Management Programmatic EIS, Lawrence Livermore National
Laboratory, DOE/EIS-0348, February 2004
by Arjun Makhijani, Ph.D. Washington, D.C. April 30, 2004
These comments on the Livermore Draft Site-Wide Programmatic EIS
on stockpile stewardship (abbreviated here as SWPEIS) are
restricted to the issues of the environmental and health impacts
of plutonium processing covered in the SWPEIS. IEER may submit
further comments at a later time.
The proposal to vastly expand plutonium storage and processing in
the preferred alternative would convert Lawrence Livermore
National Laboratory into a major industrial-scale plutonium
processing site. This is a risky idea anywhere, but especially in
a urban/suburban community, where there are homes very close to
the boundary of the site and about a quarter of a mile from the
processing buildings. Even Rocky Flats, located as it was in the
Denver-Boulder metropolitan corridor did not have such close
proximity of processing buildings to homes. The SWPEIS does not
address this problem with any detail or technical depth.
Specifically, it is essential that data relating to failure
frequencies of equipment, past accident frequencies, accident
records from comparable processing facilities at Rocky Flats, be
incorporated into the risk analysis in Appendix D and Appendix N.
The failure probabilities and source terms will lack scientific
foundation and credibility until that is done.
The preferred alternative would process 100 kilograms of
plutonium every year, mostly in oxide form and reduced it to
metal (Appendix N). This is a large-scale operation for
processing enough plutonium metal for 20 to 30 nuclear bombs
(depending on the design). It would be 25 times the amount
processed under the "No-Action Alternative" discussed in the EIS.
Such a scale-up needs to be justified in the context of existing
available plutonium processing facilities at Los Alamos National
Laboratory, and the expansion of that capacity that has been
proposed, including the upgrade of the CMR building at LANL. This
alternative does not appear to have been considered at all. No
processing at LLNL should be considered as the "no-action"
alternative.
The SWPEIS states that "some changes in equipment and procedure"
would be needed, mostly to reduce worker radiation doses. But a
detailed analysis of these changes is not presented. Without such
an analysis it is impossible to evaluate the postulated accident
frequencies and source terms in Appendix D, or the routine
radiation doses from plutonium processing. The SWPEIS proposes to
use direct reduction of plutonium oxide with calcium. This is an
exothermic reaction. The risks of accidents and process upsets,
derived from prior experience, need to be presented in detail,
based on experience with this specific process.
THE SWPEIS assumes that Livermore will receive feed materials
from which americium has been "completely removed" (p N-16);
shipments would be from Hanford and SRS. What is the basis for
assuming this? For instance, there are no operating processing
facilities at Hanford that would allow for completely
americium-free material to be received. This assumption appears
to be quite unrealistic and needs to be justified in detail or
changed. Given the importance of americium for both radiation
doses as well as for waste management, it is essential that the
SWPEIS have a more realistic assumption about americium
contamination of the feed material. As it is even with the
assumption of receipt of clean material and only 2 years of
storage, a waste stream of up to about 10 kilograms of
americium/plutonium metal per year is expected to be generated
(p. N-16)
The SWPEIS indicates that the americium/plutonium metal buttons
would either be sent to LANL or to WIPP. The State of New Mexico
has stated that it will not allow waste material in WIPP that was
not included in the 1995 TRU Waste Baseline Inventory Report
(DOE/CAO-95-1121).1 Pure TRU metal from Livermore or any other
site is not included in that inventory. The SWPEIS is silent on
this issue. It also does not specify the eventual disposition of
the waste that would remain in case the plutonium/americium
buttons are sent to LANL and some of the plutonium is recovered.
Neither does it justify why these operations should not be done
at LANL, so that unnecessary transport is avoided.
The production of large amounts of plutonium metal and its
processing and evaporation so as to enable the isotopes to be
separated by atomic vapor laser separation may entail significant
risks that must be evaluated in the context of the urban/suburban
location of LLNL.
IEER will present further comments in writing before the end of
the comment period. But even a preliminary review of the
plutonium processing aspects of the SWPEIS has revealed profound
and fundamental deficiencies in this draft document. These
deficiencies are so serious that the DOE should re-do the
document and re-issue it as a draft so that a more thorough
public discourse and public comment on this is possible.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Note:
1. I would like to thank Don Hancock of the Southwest Research
and Information Center [http://www.sric.org] for the information
relating to the WIPP permit.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Also on this site: + Comments on the Proposed CMR Building
Replacement Project at Los Alamos National Lab
[http://www.ieer.org/comments/cmrpr.html] (July 29, 2003) +
Plutonium Factsheet [http://www.ieer.org/fctsheet/pu-props.html]
For more information on the LLNL SWPEIS visit: + Tri-Valley CAREs
[http://www.trivalleycares.org] + LLNL Environmental Community
Relations [http://www-envirinfo.llnl.gov/]
Institute for Energy and Environmental Research
[http://www.ieer.org/index.html] Comments to Outreach
Coordinator: ieer{insert the symbol at}ieer.org Takoma Park,
Maryland, USA
Posted May 2, 2004
*****************************************************************
33 Oak Ridger: Study looks at historic preservation effort
Story last updated at 12:18 p.m. on May 3, 2004
SUPPORT: U.S. Sen. Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn., said he believes
this study is an important recognition of the role that the Oak
Ridge community and the state of Tennessee played in the
Manhattan Project.
By: Paul Parson | Oak Ridger Staff
[paul.parson@oakridger.com]
Over the course of a two-year-period, officials will examine
whether some historic World War II-era sites should be part of
the National Park Service.
A Senate committee voted last week to have the study conducted
by the Interior Department - the nation's principal conservation
agency. The study is expected to look at several sites across
the United States, including Oak Ridge.
Last year, a bill was introduced in both houses of
Congress that called for a study on the preservation of the
historic sites of the Manhattan Project for potential inclusion
in the National Park Service. U.S. Sen. Lamar Alexander,
R-Tenn., is listed as a co-sponsor of the Senate bill, but other
Tennessee elected officials, including U.S. Rep. Zach Wamp,
R-3rd District, and U.S. Sen. Bill Frist, R-Tenn., have been
absent from the sponsorship list.
Alexia Poe, press secretary for Alexander, said the senator
believes this study is an important recognition of the role that
the Oak Ridge community and the state of Tennessee played in the
Manhattan Project. However, Poe said she was unaware of any
priority list of sites to be examined, nor did she know if any
facilities had been pre-selected for consideration.
"The study will focus on the relevance of the sites and the
impacts that any such designation would have on existing
activities of the sites," Poe explained. "Senator Alexander
expects cost will be an important factor in the study.
"The study does not obligate the Secretary of the Interior or
the federal government to designate any of the sites in Oak
Ridge as a part of the National Park System," she said. "While
the senator is concerned with the many demands placed on the
National Park Service, he believes it is appropriate to examine
what, if anything, should be done to preserve sites associated
with the Manhattan Project due to its historical significance
and the complex consequences that followed."
While there's currently no guarantee that the K-25 building
will be part of the study, some local community members are
working on a plan to salvage a portion of the building. They
have an April 2005 deadline for developing the plan and
outlining funding sources.
*****************************************************************
34 Oak Ridger: Personal tour of K-25 'amazing'
Story last updated at 12:17 p.m. on May 3, 2004
EDITOR'S NOTE: Oak Ridger reporter Paul Parson was one of two
journalists who toured the K-25 building Friday morning. Here is
his firsthand account of the experience.
By: Paul Parson | Oak Ridger Staff
paul.parson@oakridger.com [paul.parson@oakridger.com]
Amazing.
That's probably the best way to describe the experience of
walking through a portion of the engineering marvel known as the
U-shaped K-25 building.
The visit was arranged by Bechtel Jacobs Co. - the Department
of Energy's Oak Ridge cleanup contractor - so journalists could
have an opportunity to see the inside of the building, which is
the subject of remediation project as well as a historic
preservation effort. Two reporters participated in the trek.
Lynn Freeny/DOE
Greg Eidam, left, with Bechtel Jacobs Co., talks with journalists
Frank Munger and Paul Parson during a tour of the U-shaped K-25
building. These two reporters were the only ones to participate
Friday in the tour, which was organized by Bechtel Jacobs Co.
Mainly due to a mold problem in the K-15 building, I had to be
fitted for a filtering mask, which is the minimum protection
specified for entry into the structure.
This procedure involved a 10-minute test where I wore a mask
while a computer program gauged my normal and deep breathing
habits. The test also checked how well the mask worked on me
while I turned my head from side to side, nodded up and down and
read aloud something called The Rainbow Passage - reading it
results in a wide range of facial movements.
Next up, we hopped in a van and were off to pick up our PNADs, or
personal nuclear accident dosimeters. You can imagine the
comments this device's acronym generated, but I won't go there.
Our van drove into the U-shape of the K-25 building and we
entered a support building where we received a briefing on what
to do and not do while inside the building as well as what we
might expect to see inside.
We were told our biggest problem would be slips, trips and falls
- due to puddles of water that were the result of a leaking roof.
We were also warned that we would have to be scanned with a
hand-held device before using our hands to touch any unsecured
area of our body.
This entire process up to this point took close to an hour and a
half.
Finally, we walked over to a change room in the K-25 building
where we were able to put on our personal protection equipment: A
pair of plastic foot coverings for our normal shoes, a blue
jumpsuit made of Tivec that fully covered me from feet to neck, a
pair of rubber foot coverings to go over the protective suit, a
pair of cotton gloves in addition to two pairs of "surgical
gloves," a dust mask, safety goggles and an orange hard hat. We
were also required to carry a flashlight because it was very dark
inside the K-25 building.
Lynn Freeny/DOE
Paul Larson with Bechtel Jacobs Co. shows some bicycles found in
the K-25 building. The bikes were used to travel around the
building, which covers 40 acres at the Oak Ridge K-25 site. The
K-25 building is currently the subject of a major cleanup effort
and a historic preservation project.
I'm just glad it was fairly cool on Friday, otherwise it would
have been miserable in all that protective gear. That's not to
say I didn't get a little warm while touring the building.
From the change room, we walked through a small hallway with
plastic set up to act as a contamination barrier. And, there we
were in the East wing of the K-25 building where no cleanup work
was taking place.
It was dark in most areas of the building - not all the lights
were powered up and some flickered on and off at various times.
My first reaction was that K-25 was some huge haunted structure,
and I waited for a ghost of a former worker to strike up a
conversation with me.
Sadly, that did not happen.
Our tour of the East wing, included a walk through what's known
as the operating level where people essentially ran the show. The
K-25 building was the original gaseous diffusion facility at the
K-25 site, and it was used to enrich uranium initially for
nuclear weapons and later for nuclear fuel, the building contains
residual uranium and some other nuclear materials.
As warned, there were puddles of water scattered throughout the
building - some of which contained mud that was a little
slippery. There were also certain spots on the operating level
where we could not step because they may not have been sturdy
enough to support us.
On the walk through K-25, I got to see a lot of the equipment
that's been dubbed "excess material" and has to be removed from
the building. I also saw an old-time card holder, a piece of
equipment that looked like a mailbox and was used for the
disposal of classified papers, and several other items that had
been tagged for historical preservation.
When people tell stories about K-25, it's almost guaranteed
they'll mention the bicycles used to travel the building, which
covers 40 acres at the Oak Ridge K-25 site and is viewed as a
vital part of the Manhattan Project - a secret effort for
developing an atomic bomb during World War II. Sure enough, we
found three of them, including one that had a box on the back
that could've been used to carry tools or mail.
One of the most interesting aspects of the tour was that I got to
stand inside the Roosevelt Cell - a piece of operating equipment
that was spruced up for a planned visit by President Franklin D.
Roosevelt that never occurred. There is a lot of talk that this
is a portion of the K-25 building that needs to be salvaged as
part of a historic preservation effort.
The only downside to the tour was that my hard hat became so
tight on my head that the pressure was unbearable. I had to get a
technician to scan my hands for any contamination before I could
adjust it.
At the end of the tour, we stripped off the protective equipment
and had to go through a full-body scanner to make sure we were
not contaminated. I passed the test.
Although it was hard to put into words everything I saw and felt
on my hour-plus tour of part of Oak Ridge's history, I must close
by saying it was an amazing experience.
*****************************************************************
35 DOE: Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board, Hanford
FR Doc 04-9968
[Federal Register: May 3, 2004 (Volume 69, Number 85)] [Notices]
[Page 24140] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access
[wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr03my04-51]
AGENCY: Department of Energy.
ACTION: Notice of open meeting.
SUMMARY: This notice announces a meeting of the Environmental
Management Site-Specific Advisory Board (EM SSAB), Hanford. The
Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 86 Stat. 770)
requires that public notice of these meeting be announced in the
Federal Register.
DATES: Thursday, June 3, 2004, 9 a.m.-5 p.m.; Friday, June 4,
2004, 8:30 a.m.-4 p.m.
ADDRESSES: Red Lion Hotel, Columbia Center, 1101 North Columbia
Center Boulevard, Kennewick, WA. Phone: (509) 946-7611, fax:
(509) 943-8564.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Yvonne Sherman, Public
Involvement Program Manager, Department of Energy Richland
Operations Office, 825 Jadwin, MSIN A7-75, Richland, WA 99352;
phone: (509) 376-6216; fax: (509) 376-1563.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Purpose of the Board: The purpose of
the Board is to make recommendations to DOE and its regulators in
the areas of environmental restoration, waste management, and
related activities.
Tentative Agenda Thursday, June 3, 2004 Office of River
Protection Mass Balance.
Milestone-45 Change Package.
Risk Based End States.
New Occupational Medicine Contract.
Advice on Technical Assistance (from River & Plateau Committee).
Advice on Minority Outreach (from the Public Involvement
Committee).
Friday, June 4, 2004.
Hanford Solid Waste-EIS Record of Decision.
Risk Assessment Tutorial.
Committee Updates.
Agency Updates.
Adoption of Board Advice.
Identification of Topics for September Board Meeting.
Public Participation: The meeting is open to the public.
Written statements may be filed with the Board either before or
after the meeting. Individuals who wish to make oral statements
pertaining to agenda items should contact Yvonne Sherman's office
at the address or telephone number listed above. Requests must be
received five days prior to the meeting and reasonable provision
will be made to include the presentation in the agenda. The
Deputy Designated Federal Officer is empowered to conduct the
meeting in a fashion that will facilitate the orderly conduct of
business. Each individual wishing to make public comment will be
provided equal time to present their comments.
Minutes: The minutes of this meeting will be available for public
review and copying at the Freedom of Information Public Reading
Room, 1E-190, Forrestal Building, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW.,
Washington, DC 20585 between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday-Friday,
except Federal holidays. Minutes will also be available by
writing to Yvonne Sherman, Department of Energy Richland
Operation Office, 825 Jadwin, MSIN A7-75, Richland, WA 99352, or
by calling her at (509) 376-1563.
Issued at Washington, DC on April 28, 2004.
Rachel M. Samuel, Deputy Advisory Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. 04-9968 Filed 4-30-04; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
*****************************************************************
36 DOE: Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board, Savannah
FR Doc 04-9969
[Federal Register: May 3, 2004 (Volume 69, Number 85)] [Notices]
[Page 24140-24141] From the Federal Register Online via GPO
Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr03my04-52]
River AGENCY: Department of Energy.
ACTION: Notice of open meeting.
SUMMARY: This notice announces a meeting of the Environmental
Management Site-Specific Advisory Board (EM SSAB), Savannah
River. The Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. No. 92-463, 86
Stat.770) requires that public notice of these meetings be
announced in the Federal Register.
DATES: Monday, May 24, 2004, 1 p.m.-6:15 p.m. Tuesday, May 25,
2004, 8:30 a.m.-4 p.m.
ADDRESSES: Radisson Hotel, 411 West Bay Street, Savannah, GA
31401.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gerri Flemming, Closure Project
Office, Department of Energy Savannah River Operations Office,
P.O. Box A, Aiken, SC 29802; Phone: (803) 952-7886.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Purpose of the Board: The purpose of
the Board is to make recommendations to DOE and its regulators in
the areas of environmental restoration, waste management, and
related activities.
Tentative Agendas Monday, May 24, 2004 1 p.m.--Combined Committee
Meeting 5:15 p.m.--Executive Committee Meeting 6:15 p.m.--Adjourn
Tuesday, May 25, 2004 8:30 a.m.--Approval of Minutes; Agency
Updates; Public Comment Session 9 a.m.--Chair and Facilitator
Update 9:45 a.m.--Strategic & Legacy Management Committee Report
11:15 a.m.--Administrative Committee Report Bylaws Amendment
Proposal 11:45 a.m.--Public Comment Session 12 noon--Lunch Break
1 p.m.--Waste Management Committee Report 2:30 p.m.--Facility
Disposition & Site Remediation Committee Report 3:45 p.m.--Public
Comment Session 4 p.m.--Adjourn If needed, time will be allotted
after public comments for items added to the agenda, and
administrative details. A final agenda will be available at the
meeting Monday, May 24, 2004.
Public Participation: The meeting is open to the public.
Written statements may be filed with the Board either before or
after the meeting. Individuals
[[Page 24141]] who wish to make the oral state-ments pertaining
to agenda items should contact Gerri Flemming's office at the
address or telephone listed above. Requests must be received five
days prior to the meeting and reasonable provision will be made
to include the presentation in the agenda. The Deputy Designated
Federal Officer is empowered to conduct the meeting in a fashion
that will facilitate the orderly conduct business. Each
individual wishing to make public comment will be provided equal
time to present their comments.
Minutes: The minutes of this meeting will be available for public
review and copying at the Freedom of Information Public Reading
Room, 1E-190, Forrestal Building, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW.,
Washington, DC 20585 between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through
Friday, except Federal holidays. Minutes will also be available
by writing to Gerri Flemming, Department of Energy Savannah River
Operations Office, PO Box A, Aiken, SC 29802, or by calling her
at (803) 952-7886.
Issued at Washington, DC, on April 27, 2004.
Rachel M. Samuel, Deputy Advisory Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. 04-9969 Filed 4-30-04; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
*****************************************************************
37 Albuquerque Tribune: Los Alamos Lab chief boasts of changes
By Leslie Hoffman
The Associated Press
The man who directs one of the nation's top nuclear weapons labs
is on the offensive and "unapologetically upbeat" about a place
he says has transformed the way it does business.
Last May, Pete Nanos was on the defensive, reassuring worried
Los Alamos National Laboratory workers after Energy Secretary
Spencer Abraham announced the University of California would have
to fight to manage the lab for the first time in six decades. The
UC contract expires in September 2005.
A year after Abraham's April 30, 2003, announcement, Nanos says
the lab is "poised to turn the corner in a big way" on bad press.
Trouble began in the fall of 2002 when allegations surfaced
about Swiss-cheese-style business controls, missing equipment,
financial malfeasance and efforts by some lab managers to cover
it all up.
Since then, top managers have been expunged and a number of
internal and external reviews of business practices completed. A
wall-to-wall lab inventory accounted for more than 99 percent of
controlled property, Nanos said, and the lab has instituted
hundreds of policy changes.
Nanos is also pushing a more subtle but fundamental change in
lab culture.
It's emblazoned across a glossy pamphlet Nanos pulled from his
briefcase - the lab's new corporate statement declaring "The
World's Greatest Science Protecting America."
"That's what I'm making sure that nobody misses at the
laboratory.... That's the essence of Los Alamos - it's the
science and national security mission," Nanos said Friday during
an interview with The Associated Press.
Nanos is infusing a corporate-style marketing and management
approach to a place long known as a bastion of academia where
scientists say the pursuit of critical science sets the tone.
Nanos understands that. That's why he says one manager should
continue to oversee both Los Alamos and California's Lawrence
Livermore national laboratories, another UC-managed lab whose
contract will be put up for competitive bid.
Management of the labs must ensure "that you get a good
aggressive peer review but that that peer review isn't being
driven by market share," he said.
However, the retired Navy vice admiral has injected some
corporate philosophy into a lab system criticized by auditors and
members of Congress for its lax business practices.
For starters, Nanos says the lab must hold the line on costs but
still meet ever-increasing expectations.
"I see budgets in the weapons program to be level or maybe even
slightly declining," he said. "I don't see any large growth in
weapons budgets. So being able to operate within those budgets
and meet the critical goals of the nation is going to be
extremely important."
A restructuring of the lab's weapons program is the first step
toward saving money, he says. Nanos recently created a separate
"directorate" for weapons programs. That directorate is
responsible for planning, budgeting and overseeing the lab's
entire nuclear weapons program. That leaves other areas of the
lab time to focus solely on science, Nanos says.
Meanwhile, the lab has also lowered overhead costs by $40
million this year by scrutinizing how everyone spends his her
budget, Nanos says.
"This is really important to the laboratory because what it does
is it lowers the cost of science," he said. "It makes our science
more competitive in the market."
And, as UC's man on the ground, Nanos has a healthy incentive to
improve the laboratory's competitiveness under his employer's
watch.
"I don't worry a lot about the (contract) competition in the day
to day, but we do put our best foot forward," Nanos said.
In the meantime, the lab is starting to get a different kind of
attention for its business practices - praise.
The Energy Department inspector general last month gave the lab a
positive review for efforts to revamp its purchase card program,
a focus of the probe into faulty business practices that
uncovered about $3,000 in improper purchases by lab employees.
"A year ago, there were some days when I felt like I was the
lone cheerleader," Nanos said. Now, "everywhere, we're on the up
slope."
© The Albuquerque Tribune.
*****************************************************************
38 Oak Ridger: S Auerbach Science division founder dies
oakridger.com Stan Auerbach, the founding director of Oak Ridge
National Laboratory's Environmental Sciences Division, died
Saturday
last updated at 12:22 p.m. on May 3,
HONOR: In 1987, Auerbach received the Department of Energy's
Distinguished Associated Award.
Paul Parson Oak Ridger Staff
mailto:paul.parson@oakridger.com
Stan Auerbach, the founding director of Oak Ridge National
Laboratory's Environmental Sciences Division, died Saturday,
according to family and friends.
Auerbach established ORNL's ecological program in 1954 and
directed the present Environmental Sciences Division from its
inception in 1971 until 1986, according to ORNL officials. In
1987, he received the Department of Energy's Distinguished
Associated Award - one of the highest honors for a non-government
employee.
Dave Reichle, who Auerbach mentored and who succeeded him as
Environmental Sciences Division director, said Auerbach left
behind a strong legacy. Auerbach's protégés also included
recent ORNL Associate Director Frank Harris, and other
Environmental Sciences Division directors Steve Hildebrand and
Bob Van Hook, who directed several programs at ORNL in addition
to heading up Lockheed Martin Energy Systems.
*****************************************************************