*****************************************************************
05/25/04 **** RADIATION BULLETIN(RADBULL) **** VOL 12.125
*****************************************************************
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 news24: Iran top of nuclear fuel pack
2 AFP: Iran has mastered up to 70 percent of nuclear fuel cycle
3 AFP: Iran still flagging in cooperation on investigating nuclear
4 [NukeNet] "Virtual" Nuclear Weapons States & Link Between Nuke
5 [du-list] G-8 Summit highlights fate of excess nukes -
6 Interfax: IAEA director general to visit Moscow
7 KR Washington Bureau: U.S., Russia to sign nuclear fuel agreement
8 Gringoes: Brazil, China discuss nuclear production agreement
9 asahi.com: Estimates may snag nuke plans
NUCLEAR REACTORS
10 US: NRC: Dominion Nuclear Connecticut; Establishment of Atomic Safet
11 US: NRC: Notice of Availability of Environmental Assessment and Find
12 US: NRC: 10 CFR Part 52 Construction Inspection Program Framework
13 US: NRC: Sunshine Act Meeting
14 The Herald: Wilson welcomes nuclear power support from environmental
15 UK Independent: debate by green groups
16 US: Rockford Register Star: Nuclear energy still unpopular with Camp
17 US: JOURNAL NEWS: Seeking alternate energy
18 China Daily: Nuclear plants to ease shortages
19 Slovak news: Coalition reserved over Rusko's nuclear plans
20 US: Maine Today: Maine Yankee protests town tax assessment
21 US: Newsday: Westchester commissions study on takeover of nuclear pl
22 AU ABC: Environmentalist says nuclear energy the answer to global wa
23 US: NRC: NRC Begins Special Inspection of Pump Failure at Perry Nucl
24 US: ONN: Nuclear power plant production on hold
25 New Zealand News: Controversy erupts over green guru's nuclear
26 Scotsman: Heated row over nuclear power call
27 US: NRC: NRC to Meet with Nuclear Management Company to Discuss Perf
NUCLEAR SAFETY
28 US: Deseretnews: Nevada tests worry Utahns
29 US: NRC: Notice of Availability of Environmental Assessment and Find
30 UPI Report: dirty bomb easy to buy in Ukraine -
31 US: CBBC: We prepared for nuclear fallout at our school
32 US: Guardian Unlimited: U.S. Vows New Effort on 'Dirty' Materials
33 US: Clarion-Ledger: Vet tells of mid-air collision on simulated miss
34 Boston.com: Russia said to mothball nuclear subs
NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE
35 US: Arizona Republic: Truckloads of nuclear waste in state's path
36 Las Vegas RJ: BLM to hold public meetings on proposal for Yucca rail
37 Las Vegas RJ: NRC urged to ignore features of Yucca dump
38 US: BBC: Aborigines count cost of mine
39 Las Vegas SUN: State says Yucca shields too costly
NUCLEAR WEAPONS
US DEPT. OF ENERGY
40 Las Vegas SUN: Nuclear experiment performed at Nevada Test Site
41 Deseretnews: No more N-tests in Nevada desert
42 Seattle Post-Intelligencer: Hanford injury reports doubted
43 Tri-City Herald: Nitrous oxide low near tanks, test shows
44 PISJ: New lab director to move to Idaho Falls
OTHER NUCLEAR
45 Google News Alert - nuclear
46 [du-list] research into links between banks and (DU) arms trade
47 Albuquerque Tribune: Manhattan Project vet remembers Oppie
48 NRC: Nuclear Regulatory Commission Honors Employees on May 27 in Roc
*****************************************************************
*****************************************************************
FULL NEWS STORIES
*****************************************************************
*****************************************************************
1 news24: Iran top of nuclear fuel pack
[http://www.news24.com
Tehran - Iran has mastered between 60 and 70% of the technology
needed for the production of nuclear fuel, a former Iranian
representative to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)
said.
Ali Akbar Salehi, quoted on Tuesday in Kayhan daily, said the
technology had been "developed locally" but it would still take
around 10 years until Iran could introduce a "safe fuel to the
heart of the Bushehr reactor".
The nuclear reactor, Iran's first, is under construction in the
south of Iran with help from Russia.
"We have found the way and we do not have any scientific
problems," he was quoted as saying.
"Iran has already mastered the technology to extract uranium from
mines, to convert the uranium ... and its enrichment, but we must
still seek the capacity to produce the uranium rods for use in
the Bushehr power station."
The United States charges Iran is hiding a programme to build the
bomb and has called for the IAEA, which has been investigating
the Iranian program since February 2003, to refer the Islamic
Republic to the UN Security Council for possible international
sanctions.
Iran submitted a new declaration on its nuclear programme to the
IAEA earlier this month after a similar document last year failed
to live up to Iranian promises to fully disclose its nuclear
activities.
Radiation pattern noted
The earlier declaration left out such sensitive information as
Iran's possession of designs for sophisticated P-2 centrifuges
that can enrich uranium to bomb-grade levels.
IAEA inspectors have noted a pattern of radiation contamination
in Iran which could indicate attempts to enrich uranium for use
in nuclear weapons, diplomats in Vienna have said.
Agency inspectors have reported two such concentrations - at a
Kalaye Electric Company workshop in Tehran and at the Natanz
pilot fuel enrichment plant 250km south of the Iranian capital.
Iran, which claims the patterns are caused by equipment imported
through an international black market, has voluntarily suspended
enrichment activities at Natanz as a sign of goodwill to the
international community.
Salehi said the Western powers also wanted Iran to suspend
conversion activities at the Isfahan nuclear plant, capable of
producing UF6 material used in centrifuges, but Tehran has
refused.
IAEA director general Mohamed ElBaradei said last week that
Iran's co-operation with the agency had been insufficient and he
had not drawn any conclusions over the nature of the country's
nuclear programme.
Tehran expects the IAEA probe to be completed in June but
ElBaradei has said it may take until the end of the year.
Edited by Anthea Jonathan
*****************************************************************
2 AFP: Iran has mastered up to 70 percent of nuclear fuel cycle
: official
[http://www.spacewar.com/]
TEHRAN (AFP) May 25, 2004
Iran has mastered between 60 and 70 percent of the technology
needed for the production of nuclear fuel, a former Iranian
representative to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)
said.
Ali Akbar Salehi, quoted Tuesday in Kayhan daily, said the
technology had been "developed locally" but it would still take
around 10 years until Iran could introduce a "safe fuel to the
heart of the Bushehr reactor".
The nuclear reactor, Iran's first, is under construction in the
south of Iran with help from Russia.
"We have found the way and we do not have any scientific
problems," he was quoted as saying.
"Iran has already mastered the technology to extract uranium from
mines, to convert the uranium ... and its enrichment, but we must
still seek the capacity to produce the uranium rods for use in
the Bushehr power station."
The United States charges Iran is hiding a program to build the
bomb and has called for the IAEA, which has been investigating
the Iranian program since February 2003, to refer the Islamic
Republic to the UN Security Council for possible international
sanctions.
Iran submitted a new declaration on its nuclear program to the
IAEA earlier this month after a similar document last year failed
to live up to Iranian promises to fully disclose its nuclear
activities.
The earlier declaration left out such sensitive information as
Iran's possession of designs for sophisticated P-2 centrifuges
that can enrich uranium to bomb-grade levels.
IAEA inspectors have noted a pattern of radiation contamination
in Iran which could indicate attempts to enrich uranium for use
in nuclear weapons, diplomats in Vienna where the agency is based
have told AFP.
Agency inspectors have reported two such concentrations -- at a
Kalaye Electric Company workshop in Tehran and at the Natanz
pilot fuel enrichment plant 250 kilometres (150 miles) south of
the Iranian capital.
Iran, which claims the patterns are caused by equipment imported
through an international black market, has voluntarily suspended
enrichment activities at Natanz as a sign of goodwill to the
international community.
According to Salehi, the Western powers also want Iran to suspend
conversion activities at the Isfahan nuclear plant, capable of
producing UF6 material used in centrifuges, but Tehran had
refused.
Salehi, who now serves as adviser to Foreign Minister Kamal
Kharazi, revealed that Iranian engineers were building "a
40-megawatt (nuclear) research reactor" and had made good
progress.
"At this rate, the reactor will be up and running in six to seven
years," he said.
IAEA director general Mohamed ElBaradei said last week that
Iran's cooperation with the agency had been insufficient and he
had not drawn any conclusions over the nature of the country's
nuclear programme.
Tehran expects the IAEA probe to be completed in June but
ElBaradei has said it may take until the end of the year.
WAR.WIRE
*****************************************************************
3 AFP: Iran still flagging in cooperation on investigating nuclear
program
[http://www.spacewar.com/]
VIENNA (AFP) May 25, 2004
UN atomic agency inspectors are still waiting for Iran to agree
to more open conditions for inspections of military sites as the
clock ticks towards an agency meeting in June on whether Tehran
is secretly developing nuclear weapons, diplomats said.
Senior diplomats close to the Vienna-based International Atomic
Energy Agency said the IAEA was not getting the cooperation it
needs in investigating Iran's atomic activities, despite the
Islamic Republic's repeated promises to provide access for full
and transparent reporting.
Non-proliferation expert Gary Samore told AFP from the
International Institute for Strategic Studies think tank in
London that Iran's "level of cooperation with the IAEA has really
deteriorated over the past few months."
"My understanding is that the Iranians have destroyed some
facilities and razed them to the ground. The suspicion is that
these facilities were involved in nuclear development," he said.
A diplomat close to the IAEA said that while the Iranian nuclear
industry "rips down buildings" as part of its work, the Iranians
"have not ripped down something the IAEA has inspected." He
refused to say if this were true about sites the IAEA wanted now,
or in the future, to inspect.
The Iranians had re-painted a workshop and done some construction
work at a workshop at the Kalaye Electric Company in Tehran in
which the IAEA was interested.
Despite this, IAEA inspectors last year found contamination at
the site by highly enriched uranium particles.
At stake is what the IAEA's 35-nation board of governors will
decide when it meets at the agency's headquarters in Vienna on
June 14.
The United States claims Iran is hiding a program to build the
bomb and has called for the IAEA, which has been investigating
the Iranian program since February 2003, to refer the Islamic
Republic to the UN Security Council for possible international
sanctions.
But diplomats said the IAEA will be unable to make a final
finding on Iran due both to Tehran's delaying international
inspections and because an Iranian declaration on its nuclear
program filed last week came too late to be fully evaluated
before June 14.
The military sites in question are seven workshops for
manufacturing centrifuge components which are owned by military
industrial organizations at three locations.
Centrifuges are used to enrich uranium. Highly enriched uranium
can be used to make an atomic bomb.
The IAEA visited the workshops at the military sites last January
and can return, but Iran has only been willing to give "managed
access," according to an IAEA report in February.
The IAEA said in a "note" it wrote in March that "the agency's
visit was 'managed' in the sense that inspectors were not
permitted to take pictures with IAEA cameras or use their own
electronic equipment."
The IAEA "wants to agree on certain arrangements so the
inspectors can do their jobs," a diplomat, who asked not to be
named, said.
The diplomat said the IAEA inspectors were guided on their last
visit by Revolutionary Guard soldiers.
The inspectors need to be able to move freely and to use their
own equipment, the diplomat said.
He said the inspectors should be visiting the military sites soon
as there appeared to be an agreement for the inspectors to go
"without compromising the basic IAEA mission."
Iranian ambassador to the IAEA Pirooz Hosseini said there was no
problem with managed access.
"A military site is not a shopping center. It is an important
place for any country," he said.
He said the IAEA inspectors were "guided by some escorts and
taken to the place they want to see. In the field, cooperation is
going on very well."
But another diplomat pointed to this problem of unfettered access
as a sign "the Iranians give cooperation reluctantly and only
after being persuaded to do so."
Samore said there are suspicions that the Iranian Revolutionary
Guards have been hiding "a parallel program to work on
centrifuges and nuclear weapons designs as well."
WAR.WIRE
*****************************************************************
4 [NukeNet] "Virtual" Nuclear Weapons States & Link Between Nuke
Date: Tue, 25 May 2004 14:45:43 -0700
The diplomatic backdrop includes possible
sanctions and even the threat of war.
"If Iran goes nuclear, you worry that Hezbollah
goes nuclear," said Paul Leventhal, president of
the Nuclear Control Institute, a private group in
Washington, referring to the Iran-backed terrorist
group.
Experts now talk frankly about a subject that was
once taboo: "virtual" weapon states - Japan,
Germany, Belgium, Canada, Brazil, Kazakhstan,
Taiwan and a dozen other countries that have
mastered the basics of nuclear power and could, if
they wanted, quickly cross the line to make
nuclear arms, probably in a matter or months.
Experts call it breakout.
The development of such arsenals is often hard to
hide, because it takes place in large industrial
complexes where nuclear power and nuclear weapons
are joined at the hip - using technologies that
are often identical, or nearly so. Today, with
what seems like relative ease, scientists can
divert an ostensibly peaceful program to make not
only electricity but also highly pure uranium or
plutonium, both excellent bomb fuels.
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/25/science/25nucl.html
Nuclear Weapons in Iran: Plowshare or Sword?
By WILLIAM J. BROAD
Published: May 25, 2004
Agence France-Presse
A NUCLEAR QUESTION MARK A large
power reactor being built last year at Bushehr,
Iran. Nuclear experts are concerned that the rapid
growth of such plants may put some nations in a
position to cross the line from peaceful uses of
nuclear power to weapons making.
ARTICLE TOOLS
E-Mail This Article
Printer-Friendly Format
Most E-Mailed Articles
Reprints & Permissions
Single-Page Format
MULTIMEDIA
Graphic: A Civilian
Plant's Deadly Potential
Graphic: Growing
Stockpiles
TIMES NEWS TRACKER
Topics
Alerts
Iran
Atomic Energy
International Relations
Armament, Defense and Military
Forces
Space Imaging
FROM ABOVE A satellite image
from 2002 of construction on the two reactor
units.
recurring fear haunts the West's increasingly
tense confrontation with Iran: Is its work on
civilian nuclear power actually a ruse for making
a deadly atomic arsenal, as has been the case with
other countries?
Next month, the United Nations plans to take up
that question at a board meeting of the
International Atomic Energy Agency, in Vienna. The
diplomatic backdrop includes possible sanctions
and even the threat of war.
"If Iran goes nuclear, you worry that Hezbollah
goes nuclear," said Paul Leventhal, president of
the Nuclear Control Institute, a private group in
Washington, referring to the Iran-backed terrorist
group.
The Iranian crisis, and related ones simmering in
North Korea and also around Dr. Abdul Qadeer Khan,
the Pakistani expert who recently confessed to
running nuclear black markets, are giving new
urgency to limiting proliferation, a central
danger of the atomic era. Recently, international
inspectors discovered that North Korea may have
clandestinely supplied uranium to Libya,
demonstrating how an aspiring state can secretly
reach for nuclear arms.
The development of such arsenals is often hard to
hide, because it takes place in large industrial
complexes where nuclear power and nuclear weapons
are joined at the hip - using technologies that
are often identical, or nearly so. Today, with
what seems like relative ease, scientists can
divert an ostensibly peaceful program to make not
only electricity but also highly pure uranium or
plutonium, both excellent bomb fuels.
Experts now talk frankly about a subject that was
once taboo: "virtual" weapon states - Japan,
Germany, Belgium, Canada, Brazil, Kazakhstan,
Taiwan and a dozen other countries that have
mastered the basics of nuclear power and could, if
they wanted, quickly cross the line to make
nuclear arms, probably in a matter or months.
Experts call it breakout.
The question now, driven largely by the perception
that the world is entering a dangerous new phase
of nuclear proliferation, is whether the two
endeavors can be separated. And as difficult as
that may seem, new initiatives are rising to meet
the challenge.
Last year, North Korea stunned the world by
withdrawing from the Nonproliferation Treaty. It
was the first time a nation had dropped out of the
1968 pact, setting a grim precedent and prompting
warnings of the accord's demise.
If another virtual power crosses the line, experts
fear, it could start a chain reaction in which
others feel they have no alternative but to do
likewise.
Yet a country like Iran can retain its
virtual-weapons status - and the threat of
breakout - even if the International Atomic Energy
Agency gives it a clean bill of health. That kind
of quandary is driving the wider debate on ways to
safeguard nuclear power, especially given that the
world may rely on it increasingly as worries grow
about global warming and oil shortages.
"We can't give absolute guarantees," said Graham
Andrew, a senior scientist at the agency. "But
there will be technological developments to make
the fuel cycle more proliferation-resistant."
Other experts agree. "The future looks better than
the past in terms of this whole problem," said
Rose Gottemoeller, a senior associate at the
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. "At
the moment, it's a very, very fast-moving arena
that a lot of people are into and thinking about."
The central compact of the nuclear age - what
critics call a deal with the devil - is that
countries can get help from other nations in
developing nuclear power if they pledge to
renounce nuclear arms. That principle was codified
in the 1968 treaty and has produced a vast
apparatus of the International Atomic Energy
Agency that not only helps nations go peacefully
nuclear but also monitors them for cheating.
But surveillance has proved far from perfect, and
states have proved far from trustworthy.
"If you look at every nation that's recently gone
nuclear," said Mr. Leventhal of the Nuclear
Control Institute, "they've done it through the
civilian nuclear fuel cycle: Iraq, North Korea,
India, Pakistan, South Africa. And now we're
worried about Iran."
The moral, he added, is that atoms for peace can
be "a shortcut to atoms for war."
Moreover, the raw material is growing. The world
now has 440 commercial nuclear reactors and 31
more under construction.
Experts say Iran provides a good example of the
breakout danger. With the right tweaks, its
sprawling complex now under construction could
make arms of devastating force. Recently, mistrust
over that prospect soared when inspectors found
that Iran had hidden some of its most sensitive
nuclear work as long as 18 years.
In the central desert near Yazd, the country now
mines uranium in shafts up to a fifth of a mile
deep.
Advertisement
At Isfahan, an ancient city that boasts a top
research center, it is building a factory for
converting the ore into uranium hexafluoride. When
heated, the crystals turn into a gas ideal for
processing to recover uranium's rare U-235
isotope, which, in bombs and reactors, easily
splits in two to produce bursts of atomic energy.
Nearby at Natanz, Iran aims to feed the gas into
50,000 centrifuges - tall, thin machines that spin
extraordinarily fast to separate the relatively
light U-235 isotope from its heavier cousin,
U-238. It recently came to light that Iran had
gained much help in making its centrifuges from
Dr. Khan and his secretive network.
Iran says it wants to enrich the uranium to about
5 percent U-235, the level needed for nuclear
reactors.
But enrichment is one place that good power
programs can easily go bad, nonproliferation
experts say. By simply lengthening the spin cycle,
a nation can enrich the uranium up to 90 percent
U-235, the high purity usually preferred for
bombs.
Moreover, a dirty little secret of the atomic
world is that the hardest step is enriching
uranium for reactors, not bombs. David Albright,
president of the Institute for Science and
International Security, an arms control group in
Washington, said the step from reactor to weapon
fuel took roughly 25 percent more effort.
The whirling centrifuges at Natanz could make fuel
for up to 20 nuclear weapons every year, according
to the Carnegie Endowment. Others put the figure
at 25 bombs a year.
The Iranians are building a large power reactor at
Bushehr on the Persian Gulf meant to be fueled
with low-enriched uranium from Natanz. Here too,
experts say, a good program can go bad.
Normally, uranium fuel stays in a reactor for
three or four years and, as an inadvertent
byproduct of atomic fission, becomes slowly
riddled with plutonium 239, the other good
material for making atom bombs. But the spent fuel
also accumulates plutonium 240, which is so
radioactive that it can be very difficult to turn
into weapons.
But if the reactor's fuel is changed frequently -
every few months - that cuts the P-240 to
preferable levels for building an arsenal. (And
since less plutonium than uranium is needed for a
blast of equal size, it is the preferred material
for making compact warheads that are relatively
easy to fit on missiles.)
John R. Bolton, the State Department's under
secretary for arms control, recently told Congress
that after several years of operation, Bushehr
could make enough plutonium for more than 80
nuclear weapons.
Iran strongly denies such ambitions.
"That we are on the verge of a nuclear
breakthrough is true," Hashemi Rafsanjani, Iran's
former president, said recently, according to the
Islamic Republic News Agency. "But we are not
seeking nuclear weapons."
If Iran wanted to recover plutonium from Bushehr,
or a different reactor under construction at Arak,
it would have to extract the metal from spent
fuel, a hard job because of the waste's high
radioactivity. Such reprocessing plants have
legitimate commercial uses for turning nuclear
detritus into new fuel, as France, Britain, Japan
and Russia do.
Iran, too, has announced that it wants to master
the complete nuclear fuel cycle, apparently
including reprocessing. Last year, President
Mohammad Khatami said the country wanted to
recycle power-plant fuel. "We are determined," he
said in a televised speech, "to use nuclear
technology for civilian purposes."
Around the globe, experts are struggling to find
ways to guarantee such good intentions: not just
in Iran, but everywhere.
Mohamed ElBaradei, director of the International
Atomic Energy Agency, is calling for
"multinational controls" on the production of any
material that can be used for nuclear arms. If
accepted, that would mean no single country could
enrich uranium or reprocess plutonium on its own,
but only in groups where members would verify each
other's honesty.
Early this month, Iran signaled that it might be
interested in teaming with Russia and Europe to
enrich uranium, giving arms controllers some hope
of a peaceful resolution to the current crisis.
Matthew Bunn, a nuclear expert at the Kennedy
School of Government at Harvard, has called for
sweetening the deal by guaranteeing members of a
consortium lifetime fuel supplies and spent-fuel
removal if they forgo enrichment and reprocessing
plants.
"What you need is an incentive," he said. One
challenge, he added, would be convincing states
that consortiums "won't change their minds," given
that nuclear policy makers have often done so in
the past.
Advertisement
President Bush has taken a harder line, proposing
in a February speech to limit drastically the
number of nations allowed to produce nuclear fuel.
Only states that already have enrichment and
reprocessing plants, he said, should do such work,
and they in turn would service countries that
aspire to nuclear power.
While many experts praise Mr. Bush's attention to
the nonproliferation issue, some have faulted his
specifics. "It's all sticks and no carrots," said
Mr. Bunn, adding that the Bush plan would only
feed global resentment toward the nuclear club. "I
think you can couch this to be more carrotlike."
Down the road, a different approach involves
developing new classes of reactors that would
better resist nuclear proliferation, especially by
making the recovery of plutonium 239 much harder.
Many studies, including one last year at M.I.T.,
have championed better fuel cycles and security.
"There is potentially a pathway - diplomatic,
technical - to see a significant global
deployment" of safer technologies and strategies,
said Ernest J. Moniz, a former Energy Department
official who helped lead the M.I.T. study. "But it
can't happen without U.S. leadership and the U.S.
partnering with other countries, and that will
require a re-examination of our policies."
Mr. Leventhal of the Nuclear Control Institute
said too many of the proposals were too timid.
Most fundamentally, he said, nations have to turn
away from the commercial use of plutonium, which
grows more abundant every day.
"Only denial and greed" can explain the world's
continuing to want plutonium for peaceful uses, he
said, and added, "It may take the unthinkable
happening before the political process can screw
up the courage to put an end to this ridiculously
dangerous industry."
_______________________________________________________________________
Subscribe/Unsubscribe Here: http://www.energyjustice.net/nukenet/
Change your settings at:
http://energyjustice.net/mailman/listinfo/nukenet_energyjustice.net
*****************************************************************
5 [du-list] G-8 Summit highlights fate of excess nukes -
Date: Tue, 25 May 2004 14:44:24 -0700
Savannah Morning News, USA, 25.05.2004 G-8 Summit
highlights fate of excess nukes With SRS upstream, this
global nuclear issue has a backyard presence for coastal
Georgia. by Mary Landers Growing up in Savannah in the
1960s, Cheryl Jay was admonished not to play outside when
it rained. The mothers in her neighborhood were afraid of...
Read the article:
http://www.savannahnow.com/stories/052404/2184317.shtml
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
b99f8.jpg
b9a46.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: b99f8.jpg: 00000001,6559aae7,00000000,00000000
Attachment Converted: b9a46.jpg: 00000001,6559aae8,00000000,00000000
*****************************************************************
6 Interfax: IAEA director general to visit Moscow
Updated: May 25 2004 4:52PM (MSK)
Interfax.com [http://www.interfax.com]
MOSCOW. May 25 (Interfax) - International Atomic Energy Agency
Director General Mohammed ElBaradei will visit Moscow at the end
of June, the Russian Foreign Ministry said in a report released
on Monday.
Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Yury Fedotov met with ElBaradei
in Vienna on May 24.
That was the latest of the regular meetings at which Russian and
IAEA officials discuss a broad range of issues of mutual
interest.
The two men discussed the Iranian "nuclear folder." They agreed
that the removal of nuclear materials from Iran and the disposal
of installations where these materials were handled must be
carried out under international supervision involving the IAEA
in line with related UN Security Council resolutions.
© 1991-2004 Interfax
*****************************************************************
7 KR Washington Bureau: U.S., Russia to sign nuclear fuel agreement
| 05/25/2004 |
By Mark McDonald
Knight Ridder Newspapers
MOSCOW - The United States and Russia will sign an
agreement Thursday that should finally lock down some of the
world's most dangerous and poorly guarded nuclear fuel.
Atomic scientists have long warned that supplies of
highly enriched uranium at research and university reactors
around the world are particularly vulnerable to theft by
terrorists. The new U.S.-Russia program would retrieve the
uranium from 20 reactors in 17 countries and bring it back to
Russia for storage.
"This fuel is of great interest to terrorists, so the
program is quite significant," said Daniil Kobyakov, a
nonproliferation expert at the PIR Center, an independent policy
research organization in Moscow.
Secretary of Energy Spencer Abraham is expected to sign
the accord in Moscow on Thursday with Alexander Rumantsyev, the
head of Russia's nuclear agency. It will be formally known as the
Russian Research Reactor Fuel Return.
Research-reactor fuel is especially attractive to
terrorists because it can be used to make simple nuclear weapons
- about 50 pounds of enriched uranium for one device. Smaller
amounts could be used in "dirty bombs" - conventional bombs
containing nuclear material that would spread radiation when they
explode.
The research-reactor fuel also is easily transported and
often can be handled without elaborate shielding precautions.
But the biggest worry is that it's usually lightly
guarded.
"Academic and research reactors at universities are
simply not capable of providing a defense against a terrorist
assault," said Edwin Lyman, senior scientist in the Global
Security Program at the Union of Concerned Scientists in
Washington. "The great concern is a paramilitary-type assault on
one of these facilities and the material is forcibly removed."
Lyman said a U.S. government study found that thieves
could carry off the uranium in a storage pool in about an hour.
The fuel coming back to Russia is expected to be stored
at Dmitrovgrad, where it will be cooled and eventually
"downblended," in essence, diluted.
Russian officials say there's no storage room left at the
country's only fuel-reprocessing plant, the trouble-plagued Mayak
facility. Mayak is swamped with fuel taken from Russia's fleet of
rusting nuclear submarines and icebreakers.
Scientists and antinuclear activists are optimistic about
the new fuel-return program, but they're also concerned that
Russia is taking on large new imports of highly dangerous
uranium. They point to Russia's poor record in storing and
safeguarding the atomic material it already has.
"Bringing all this back to Russia, yes, it's a little
paradoxical, given all the warnings about proliferation in
Russia," said Lyman.
There have been numerous security breaches at sensitive
nuclear facilities, including one in which radioactive material
disappeared.
Two years ago, for example, a Greenpeace activist, a
Russian lawmaker and a camera crew made their way into a "high
security" area where thousands of tons of spent nuclear fuel were
stored. They spent several hours in the facility, located in
Krasnoyarsk. They walked past any number of guards and sentry
posts, shot their film and left without incident.
"Our protection system against terrorist attacks must be
modernized," said Nikolai Shingarev, chief spokesman for Minatom,
the Russian nuclear agency. "We know this. We pay great attention
to it."
Shingarev acknowledged "discrepancies" in
inventory-taking at nuclear plants and "very small thefts" of
radioactive material.
"There was one building operator who was caching away
`extra' fuel in case there was a shortfall in his inventory at
the end of the month," said a nuclear-security expert in Russia
who spoke on condition of anonymity.
Until only recently, he said, most Russian nuclear
facilities were keeping hand-written inventories in large account
books. He called the system "old-fashioned" and "haphazard."
The official said, "There would be guys in smocks and
caps opening up unmarked containers, saying, `What's in here?'
Sometimes we'd find pretty dangerous stuff that was clearly not
supposed to be where it was."
The U.S. Department of Energy is spending some $40
million to help the Russians improve security at nuclear
installations.
Many of the so-called "rapid upgrades" are Home
Depot-style measures: Replacing wooden doors with steel ones,
putting iron bars on vulnerable windows and installing
refrigerator-size concrete blocks to block access to nuclear
storage casks.
Other measures are more Radio Shack style: closed-circuit
TVs, electronic key-cards, motion sensors, walkie-talkies.
Russian officials also asked for field-sobriety kits to
test their Atomic Guard troopers.
Nuclear experts believe successful implementation of the
U.S.-Russia program will need some $80 million in funding by
Congress over the next two years.
The program covers fuel that the Soviet and Russian
governments originally supplied to foreign atomic facilities. In
some cases, those fuel shipments began as early as the 1950s.
The United States also exported nuclear reactors and
highly enriched uranium at the same time, starting with President
Dwight Eisenhower's "Atoms for Peace" program. More than a dozen
plants using that uranium are still operating in the United
States and elsewhere, but these fuel supplies aren't covered
under the new program with Russia.
Reactors in Uzbekistan, Belarus, Ukraine, Romania and
Poland are thought to be among the highest priority targets for
the upcoming "clean-out."
Lyman said there are substantial quantities of highly
enriched uranium in the former Soviet republic of Belarus.
"Many bombs worth," he said.
The other countries covered by the fuel-return program
are Bulgaria, China, the Czech Republic, North Korea, Egypt,
Germany, Hungary, Kazakhstan Latvia, Libya, Vietnam and
Yugoslavia.
Facilities returning their highly enriched fuel to Russia
must agree to convert their reactors to operate on low enriched
uranium, which is considered less of a proliferation threat.
The new U.S.-Russia program got something of a test run
on Aug. 22, 2002, when military forces from both countries raided
a research reactor outside Belgrade, the capital of then
Yugoslavia.
The 17-hour operation, which cost an estimated $5
million, reportedly netted 100 pounds of highly enriched uranium,
enough for two nuclear bombs.
Two other collections were made last year - 31 pounds of
highly enriched uranium from Romania in September and another 37
pounds from Bulgaria in December. Experts from the International
Atomic Energy Agency also participated.
*****************************************************************
8 Gringoes: Brazil, China discuss nuclear production agreement
Shanghai, May 25 - Brazil and China are discussing a nuclear
cooperation agreement, according to information coming out on
Tuesday during a Brazilian mission to China headed by President
Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva.
The agreement could result in autonomous Brazilian production of
enriched uranium, for peaceful ends.
Brazil´s Science and Technology Minister Eduardo Campos, who
meets this week in Beijing with Chinese authorities, says that
these latter have expressed an interest in Brazilian crude
uranium since November. They are also interested in Brazil´s
development of an advanced uranium enrichment centrifuge.
Brazil, for its part, wants to participate in the construction
of 11 nuclear plants in China, four of which in the short term.
Campos says that most important is the possibility that Brazil
will obtain the resources to complete its nuclear program and
have autonomy in the enrichment of uranium.
"We uphold our historic position to not sell uranium to
countries interested in buying it," said Campos.
"But we can discuss the hypothesis of selling our uranium to the
degree that makes the industrial-scale production of enriched
uranium viable," he added.
Campos added that President Lula has decided on the
establishment of a working group to draw up a report within 90
days proposing changes to Brazil´s nuclear program.
"We´re resuming talks with the Chinese in August after
evaluating our nuclear program strategy," said Campos.
Brazil´s Foreign Affairs Minister Celso Amorim, who is also in
China, avoided going into more details about the mater. He did
confirm, however, that the Chinese are interested in Brazil´s
uranium seams and that Brazil wants to take part in the
construction of Chinese nuclear plants.
Brazil has the world´s sixth largest uranium reserves.
João Caminoto
5/25/2004
Copyright © 2001 All Rights Reserved gringoes.com
*****************************************************************
9 asahi.com: Estimates may snag nuke plans
[asahi.com]
By TOMOJI WATANABE, The Asahi Shimbun
NEW YORK- The latest international estimates on uranium reserves
have thrown the necessity of spent nuclear fuel recycling into
question, an outcome that could force Japan to rethink its costly
nuclear recycling plans.
According to estimates compiled by the International Atomic
Energy Agency (IAEA) and the Nuclear Energy Agency (NEA), without
any reprocessing of spent nuclear fuels, the world has 270 years
of uranium reserves.
If the spent fuel were to be recycled once, it would only add an
estimated 30 years to the total.
The two organizations are considered the top authorities on
uranium reserves. The NEA is a Paris-based organ of the
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD).
The latest estimates will be included in a biennial report set to
be released soon by the two organizations.
The 2003 report will be based on data from 2002 and 2003,
gathered from 44 nations.
Japan's nuclear fuel recycling program centers on a so-called
pluthermal method, in which spent nuclear fuels are reprocessed
and reused in conventional light-water reactors as part of
plutonium-uranium mixed-oxide (MOX) fuels.
Of the 270 years worth of uranium reserves, 80 years are proven
reserves, according to the estimates.
If spent nuclear fuels were to be recycled once, however, known
reserves would grow to just 100 years.
The organizations estimate that the known quantity of uranium is
about 4.6 million tons in total, while estimated total untapped
deposits are about 14.4 million tons.
The amount of non-processed uranium necessary to generate 1
billion kilowatt hours of electricity is projected to be 20.7
tons, and 18.4 tons for once-recycled uranium.
At 18.8 trillion yen, Japan's recycling program represents the
most costly part of its so-called back-end operations, which
include storing, moving and reprocessing spent nuclear
fuels.(IHT/Asahi: May 25,2004) (05/25)
[Copyright Asahi Shimbun. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
10 NRC: Dominion Nuclear Connecticut; Establishment of Atomic Safety and
FR Doc 04-11755
[Federal Register: May 25, 2004 (Volume 69, Number 101)]
[Notices] [Page 29759-29760] From the Federal Register Online via
GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr25my04-90]
Licensing Board Pursuant to delegation by the Commission dated
December 29, 1972, published in the Federal Register, 37 FR
28,710 (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: Dominion
Nuclear Connecticut (Millstone Nuclear Power Station, Units 2 and
3) Pursuant to a March 8, 2004 notice of opportunity for hearing
published in the Federal Register (69 FR 11,897 (Mar. 12, 2004)),
and a May 4, 2004 Commission memorandum and order, CLI-04-12, 59
NRC--(May 4, 2004), a Licensing Board is being established to
conduct a proceeding on the March 22, 2004 hearing petition of
Connecticut Coalition Against Millstone (CCAM) regarding the
January 22, 2004
[[Page 29760]] Dominion Nuclear Connecticut applications for
renewal of the Millstone Units 2 and 3 operating licenses.
The Board is comprised of the following administrative judges:
Dr. Paul B. Abramson, Chair, Atomic Safety and Licensing Board
Panel, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC
20555-0001. Ann Marshall Young, Atomic Safety and Licensing Board
Panel, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC
20555-0001.
Dr. Richard F. Cole, 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 19th day of May 2004.
G. Paul Bollwerk, III, Chief Administrative Judge, Atomic Safety
and Licensing Board Panel.
[FR Doc. 04-11755 Filed 5-24-04; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
*****************************************************************
11 NRC: Notice of Availability of Environmental Assessment and Finding
FR Doc 04-11756
[Federal Register: May 25, 2004 (Volume 69, Number 101)]
[Notices] [Page 29760-29761] From the Federal Register Online via
GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr25my04-92]
of No Significant Impact for License Amendement for Department of
the Army, Walter Reed Army Medical Center Washington, DC AGENCY:
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
ACTION: Notice of Availability of Environmental Assessment and
Finding of No Significant Impact.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Laurie Peluso, Decommissioning
Branch, Division of Nuclear Materials Safety, Region I, 475
Allendale Road, King of Prussia, Pennsylvania, 19406, telephone
(610) 337-5323, fax (610) 337-5269; or by email: LAP@nrc.gov
[LAP@nrc.gov] .
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Introduction The Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (NRC) is considering the issuance of a license
amendment to Department of Army, Walter Reed Medical Center for
Materials License No. 08-01738-02, to authorize release of
Building 40 of the Washington, DC site for unrestricted use. NRC
has prepared an Environmental Assessment (EA) in support of this
action in accordance with the requirements of 10 CFR part 51.
Based on the EA, the NRC has concluded that a Finding of No
Significant Impact (FONSI) is appropriate. The amendment will be
issued following the publication of this Notice.
II. EA Summary The purpose of the proposed action is to authorize
the release of the licensee's Building 40 of the Washington, DC
facility for unrestricted use. WRAMC was authorized by the U.S.
Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) from February 18, 1959 to use
radioactive
[[Page 29761]] materials for medical research, diagnosis, and
therapy purposes and on August 17, 1962 to operate a research
reactor in Building 40 at the site. On March 9, 2004, WRAMC
requested that NRC release the facility for unrestricted use.
WRAMC has conducted surveys of the facility and determined that
the facility meets the license termination criteria in Subpart E
of 10 CFR part 20. The NRC staff has prepared an EA in support of
the proposed license amendment.
III. Finding of No Significant Impact The staff has prepared the
EA (summarized above) in support of the proposed license
amendment to release Building 40 in its entirety of the WRAMC
facility at 6900 Georgia Avenue, NW., Washington, DC for
unrestricted use. The NRC staff has evaluated WRAMC's request and
the results of the surveys, performed independent measurements to
confirm the results, and has concluded that the completed action
complies with the criteria in Subpart E of 10 CFR part 20. The
staff has found that the environmental impacts from the proposed
action are bounded by the impacts evaluated by the ``Generic
Environmental Impact Statement in Support of Rulemaking on
Radiological Criteria for License Termination of NRC-Licensed
Facilities'' (NUREG-1496). On the basis of the EA, the NRC has
concluded that the environmental impacts from the proposed action
are expected to be insignificant and has determined not to
prepare an environmental impact statement for the proposed
action.
IV. Further Information The EA and the documents related to this
proposed action, including the application for the license
amendment and supporting documentation, are available for
inspection at NRC's Public Electronic Reading Room at
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html
[http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/leaving.cgi?from=leaving
FR.html&log=linklog&to=http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html]
(ADAMS Accession No. ML041380084). These documents are also
available for inspection and copying for a fee at the Region I
Office, 475 Allendale Road, King of Prussia, Pennsylvania, 19406.
Persons who do not have access to ADAMS, should contact the NRC
PDR Reference staff by telephone at 1-800-397- 4209 or (301)
415-4737, or by e-mail to pdr@nrc.gov [pdr@nrc.gov] . Dated at
King of Prussia, Pennsylvania this 18th day of May, 2004.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Ronald R. Bellamy, Chief, Decommissioning Branch, Division of
Nuclear Materials Safety, Region I.
[FR Doc. 04-11756 Filed 5-24-04; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
*****************************************************************
12 NRC: 10 CFR Part 52 Construction Inspection Program Framework
FR Doc 04-11757
[Federal Register: May 25, 2004 (Volume 69, Number 101)]
[Notices] [Page 29772-29773] From the Federal Register Online via
GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr25my04-95]
Document; Availability of NUREG AGENCY: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission. ACTION: Notice of availability.
SUMMARY: The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is announcing the
completion and availability of NUREG-1789, ``10 CFR Part 52
Construction Inspection Program Framework Document,'' dated April
2004.
ADDRESSES: Copies of NUREG-1789 may be purchased from the
Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office,
P.O. Box 37082, Washington, DC 20402-9328;
http://www.access.gpo.gov/su_docs
[http://www.access.gpo.gov/su_docs] ; 202-512-1800 or The
National Technical Information Service, Springfield, Virginia
22161-0002; http://www.ntis.gov
[http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/leaving.cgi?from=leaving
FR.html&log=linklog&to=http://www.ntis.gov] ; 1-800-533-6847 or,
locally, 703-805-6000.
A copy of the document is also available for inspection and/or
copying for a fee in the NRC Public Document Room, 11555
Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland. As of November 1, 1999, you
may also electronically access NUREG-series publications and
other NRC records at NRC's Public Electronic Reading Room at
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm.html
[http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/leaving.cgi?from=leaving
FR.html&log=linklog&to=http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm.html] .
[[Page 29773]] Some publications in the NUREG series that are
posted at NRC's Web site address http://www.nrc.gov
[http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/leaving.cgi?from=leaving
FR.html&log=linklog&to=http://www.nrc.gov] are updated regularly
and may differ from the last printed version.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, CONTACT: Ms. Mary Ann M. Ashley,
Inspection Program Branch, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
Washington, DC 20555-0001. Ms. Ashley may be reached at (301)
415-1073 or by e-mail at mab@nrc.gov [ mab@nrc.gov] .
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On May 30, 2003, the NRC staff issued
the ``Draft 10 CFR Part 52 Construction Inspection Program
Framework Document'' for public comment. The framework document
set forth the proposed basis for the construction inspection
program for reactors built under 10 CFR Part 52. A public
workshop was held on August 27, 2003 to discuss the scope and the
types of inspections which are planned during the new reactor
construction project.
The NRC has considered the comments received from stakeholders
and has incorporated them, as appropriate, into a final revision
of the construction inspection program framework document and is
issuing the framework as NUREG-1789. A detailed resolution of
comments submitted about the draft framework document has been
incorporated into NUREG- 1789. The NUREG details the audits and
inspections that will be conducted by the NRC during the Early
Site Permit (ESP) and Combined License (COL) phases. The document
also discusses how the NRC staff will verify satisfactory
completion of the inspections, tests, analyses, and acceptance
criteria (ITAAC) and review operational programs. NRC staff will
use the inspection program descriptions contained in the
framework NUREG to guide the development of internal inspection
documents including Inspection Manual Chapters and Inspection
Procedures.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 12th day of May 2004.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Stuart A. Richards, Chief, Inspection Program Branch, Division of
Inspection Program Management, Office of Nuclear Reactor
Regulation.
[FR Doc. 04-11757 Filed 5-24-04; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
*****************************************************************
13 NRC: Sunshine Act Meeting
FR Doc 04-11852
[Federal Register: May 25, 2004 (Volume 69, Number 101)]
[Notices] [Page 29761] From the Federal Register Online via GPO
Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr25my04-93]
Agency Holding the Meeting: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Date: Weeks of May 24, 31, June 7, 14, 21, 28, 2004.
Place: Commissioners' Conference Room, 11555 Rockville Pike,
Rockville, Maryland.
Status: Public and closed.
Matters to be considered: Week of May 24, 2004 Tuesday, May 25,
2004 2 p.m. Discussion of Management Issues (Closed--Ex. 2)
Wednesday, May 26, 2004 10:30 a.m. All Employees Meeting (Public
Meeting) All Employees Meeting (Public Meeting) Week of May 31,
2004--Tentative Wednesday, June 2, 2004 9:30 a.m. Briefing on
Equal Employment Opportunity Program (Public Meeting) (Contact:
Corenthis Kelley, 301-415-7380) This meeting will be webcast live
at the Web address--http://www.nrc.gov
[http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/leaving.cgi?from=leaving
FR.html&log=linklog&to=http://www.nrc.gov] 1:30 p.m. Meeting with
Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS) (Public Meeting)
(Contact: John Larkins, 301-415-7360) This meting will be webcast
live at the Web address--http://www.nrc.gov
[http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/leaving.cgi?from=leaving
FR.html&log=linklog&to=http://www.nrc.gov] Week of June 7,
2004--Tentative Thursday, June 10, 2004 1:30 p.m. Discussion of
Security Issues (Closed--Ex. 1) Week of June 14, 2004--Tentative
There are no meetings scheduled for the Week of June 14, 2004.
Week of June 21, 2004--Tentative There are no meetings scheduled
for the Week of June 21, 2004.
Week of June 28, 2004--Tentative There are no meetings scheduled
for the Week of June 28, 2004.
*The schedule for Commission meetings is subject to change on
short notice. To verify the status of meetings call
(recording)--(301) 215- 1292. Contact person for more
information: Dave Gamberoni, (301) 415- 1651.
* * * * * Additional Information By a vote of 3-0 on May 14 and
18, the Commission determined pursuant to U.S.C. 552b(e) and Sec.
9.107(a) of the Commission's rules that ``Discussion of Security
Issues (Closed--Ex. 1)'' be held May 20, and on less than one
week's notice to the public.
By a vote of 3-0 on May 19 and 20, the Commission determined
pursuant to U.S.C 552b(e) and Sec. 9.107(a) of the Commission's
rules that ``Affirmation of (1) Nuclear Fuel Services, Inc.
(Erwin, Tennessee); Appeal of LBP-04-05, the Presiding Officer's
Ruling on Hearing Requests; (2) Hydro Resources, Inc. (Rio
Rancho, New Mexico) Petitions for Review of LBP-04-03 (Financial
Assurance); (3) Louisiana Energy Services, L.P. (National
Enrichment Center); and (4) Final Rule to amend 10 CFR Part 2,
Subpart J, in Regard to the Licensing Support Network'' be held
on May 20, and on less than one week's notice to the public.
* * * * * The NRC Commission Meeting Schedule can be found on the
Internet at:
http://www.nrc.gov/what-we-do/policy-making/schedule.html
[http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/leaving.cgi?from=leaving
FR.html&log=linklog&to=http://www.nrc.gov/what-we-do/policy-makin
g/schedule.html] . * * * * * This notice is distributed by mail
to several hundred subscribers; if you no longer wish to receive
it, or would like to be added to the distribution, please contact
the Office of the Secretary, Washington, DC 20555 (301-415-1969).
In addition, distribution of this meeting notice over the
Internet system is available. If you are interested in receiving
this Commission meeting schedule electronically, please send an
electronic message to dkw@nrc.gov [dkw@nrc.gov] . Dated: May 20,
2004.
Dave Gamberoni, Office of the Secretary.
[FR Doc. 04-11852 Filed 5-21-04; 9:35 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-M
*****************************************************************
14 The Herald: Wilson welcomes nuclear power support from environmentalist
CATHERINE MacLEOD, Political Editor May 25 2004
BRIAN Wilson, the former energy minister, welcomed yesterday's
declaration by Britain's leading environmentalist of the need
for a major expansion of nuclear power.
Professor James Lovelock, the scientist and celebrated green
campaigner, had opposed any expansion but now believes there is
not enough time for renewable energy to replace coal, gas and
oil-fired power stations, whose waste gas, carbon dioxide,
causes global warming.
Mr Wilson maintained Professor Lovelock's endorsement of the
nuclear option was the logical place to be. He has consistently
championed a combination of renewable and nuclear energy and
argued to keep the nuclear option open in the government's
energy paper.
He said: "I have long argued that at some point the
environmental movement would have to confront the real choice
are they more against nuclear power than they are in favour of
taking global warming very, very seriously?
"Professor Lovelock has had the courage to address the question
honestly. I hope many others will follow him in questioning the
basis of their hostility to nuclear power."
Professor Lovelock pleaded with his friends in the green
movement to drop their objection to nuclear energy. He said:
"Even if they were right about its dangers, and they are not,
its world-wide use as our main source of energy would pose an
insignificant threat compared with the dangers of intolerable
lethal heatwaves and sea levels rising to drown every coastal
city in the world."
www.theherald.co.uk/
Copyright © Newsquest (Herald & Times) Limited. All Rights
*****************************************************************
15 UK Independent: debate by green groups
By Charles Arthur Technology Editor
25 May 2004
A former Labour energy minister and the nuclear industry both
welcomed the call by the scientist James Lovelock yesterday for
a massive expansion of the nuclear industry to combat global
warming.
They also forecast that Professor Lovelock's dramatic call, in
yesterday's Independent, would force more environmentalists to
consider whether nuclear power really posed a greater threat to
humanity than climate change - and that they too would
eventually agree with the celebrated scientist.
Professor Lovelock's radical suggestion provoked widespread
debate yesterday, with both Friends of the Earth and Greenpeace
rejecting his claims.
However Brian Wilson, who stood down as energy minister last
year to become the Prime Minister's special representative on
overseas trade, said Professor Lovelock had had the courage to
address the question of global warming honestly. "I hope that
many others will follow him in questioning the basis of their
hostility to nuclear power in the age of global warming."
Mr Wilson said it was "a self-evident nonsense" for the UK to
run down its nuclear capacity at the same time that there was an
unprecedented emphasis on the need to reduce carbon emissions.
"Nuclear power is our only significant source of non-carbon
electricity. It is the bird in the hand yet the Green lobby
wants to shoot it."
At the Nuclear Industry Association, which lobbies in favour of
nuclear power, Simon James said: "It's self-evident to us that
nuclear power can deliver large amounts of energy without
producing the carbon dioxide that contributes to global warming.
"We believe we are winning the argument. Increasingly people are
looking at this and saying 'Hang on, if we're serious about
global warming we need to do something serious about converting
large amounts of energy to non-carbon-producing sources.
"Environmentalists are seeing this. I wouldn't be at all
surprised if this article means more environmentalists come out
backing Professor Lovelock," Mr James said.
As the creator of the Gaia hypothesis - which suggests that the
Earth acts as a single organism - Professor Lovelock, 84, has a
mythic place in the Green movement.
But in yesterday's Independent he argued that a massive
expansion of nuclear power as the world's main energy source is
necessary to prevent climate change overwhelming civilisation in
the next 50 years.
Some environmentalists see that as a dramatic volte-face,
because nuclear fission produces radioactive waste that remains
dangerous for thousands of years and requires special storage
and disposal. Environmental groups have thus lobbied - and
frequently acted - against nuclear power wherever possible.
However, a growing number of scientific bodies, including most
recently the Royal Academy of Engineering, have concluded that
nuclear power does represent the best compromise between risk
and power output, given the world's growing demand for energy.
In his article calling for a fresh look at nuclear power,
Professor Lovelock considers - and rejects - other options for
generating power and criticises the Green movement's rejection
of it. He also accuses the group of forgetting the lesson of the
Gaia concept.
"Every year that we continue burning carbon makes it worse for
our descendants and for civilisation ... The Green lobbies,
which should have given priority to global warming, seem more
concerned about threats to people than with threats to Earth,
not noticing that we are part of the Earth and wholly dependent
upon its well-being."
Public attention to global warming and climate change has been
heightened by Sir David King, the Government's chief scientist,
who has repeatedly said that global warming poses a greater
threat to the world than terrorism.
A new Hollywood blockbuster, The Day After Tomorrow, also uses
dramatic effects of global warming as the essence of its plot -
a move that environmentalists have said should raise the
importance of the topic in people's consciousness.
UK Independent Ltd.
*****************************************************************
16 Rockford Register Star: Nuclear energy still unpopular with Campbell
Published: May 25, 2004
COLUMNIST: Chuck Sweeny
For decades I've been puzzled by environmentalists' frantic
opposition to all things nuclear. I'm against using nuclear
bombs, too, but I've never figured out why most of them also
oppose peaceful uses of atomic energy. That's like banning fire
because you never know when it will escape from the shed and burn
down Chicago.
The designated all-purpose activist for the Rock River Valley is
Stanley Campbell. In the 1970s, Campbell spent a great deal of
time -- and got lots of news coverage -- warning people that the
nuclear power plant being built at Byron was potentially unsafe.
Similar protests throughout the United States pretty much halted
nuclear power-plant construction. The nation continues to rely
too much on fossil-fuel plants that emit carbon dioxide, the
infamous greenhouse gas that many scientists say is warming the
planet.
NOW, JAMES LOVELOCK, highest of high priests in the worldwide
environmental religion, has startled fellow Greens by calling for
huge investment in nuclear energy. It's the only way to prevent a
global climate disaster, he says.
Lovelock, 84, "achieved international fame as the author of the
Gaia hypotheses, the theory that the Earth keeps itself fit for
life by the actions of living things themselves. (He) was among
the first researchers to sound the alarm about the threat from
the greenhouse effect," The Independent, a London daily, said in
a May 24 story.
Environmentalists favor conservation and renewable, nonpolluting
energy. Lovelock says there's no time for that: "He believes only
a massive expansion of nuclear power, which produces almost no
carbon dioxide, can now check a runaway warming which would raise
sea levels disastrously around the world, cause climatic
turbulence and make agriculture unviable over large areas. He
says fears about the safety of nuclear energy are irrational and
exaggerated, and urges the Green movement to drop its
opposition," The Independent said.
I told Campbell about Lovelock's eye-popping proposal. Campbell
remained steadfast. He still believes in conservation and no
nukes. What if there were another meltdown like Chernobyl? It
could wreak havoc far beyond its immediate location, Campbell
said.
"If you can just get people to use energy more efficiently, you
wouldn't have to use coal-fired power plants," Campbell said. The
only way Campbell would change his mind is "if they could make a
nuclear plant foolproof." Nothing is as safe as advertised,
though, as the passengers of the "unsinkable" RMS Titanic
discovered.
CAMPBELL DID CONCEDE that the Byron nuclear plant turned out to
be very safe, but he believes that watchdogs like him helped to
make it so.
I asked Campbell to play secretary of energy and propose an
energy plan.
"I would buy more efficient appliances and lights, made in the
United States, and give them away to everyone. That way you'd
both put people to work in America and conserve energy. I would
do it tomorrow, and it would have an immediate effect on the
amount of carbon dioxide going into the atmosphere."
Campbell would also give tax breaks to people who buy efficient
gas-electric cars, and he'd retrofit coal plants to make them as
clean as possible.
In Professor Lovelock's mind, though, the threat of an isolated
nuclear meltdown pales in comparison to the global reality of
ice-cap meltdown. Nukes, anyone?
Call Political Editor Chuck Sweeny at 815-987-1372 or e-mail
[csweeny@registerstartower.com] .
*****************************************************************
17 JOURNAL NEWS: Seeking alternate energy
By KEITH EDDINGS THE JOURNAL NEWS (Original publication: May 25,
2004)
Westchester is poised to take its first tentative step toward
paying for a study that would examine the feasibility of
replacing the Indian Point nuclear reactors with a plant fueled
by an alternative energy source.
The county contracts board on Thursday is expected to consider
spending $385,000 to study County Executive Andrew Spano's
multibillion-dollar proposal to take over the two plants in
Buchanan. Spano chairs the contracts board.
The six-month study would answer a range of questions about the
proposal, including whether the Louisiana-based company that owns
Indian Point can be coaxed into converting the plant on its own
or voluntarily selling it the county. The study also will examine
the implications of condemning Indian Point if the friendly
efforts fail, including what it would cost, who would be
responsible for decommissioning the plant and for the spent fuel
rods stored there, who would operate an alternate plant, and
whether any of the jobs at Indian Point or the payments it makes
in lieu of taxes could be salvaged if it is shut.
In announcing his proposal in 2002, Spano said he also would seek
to take over the distribution lines owned by Consolidated Edison
that deliver power from the plants to 3.1 million customers in
Westchester and New York City. But that element of the takeover
has been dropped because the state Public Service Commission
recently ordered Con Ed to roll back its rates in Westchester
after finding that the company was inflating its charges here to
subsidize New York City customers.
Spano estimated 18 months ago that the cost of taking over both
Indian Point and Con Ed's lines would be $3 billion. Alan
Scheinkman, a former county attorney in the Spano administration
who now works as an energy consultant for Spano, would not say
yesterday what the Indian Point takeover alone might cost, but
said the price tag would have "a lot of zeros."
A spokesman for Entergy Nuclear Northeast, which owns Indian
Point, reiterated yesterday that a takeover would be much more
costly than Spano has said. Entergy purchased the Indian Point 2
reactor and the defunct Indian Point 1 reactor from Con Edison
for about $625 million in 2001 and has since spent more than $500
million to upgrade Indian Point 2, according to the spokesman
James Steets. Entergy also bought Indian Point 3 and the James A.
FitzPatrick nuclear plant in Oswego from the New York Power
Authority for about $1 billion.
Steets yesterday wouldn't say what the plants would cost now, but
said "times and conditions have changed. The value of those
plants to us, and to Westchester and New York City, is probably
very different now than it was back then."
Concerns about safety at Indian Point multiplied after the Sept.
11 terror attacks. Spano has said he might favor building a plant
fueled by natural gas at Indian Point. Yesterday, Seth Parker, a
vice president of Levitan &Associates, the Boston company that
Spano wants to hire to study the takeover, listed several other
alternate fuel sources, including wind.
Send e-mail to Keith Eddings [keddings@thejounalnews.com]
Home [http://www.thejournalnews.com] -Business
Copyright 2004 The Journal News, a Gannett Co
*****************************************************************
18 China Daily: Nuclear plants to ease shortages
Xie Ye 2004-05-26 06:42
China National Nuclear Corporation (CNNC), the nation's largest
nuclear power conglomerate, has applied to the central government
to build eight nuclear power generators.
The move comes at a time when the country has decided to speed up
development of nuclear power amid widespread electricity
shortages.
Four of the units will be constructed to expand existing nuclear
power plants in South China's Guangdong Province and East China's
Zhejiang Province, Kang Rixin, general manager of the company,
told China Central Television at the China Beijing International
High-tech Expo.
The four units will be designed and constructed with domestic
technology, said Kang.
Insiders say the four units would be duplicate projects, copying
technology used in the existing plants but also with small
improvements.
Two of the duplicate generators will be built at the Second Phase
of the Qinshan Nuclear Power Project in Zhejiang - the first
batch of commercial nuclear power generators built in China.
Another two units will be constructed in Ling'ao in Guangdong to
expand the Ling'ao Nuclear Power Plant which uses technology from
France.
Kang said the company is also applying to build another four
units at new sites in the two provinces, using foreign technology
and design.
Two new generators will be built in Yangjiang in Guangdong and
another two new units are scheduled for Sanmen in Zhejiang.
Kang said the eight nuclear generators would each have a 1,000
megawatt capacity.
The expansion of the Second Phase at Qinshan will be two units
with installed capacity of 600-megawatts each.
Kang said earlier that the duplication projects at Qinshan and
Ling'ao were likely to start this year.
Kang estimated total investment in the eight new reactors would
amount to 80 billion yuan (US$9.7 billion).
About 80 per cent of the investment will be raised from bank
loans and corporate bonds, while the remaining 20 per cent would
be financed by CNNC's own capital.
China now has nine nuclear reactors operating in Qinshan in
Zhejiang Province, Daya Bay and Ling'ao in Guangdong Province.
Another two generators are under construction in Tianwan in East
China's Jiangsu Province.
China's nuclear power plants produced 43.7 billion kilowatt hours
of electricity last year. They account for 2.3 per cent of the
nation's total electricity generation, compared to a world
average of 16 per cent.
To accelerate the development of its burgeoning nuclear power
industry, China is duplicating reactors on existing sites, and
seeking foreign partners to build new reactors at new locations
at the same time, experts said.
In duplication, the costs involved in nuclear plants could be
slashed by as much as 25 per cent as the result of standard
designs, shared infrastructure, increased localization in
technology and equipment, and shorter construction periods,
experts say.
The government plans to raise the country's nuclear power
generating capacity by four times over its current level to
36,000 megawatts by 2020. That can be translated to at least two
more nuclear reactors annually for the next 16 years.
Kang said China is drafting a long-term development strategy for
the nuclear industry to standardize technology and improve
localization.
Kang said China has accumulated enough experience and technology
to develop the advanced 1,000-megawatt pressurized-water nuclear
reactors, which is the most often-constructed type of nuclear
reactor in the world.
"Nuclear power will play an important role in optimizing the
energy consumption mix in China, and improve the environment,"
Kang said.
"We will further reduce construction and operation costs to
improve the competitiveness of Chinese nuclear power reactors,"
he added.
(China Daily 05/26/2004 page9)
*****************************************************************
19 Slovak news: Coalition reserved over Rusko's nuclear plans
Slovakia's English language newspaper May 24 - 30,2004,
Volume 10, Number 20
THE RULING coalition has remained reserved over the initiative of
Economy Minister Pavol Rusko to have the Mochovce nuclear power
plant completed, the daily SME wrote.
Rusko's proposal evoked fiery debate in business and
environmentalist circles.
Hungarian Coalition Party boss Béla Bugár said the coalition must
be professionally prepared for any debate on Mochovce.
Though the opposition agrees with Rusko's claim that Mochovce
needs to be completed, Robert Fico, the leader of the Smer party,
has complained that Rusko stole his "issue".
Fico has been a strong advocate of the completion of Mochovce and
the topic has been on his party’s agenda since 1999.
"Rusko appeared on Markiza and talked about Mochovce as though he
invented the steam locomotive," Fico said.
Compiled by Beata Balogová from press reports
The Slovak Spectator cannot vouch for the accuracy of the
information presented in its Flash News postings.
[5/25/2004 10:39:57 AM]
Copyright © 1998-2003 The Rock spol. s r.o. All rights
*****************************************************************
20 Maine Today: Maine Yankee protests town tax assessment
[http://www.mainetoday.com]
Tuesday, May 25, 2004 8:30 pm
Associated Press
WISCASSET, Maine Maine Yankee is formally protesting its $3.5
million property tax bill based on an assessment that puts the
value of the decommissioned nuclear power plant at $212 million.
Under the assessment, the 8.9 acres being used to store highly
radioactive fuel rods is being assessed at a rate of $15 million
per acre. During the prior year, it was assessed at $7,000 per
acre, Maine Yankee said.
Maine Yankee´s Michael Thomas said he understands that the town
is struggling after losing taxes from the nuclear power plant.
But he said the new tax assessment "defies logic."
"What this really boils down to is that we don´t agree that
storing nuclear waste on land makes it more valuable," said
Thomas, Maine Yankee´s vice president and chief financial
officer.
Thomas said the tax bill is so high that some of the costs could
end up being passed along to ratepayers.
Maine Yankee, which used to pay $12.5 million in taxes when the
plant was in operation, has proposed paying $900,000 in 2003 and
$750,000 in 2004. The town rejected the offer.
Maine Yankee´s decommissioning is now about 88 percent complete
and is scheduled to be finished next year.
Once completed, all that will remain will be a storage facility
for the highly radioactive fuel rods.
The fuel rods will remain in Wiscasset in special containers
until the federal government follows through on its promise to
build a repository for high-level radioactive waste.
Copyright © Blethen Maine Newspapers Inc.
*****************************************************************
21 Newsday: Westchester commissions study on takeover of nuclear plants
[http://www.newsday.com]
May 25, 2004]
By JIM FITZGERALD Associated Press Writer
WHITE PLAINS, N.Y. -- Westchester County is spending
$385,000 on a consultant to see if the county could take over the
Indian Point power plants, shut them down and replace them with
another energy source.
Among the issues to be tackled in a five-month study is what such
a takeover would cost and how Indian Point's 2,000 megawatts of
energy _ enough for 2 million homes _ could be made up, County
Executive Andrew Spano said Tuesday.
The current owner, Entergy Nuclear Northeast, called the contract
a waste of money, saying it would not sell the plants, would not
convert them and would fight any attempt to condemn them.
Spano suggested 18 months ago that it might take more than $3
billion for the county to take over the plants and replace them
with gas-fired generators. He said some of the cost could be
recovered in cheaper electricity and residents might be willing
to pay the rest to be rid of their fears of a catastrophe at the
nuclear station in Buchanan.
"We would all feel safer if Indian Point were closed," Spano said
Tuesday. "But there are many, many questions _ economic,
technological, legal and other _ that need to be answered."
Indian Point security has been a major political issue in
Westchester since the 2001 terrorist attack on New York City and
a campaign to close the plants won wide support. Critics say the
densely populated area around the plants cannot be protected from
the radiation that might be released in a major accident or
attack. But the federal government dashed hopes for a quick
shutdown when it ruled last summer that evacuation plans were
adequate.
Alex Matthiessen, executive director of the Riverkeeper
environmental group and a leader of the opposition, said the
hiring of a consultant was "an important signal and a reminder
that the host county and its people want to see the plant closed
down."
Spano said the consultant, Levitan & Associates, of Boston, had
been asked to consider the following questions, among others:
_Can Entergy be persuaded to replace the nuclear plants itself?
_If not, what would it cost Westchester to buy or condemn the
plants and decommission them?
_How, and at what cost, could the lost energy be replaced?
_How would a takeover affect local taxes, energy rates and
current Entergy employees?
Larry Gottlieb, an Entergy spokesman, said the company was not
interested in any change and predicted the study would come to
the conclusion that no change is called for.
"We do one thing well, and that's run nuclear plants," he said.
"To try to do anything else at this site would be an enormous
energy tax on the people of Westchester County and the rest of
the state. It doesn't make sense, especially in the current
marketplace, where natural gas is going through the roof."
Entergy bought the plants in 2000 and 2001 for about $1 billion.
Seth Parker, a Levitan vice president, said the company would use
a "market simulation model" to predict "what happens in
Westchester and the rest of New York state if Indian Point were
to close and if the Indian Point plants were to be replaced by
similar amounts of capacity or maybe new transmission projects
that bring in capacity from other parts of the state."
He said that besides studying the possibilities of Entergy or the
county replacing the lost energy, Levitan would see if other
companies, "who will see an opportunity if Indian Point were to
close," might step in.
Parker acknowledged his company was not experienced in such
nuclear-power issues as decommissioning a plant and managing
spent nuclear fuel, so it has hired WPI, a consulting firm that
specializes in such areas, as a subcontractor.
He said Levitan would probably hold public meetings and is
"interested in hearing from everyone and making sure that we are
open to any and all suggestions and sources of reliable
information."
Copyright © 2004, The Associated Press
Copyright © Newsday, Inc. Produced by Newsday Electronic
*****************************************************************
22 AU ABC: Environmentalist says nuclear energy the answer to global warming
[http://www.abc.net.au/]
AM - Tuesday, 25 May , 2004 08:24:00
Reporter: Kirsten Aiken
TONY EASTLEY: A leading environmentalist believes there's just
one way left to prevent global warming from overwhelming
civilisation – by immediately expanding the use of nuclear
energy.
Britain's 84-year-old Professor James Lovelock is considered a
hero to the environmental movement but his latest appeal may not
be well received from fellow environmentalists.
London Reporter Kirsten Aiken.
KIRSTEN AIKEN: While Hollywood is talking up its latest big
budget natural disaster movie, The Day After Tomorrow, the
leading environmentalist James Lovelock has issued a stark
warning about today.
Professor Lovelock believes only an immediate and massive
expansion of nuclear energy will stop global warming from
overwhelming civilisation.
JAMES LOVELOCK: It is a consequence of land-based ice that's
melting, not as was previously thought, just of the warming up of
the sea, and is acting like a kind of thermometer.
KIRSTEN AIKEN: James Lovelock admits it will take a while before
Greenland's ice cap disappears, but climate change experts agree
that when it does, low-lying coastal cities in Australia and
around the globe will be uninhabitable.
JAMES LOVELOCK: Every day we're putting more and more carbon
dioxide into the air and we've, in a sense, almost past the point
of no return already, as far as our descendants are concerned.
And if we just go on like this, we're going to leave them an
utterly impoverished world, and I don't think any of us want to
do that.
So we've got to think of some alternative to burning fossil fuel,
and what I've recommended is whatever the objections there are to
nuclear, it's nothing like as great a danger as just leaving
things as they are and going on burning fossil fuel.
KIRSTEN AIKEN: Just the very fact that you're prepared to
advocate nuclear energy as an alternative will shock many people
in the green movement.
JAMES LOVELOCK: I'm afraid so, and I understand their
reservations and fears. But it's a matter of comparative dangers.
If you are threatened with some unpleasant disease, you often
have to take medicines with unpleasant side effects, and one
should look on nuclear in that sense. We don't have any
alternative. I wish we did.
KIRSTEN AIKEN: While Greenpeace says it respects Professor
Lovelock for his Gaia hypothesis, which explains earth as a
self-correcting organism, the Executive Director Stephen Tindale,
says he's wrong to suggest nuclear power is the only answer to
climate change.
STEPHEN TINDALE: There's a sense of fantasy about people who say
we must have an emergency program on nuclear power. The things
that are holding renewables back are concerns about planning and
access to finance.
Now, if people think that building wind farms are difficult, they
should try building nuclear power stations. The planning
opposition, the local opposition to nuclear power stations vastly
outweighs any concerns that people have about renewables and we
have lots of experience of that.
And similarly on finance, in the UK we had in the 1990's nine
billion pounds was collected from electricity consumers to
support non fossil fuel sources of electricity. Eight billion
pounds of that was sucked up by the nuclear industry leaving only
one billion for renewables. So the idea that you can have
nuclear, and still support renewables is ignoring economics and
ignoring history.
KIRSTEN AIKEN: What can't be ignored say both environmentalists,
is the core problem: temperatures are rising, ice caps are
melting. And time to implement practical solutions to address
global warming is running out.
This is Kirsten Aiken in London for AM. [ border=] PRINT
[http://www.abc.net.au]
*****************************************************************
23 NRC: NRC Begins Special Inspection of Pump Failure at Perry Nuclear Plant
News Release - Region III - 2004-03
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
Office of Public Affairs, Region III
No. III-04-034 May 24, 2004
CONTACT: Jan Strasma (630) 829-9663
Viktoria Mitlyng (630) 829-9662 E-mail: opa3@nrc.gov
[opa3@nrc.gov]
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has begun a special inspection
to review the circumstances surrounding a failure of a pump
which provides cooling water to various safety systems at the
Perry Nuclear Power Plant. The plant, located in Perry, Ohio, is
operated by FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company.
The pump in the emergency service water system failed during
testing on Friday, May 21. Plant personnel shut the plant down
on Saturday to investigate the cause of the pump failure and to
make necessary repairs.
The pump is one of three in the emergency service water system.
At the time of the failure, the other pumps were available to
provide cooling to plant equipment if needed.
A similar failure of this pump occurred during testing on
September 1 of last year. That problem was attributed to
improper reassembly of the pump following maintenance in 1997.
The NRC had started a broad team inspection on May 17 to review
that September 1 pump failure along with two other equipment
problems which have occurred at Perry over the past 18 months.
These equipment problems were determined to be of low to
moderate safety significance -- white inspection findings in
the NRC classification of problems which ranges from green,
for findings of minor safety significance, through white,
yellow, and red, indicating increasing safety significance.
The May 17 inspection team has concluded the first week of its
inspection and plans to return June 7 for a second week of
inspection.
The special inspection looking at the May 21 failure is separate
from the broader team inspection, although both involve the
NRCs resident inspector at Perry.
The reports of both the special inspection and the broader
equipment inspection will be publicly available about a month
following the completion of the inspections. They may be
obtained from the Region III Office of Public Affairs or from
the NRCs online document library:
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams/web-based.html - use docket
number 05000440 to locate Perry documents. Assistance in using
the online document library is available by calling the NRC
Public Document Room at 800-397-4209.
Last revised Tuesday, May 25, 2004
*****************************************************************
24 ONN: Nuclear power plant production on hold
Ohio News Now:
May 25, 2004
NORTH PERRY, Ohio A cooling pump at the Perry nuclear plant has
failed a test for the second time in less than a year, causing
officials to shut down the plant for about a week.
The pump at the 1,325-megwatt reactor failed Friday during a
routine maintenance test, and the reactor was gradually shut down
over the weekend. The pump is only used in emergencies, so there
was no public safety threat and it is being repaired.Federal
investigators are at Perry to check pump problems, said Jan
Strasma, a spokesman for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Plant owner Akron-based FirstEnergy Corp. can buy some of the
power it needs at wholesale rates to replace the output at Perry,
spokesman Ralph DiNicola said. If necessary, some power can be
reduced to industrial customers with contracts allowing reduction
in some circumstances.The pump is one of three that would be
needed to cool equipment during a nuclear accident, but NRC rules
require a shutdown if any of the pumps is inoperable.
Copyright 2003 Associated Press. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
25 New Zealand News: Controversy erupts over green guru's nuclear
energy claim
[http://www.nzherald.co.nz/]
25.05.2004 1.00pm - By CHARLES ARTHUR
A former British Labour energy minister and the nuclear industry
both welcomed the call by the scientist James Lovelock yesterday
for a massive expansion of the nuclear industry to combat global
warming.
They also forecast that Professor Lovelock's dramatic call, in
yesterday's Independent, would force more environmentalists to
consider whether nuclear power really posed a greater threat to
humanity than climate change - and that they too would eventually
agree with the celebrated scientist.
Professor Lovelock's radical suggestion provoked widespread
debate yesterday with both Friends of the Earth and Greenpeace
rejecting his claims.
However Brian Wilson, who stood down as Energy Minister last year
to become the Prime Minister's special representative on overseas
trade, said Professor Lovelock had had the courage to address the
question of global warming honestly.
"I hope that many others will follow him in questioning the basis
of their hostility to nuclear power in the age of global
warming."
Mr Wilson said it was "a self-evident nonsense" for the UK to run
down its nuclear capacity at the same time that there was an
unprecedented emphasis on the need to reduce carbon emissions.
"Nuclear power is our only significant source of non-carbon
electricity. It is the bird in the hand yet the green lobby wants
to shoot it."
At the Nuclear Industry Association, which lobbies in favour of
nuclear power, Simon James said: "It's self-evident to us the
nuclear power can deliver large amounts of energy without
producing the carbon dioxide that contributes to global warming.
"We believe we are winning the argument. Increasingly people are
looking at this and saying 'Hang on, if we're serious about
global warming we need to do something serious about converting
large amount of energy to non-carbon producing sources.
"Environmentalists are seeing this. I wouldn't be at all
surprised if this article means more environmentalists come out
backing Professor Lovelock," Mr James said.
As the creator of the Gaiahypothesis - which suggests that the
Earth acts as a single organism - Professor Lovelock, 84, has a
mythic place in the green movement.
But in Monday's Independent he argued that a massive expansion of
nuclear power as the world's main energy source is necessary to
prevent climate change overwhelming civilisation in the next 50
years.
Some environmentalists see that as a dramatic volte-face, because
nuclear fission produces radioactive waste that remains dangerous
for thousands of years and requires special storage and disposal.
Environmental groups have thus lobbied - and frequently acted -
against nuclear power wherever possible.
However, a growing number of scientific bodies, including most
recently the Royal Academy of Engineering, have concluded that
nuclear power does represent the best compromise between risk and
power output, given the world's growing demand for energy.
In his article calling for a fresh look at nuclear power,
Professor Lovelock considers - and rejects - other options for
generating power and criticises the Green movement's rejection of
it. He also accuses the group of forgetting the lesson of the
Gaia concept.
"Every year that we continue burning carbon makes it worse for
our descendants and for civilisation.... The Green lobbies, which
should have given priority to global warming, seem more concerned
about threats to people than with threats to Earth, not noticing
that we are part of the Earth and wholly dependent upon its
well-being."
Public attention to global warming and climate change has been
heightened by Sir David King, the government's chief scientist,
who has repeatedly said that global warming poses a greater
threat to the world than terrorism.
A new Hollywood blockbuster, The Day After Tomorrow, also uses
dramatic effects of global warming as the essence of its plot - a
move that environmentalists have said should raise the importance
of the topic in people's consciousness.
- INDEPENDENT [http://www.independent.co.uk]
© Copyright 2004, New Zealand Herald
*****************************************************************
26 Scotsman: Heated row over nuclear power call
Tue 25 May 2004
KEVIN SCHOFIELD EDUCATION CORRESPONDENT
A SENIOR academic last night rejected calls by a veteran
environmentalist for a massive expansion in nuclear power to
tackle global warming.
Professor Tariq Muneer, an expert on renewable energy based at
Napier University in Edinburgh, spoke out after Prof James
Lovelock argued that global warming was happening at a much
faster rate than originally feared.
Writing in the Independent, Professor Lovelock, an 84-year-old
scientist, said there was not enough time for renewable energy
sources such as wind and solar power to take over from fossil
fuels like coal, which have been blamed for climate change, and
that nuclear power should be expanded.
He said: "By all means let us use the small input from renewables
sensibly, but only one immediately available source does not
cause global warming and that is nuclear energy."
The green guru claimed opposition to nuclear power was "based on
irrational fear fed by Hollywood fiction, the green lobbies and
the media".
Prof Lovelock added: "We have no time to experiment with
visionary energy sources. Civilisation is in imminent danger and
has to use nuclear - the one safe, available, energy source - now
or suffer the pain soon to be inflicted by our outraged planet."
But his comments were rejected by Prof Muneer, who said that the
dangers posed by stepping up nuclear production far outweighed
the benefits. He rejected suggestions that nuclear power was safe
and that it did not contribute to global warming.
He said: "I refute what Professor Lovelock has to say about
nuclear power because it is not renewable and at some point it
will run out. There is also the dangers associated with storing
nuclear waste, such as the risk of ground-water contamination.
"If you use heat to produce energy, such as with nuclear power or
fossil fuels, you will end up dumping heat in the oceans or in
rivers or lakes. And if you raise the water temperature from its
natural level, you will pump out carbon dioxide and that goes up
into the atmosphere."
Prof Muneer also said that global warming was "only partly
responsible" for overall climate change because the Earth’s
current orbit means it is travelling closer to the sun.
Prof Lovelock’s comments have also prompted an angry response
from environmental campaigners.
Duncan McLaren, the chief executive of Friends of the Earth
Scotland, said: "We consider climate change and radioactive waste
to be posing long-term threats to the environment and human
health. We’ve got a moral duty to tackle both these problems,
not have to choose between them.
"There is a window of opportunity to tackle climate change in
other ways than choosing to go back down the failed policy of
nuclear power.
"The real challenge is to choose a different, safer, more
sustainable energy route for Scotland and the rest of the world."
However, Prof Lovelock, the author of the Gaia hypothesis, the
theory that the Earth keeps itself fit for life by the actions of
living things, did receive some support from Brian Wilson, MP, a
former energy minister.
Mr Wilson, the Labour MP for Cunninghame North, said: "I hope
that many others will follow him in questioning the basis of
their hostility to nuclear power in the age of global warming."
Mr Wilson said it was "a self-evident nonsense" for the UK to run
down its nuclear capacity at the same time that there was an
unprecedented emphasis on the need to reduce carbon emissions.
"Nuclear power is our only significant source of non-carbon
electricity. It is the bird in the hand, yet the green lobby
wants to shoot it," he said. "It is a completely false analysis
to pit nuclear against renewables. I am strongly in favour of
both, and that is the logical place to be for anyone who takes
the global warming threat seriously."
The Hollywood blockbuster The Day After Tomorrow has re-ignited
the debate surrounding the possible effects of climate change.
Starring Dennis Quaid and Jake Gyllenhaal, the film envisages
catastrophic freak weather conditions swamping cities and
ushering in the next ice age.
Critics have claimed that it is far-fetched and vastly
exaggerates the potential effects of global warming.
Scotsman.com
*****************************************************************
27 NRC: NRC to Meet with Nuclear Management Company to Discuss Performance of Kewaunee
Nuclear Plant
News Release - Region III - 2004-03
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
Office of Public Affairs, Region III
No. III-04-035 May 25, 2004
CONTACT: Jan Strasma (630) 829-9663
Viktoria Mitlyng (630) 829-9662 E-mail: opa3@nrc.gov
[opa3@nrc.gov]
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff will meet with
representatives of Nuclear Management Company on June 2 to
discuss the results of the agency's assessment of safety
performance at the Kewaunee Nuclear Power Plant during 2003. The
facility is located in Kewaunee, Wisconsin.
The meeting will be held at 7 p.m. at the Kewaunee Municipal
Building Council Chamber Conference Room, 401 5th Street, in
Kewaunee. The public is invited to observe the meeting, and NRC
officials will be available before the conclusion of the meeting
to answer questions from the public. In addition, the NRC staff
will provide an overview of how the agency's Reactor Oversight
Process works.
The NRC has concluded that the plant operated safely last year.
All NRC inspection findings during the year were of very low
safety significance and safety performance data indicated no
issues requiring NRC follow-up.
Routine inspections are performed by the two NRC resident
inspectors assigned to the plant and by inspection specialists
from the NRC's Region III office in Lisle, Illinois.
In its assessment, the NRC noted two concerns: recent
inspections findings indicated deficiencies within the
engineering program and longstanding issues in the area of
emergency preparedness had not been resolved effectively. The
NRC will continue to monitor the utility's response to these two
issues.
A March 4 letter from the NRC to Nuclear Management Company
officials addresses the performance of the plant during 2003 and
will serve as the basis for the meeting discussion. It is
available at:
http://www.nrc.gov/NRR/OVERSIGHT/ASSESS/LETTERS/kewa_2003q4.pdf
[PDF Icon] .
With regard to security issues, the NRC has issued several
orders and threat advisories to enhance security capabilities
and improve guard force readiness since the terrorist attacks on
September 11, 2001. The agency has also conducted inspections to
review the implementation of these requirements and has
monitored the action of plant operators in response to changing
threat conditions. The NRC will continue security inspections
during 2004.
Current performance indicators and inspection findings for the
Kewaunee plant are available on the NRC web site at:
http://www.nrc.gov/NRR/OVERSIGHT/ASSESS/KEWA/kewa_chart.html.
Last revised Tuesday, May 25, 2004
*****************************************************************
28 Deseretnews: Nevada tests worry Utahns
[deseretnews.com]
Tuesday, May 25, 2004
By Joe Bauman
Deseret Morning News
What is termed a "subcritical" experiment
involving plutonium is to be carried out at the Nevada Test Site
today, drawing criticism from a Salt Lake activist.
"We don't believe that subcritical tests are necessary,"
said Steve Erickson, director of the anti-nuclear Citizens
Education Project. Such experiments tend to blur the distinction
with actual nuclear detonations and could be an international
problem, he said.
The NTS is located northwest of Las Vegas and upwind of
Utah. The latest experiment at the site is about 85 miles from
Las Vegas.
When above-ground nuclear detonations took place there in
the 1950s and early '60s, radioactive clouds swept across Utah,
dropping fallout. Above-ground tests were halted in 1963 after a
test ban treaty, but underground testing continued.
However, sometimes underground tests vented into the
atmosphere, sending radioactive material into the air. Since
1992, the United States has observed a moratorium on nuclear
detonations. But it has not ratified the Comprehensive Test Ban
Treaty.
Besides the subcritical test, a new radiological defense
complex is planned for the test site. Erickson said these could
be part of a pattern leading to the resumption of full-scale
underground nuclear testing.
On Sunday, the U.S. Department of Energy posted a press
release saying the test site would conduct a subcritical
experiment called Armando. The experiment, set for today, is to
examine the behavior of plutonium as it is shocked by
conventional high explosives.
"Subcritical experiments produce essential scientific data
and technical information used to help maintain the safety and
reliability of the nuclear weapons stockpile," says the DOE press
release. Because the experiments are subcritical, "no critical
mass is formed and no self-sustaining nuclear chain reaction can
occur."
Because of that, it adds, "there is no nuclear explosion."
The complex where the experiment was to be performed is
called the U1a Complex, which is "designed to contain these
experiments in a safe and secure environment." The experiment was
planned for an underground lab of horizontal tunnels about 960
feet below the desert floor. The Armando test is part of a
series. The most recent experiment before today was Rocco, on
Sept. 26, 2002. So far, 20 subcritical experiments have been
carried out at the test site, says the release. Another boost to
operations at the Nevada Test Site would be the proposed
Radiological/Nuclear Countermeasures Test and Evaluation Complex.
The 50-acre complex would replicate places that terrorists could
sneak radioactive materials into the country, such as roads,
airport entries and railroad tracks. It would also test sensors
intended to thwart such attempts. A draft environmental
assessment on the proposal is expected to be available in June.
A May 4 note by Nevada officials to the DOE says the
complex "has the potential, especially in Nevada, to evoke
considerable public concern, given the past history of
contamination from the nuclear weapons testing program."
The letter is from Robert R. Loux, executive director of
the Nevada Agency for Nuclear Projects, and is addressed to Dick
Schmidhofer, the DOE's National Environmental Policy Act document
manager.
A brief DOE description of the project and Loux's letter
are posted on a state of Nevada Internet site,
www.state.nv.us/nucwaste/nts.htm
[http://www.state.nv.us/nucwaste/nts.htm] .
In a note to Schmidhofer, Erickson requested that the DOE
conduct public hearings on the proposal in St. George, Cedar City
and Kanab.
"This project would involve planned releases of
radioactive materials, and Utahns living downwind have had a
tragic, disastrous experience with exposure to radiation released
from NTS," Erickson wrote.
"Utah residents deserve the opportunity to be fully
informed of the need for, nature of, and potential risks and
impacts from the project."
He told the Deseret Morning News that the test site is
exhibiting a pattern of behavior that is of concern. "There
doesn't seem to be any public policy debate around it," Erickson
said, "and that's a serious problem."
E-mail: bau@desnews.com [bau@desnews.com]
© 2004 Deseret News Publishing Company
*****************************************************************
29 NRC: Notice of Availability of Environmental Assessment and Finding
FR Doc 04-11758
[Federal Register: May 25, 2004 (Volume 69, Number 101)]
[Notices] [Page 29760] From the Federal Register Online via GPO
Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr25my04-91]
of No Significant Impact for License Amendment for Message
Pharmaceuticals, Inc.'s Facility in Malvern, PA AGENCY: Nuclear
Regulatory Commission.
ACTION: Notice of Availability of Environmental Assessment and
Finding of No Significant Impact.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sattar Lodhi, Nuclear Materials
Safety Branch 2, Division of Nuclear Materials Safety, Region I,
475 Allendale Road, King of Prussia, Pennsylvania, 19406,
telephone (610) 337-5364 fax (610) 337-5269; or by e-mail:
asl@nrc.gov [asl@nrc.gov] .
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Introduction The Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (NRC) is considering the issuance of a license
amendment to Message Pharmaceuticals, Inc.'s Materials License
No. 37-30462-01, to authorize release of its facility in Malvern,
Pennsylvania for unrestricted use. NRC has prepared an
Environmental Assessment (EA) in support of this action in
accordance with the requirements of 10 CFR part 51. Based on the
EA, the NRC has concluded that a Finding of No Significant Impact
(FONSI) is appropriate. The amendment will be issued following
the publication of this Notice.
II. EA Summary The purpose of the proposed action is to authorize
the release of the licensee's Malvern, Pennsylvania facility for
unrestricted use. Message Pharmaceuticals, Inc., was authorized
by NRC from July 29, 1998, to use radioactive materials for
research and development purposes at the site. On January 5,
2004, Message Pharmaceuticals, Inc., requested that NRC release
the facility for unrestricted use. Message Pharmaceuticals, Inc.,
has conducted surveys of the facility and determined that the
facility meets the license termination criteria in Subpart E of
10 CFR part 20. The NRC staff has prepared an EA in support of
the proposed license amendment.
III. Finding of No Significant Impact The staff has prepared the
EA (summarized above) in support of the proposed license
amendment to terminate the license and release the facility for
unrestricted use. The NRC staff has evaluated Message
Pharmaceuticals, Inc.'s request and the results of the surveys
and has concluded that the completed action complies with the
criteria in Subpart E of 10 CFR part 20. The staff has found that
the environmental impacts from the proposed action are bounded by
the impacts evaluated by the ``Generic Environmental Impact
Statement in Support of Rulemaking on Radiological Criteria for
License Termination of NRC- Licensed Facilities'' (NUREG-1496).
On the basis of the EA, the NRC has concluded that the
environmental impacts from the proposed action are expected to be
insignificant and has determined not to prepare an environmental
impact statement for the proposed action.
IV. Further Information The EA and the documents related to this
proposed action, including the application for the license
amendment and supporting documentation, are available for
inspection at NRC's Public Electronic Reading Room at
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html
[http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/leaving.cgi?from=leaving
FR.html&log=linklog&to=http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html]
(ADAMS Accession Nos. ML040250011 and ML041040862). These
documents are also available for inspection and copying for a fee
at the Region I Office, 475 Allendale Road, King of Prussia,
Pennsylvania, 19406. Persons who do not have access to ADAMS,
should contact the NRC PDR Reference staff by telephone at
1-800-397-4209 or (301) 415-4737, of by e-mail to
pdr@nrc.gov [ pdr@nrc.gov] . For the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission.
Dated at King of Prussia, Pennsylvania this 18th day of May,
2004.
John D. Kinneman, Chief, Nuclear Materials Safety Branch 2,
Division of Nuclear Materials Safety Region I .
[FR Doc. 04-11758 Filed 5-24-04; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
*****************************************************************
30 UPI Report: dirty bomb easy to buy in Ukraine -
(United Press International)
May 25, 2004
Kiev, , May. 25 (UPI) -- A Sky News investigation indicates
buying, transporting and detonating a so-called dirty bomb in a
western European city is relatively easy.
The news agency obtained video from a security operation in the
remote town of Armiansk in southern Ukraine showing the arrest of
a group of men trading in nuclear waste, Sky News reported
Tuesday.
In their van, law officers found two large containers of the
highly dangerous radioactive isotope cesium -- which can cause
blood diseases and birth defects. If detonated in a city, it
could render the area unlivable for years.
The gang refused to reveal from where the waste came but told
police they had planned to sell it for $120,000 to a buyer in
Kiev.
In another of many such cases, two Russian gangsters were
recently arrested on a train in Ukraine with nuclear waste packed
into sausage skins.
Nuclear waste sites are in scores of unguarded in old
manufacturing plants across Ukraine, Sky News said.
British officials told Sky News the ease of buying and shipping
nuclear waste means it was only a matter of time before criminals
and terrorists combine to detonate nuclear waste in a western
city.
[UPI Perspectives]
*****************************************************************
31 CBBC: We prepared for nuclear fallout at our school
[http://www.bbc.co.uk]
Updated 25 May 2004, 08.26
[Making a shelter]
A group of Year 10 students at Hampstead High School spent a day
exploring what would happen if there were a nuclear accident on
the railway lines outside their school.
They had one school day to turn this into a piece of theatre.
Here is what they thought of the experience.
"Every week there are trains, carry highly radioactive nuclear
waste, travelling past us on the lines and if there was an
accident the whole area would be contaminated.
Risks involved
We met in our drama room and were given a talk by Patrick van der
Bulck, a campaigner against nuclear technology, (CND).
He spoke about the risks involved and what would be likely to
happen if there was such an accident.
Created scenes
Neela Dolezalova, the writer responsible for the project, gave
each participating student a piece of paper with paragraph of
background information into the characters we were to become for
the rest of the day.
Aside from that we were given only a few lines at the beginning
and in the middle to guide our improvisations.
For the rest of the day we formed groups and, with the help of a
few choice lines from Neela, we created several scenes throughout
Getting into character
Fooled students
We were told to close all doors and windows and wait for the
police to come and were exploring how we would feel were we
plunged into that situation.
In fact, during the course of the day we got so into our
characters and the situation that fellow students, coming in just
to watch for a few minutes, could not tell when we were acting
and when we were not.
At the end of the day we went over what we had created and were
filmed by cameramen and had photographers taking pictures for
local papers.
Eye-opener
What made what we were doing so interesting and hard-hitting was,
for us, the fact that an incident like that could happen at any
time.
And, before today, I had no idea that there were nuclear trains
let alone the consequences of one crashing."
Ahmed and Robert, 15, Hampstead High School
*****************************************************************
32 Guardian Unlimited: U.S. Vows New Effort on 'Dirty' Materials
From the Associated Press
[UP]
Wednesday May 26, 2004 1:01 AM
By JOHN HEILPRIN
Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON (AP) - The Energy Department is creating a $450
million program to collect, secure and dispose of used reactor
fuel and other materials from around the world that could be used
by terrorists in ``dirty bombs'' for spreading radiation over
several city blocks.
Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham said the first priority was to
bring back to the United States some 330 tons of Russian-origin
high enriched uranium by the end of 2005. More than 220 tons has
been eliminated so far. All Russian spent fuel would be recovered
by 2010.
Abraham pledged more than $450 million for the program, according
to remarks prepared for a speech Wednesday to the International
Atomic Energy Agency in Vienna, Austria. A copy of the speech was
obtained Tuesday by The Associated Press.
``Where 100 years ago authorities had to worry about the
anarchist placing a bomb in the downtown square,'' Abraham said,
``now we must worry about the terrorist who places that bomb in
the square, but packed with radiological material.''
A dirty bomb, which would use conventional explosives to spread
radiation, has no atomic chain reaction and does not require
highly enriched uranium or plutonium. Both are difficult to
obtain and normally are under extremely tight security.
Instead, the radioactive component is of lower-grade isotopes,
such as those used in medicine or research. If a dirty bomb were
to be detonated, the radiation release probably would be small.
``It has become clear that an even more comprehensive and
urgently focused effort is needed to respond to emerging and
evolving threats,'' Abraham said. ``Moreover, we are prepared to
spend the resources necessary to guarantee success.''
``But we will need more funds, and heightened international
cooperation, to finish the job,'' he said.
The program's other priorities are to:
-Relocate within a decade all U.S.-origin research reactor spent
fuel from around the world.
-Convert civilian research reactors around the world that use
highly enriched uranium to the use of low enriched uranium fuel
instead.
-Identify other nuclear and radiological materials and related
equipment not yet covered by current nonproliferation efforts.
Abraham said the new global program would reduce the
proliferation threat by cutting off access to materials and
equipment by ``whatever the most appropriate circumstance may be,
as quickly and expeditiously as possible.''
By handling problems that require attention anywhere in the
world, he said, officials will make sure that nuclear and
radiological materials and equipment ``will not fall into the
hands of those with evil intentions.''
Congressional investigators reported last year that devices
containing radioactive material have been distributed and, in
many cases, lost around the world. The report by the General
Accounting Office said that nearly 10 million devices that
contain radioactive material exist in the United States and the
49 countries responding to a survey.
The GAO estimated the number of devices that have been lost,
stolen or abandoned to be in the thousands worldwide. The
countries responding to the survey said 612 devices had been
reported lost or stolen since 1995, and almost a third have not
been recovered.
Most of those devices went missing from Russia, the GAO said,
citing as a particular source of unease hundreds of electric
generators spread across rural Russia that contain strontium-90.
The International Atomic Energy Agency estimates as many as 110
countries worldwide do not have adequate controls over
radioactive devices that, if enough of them were obtained, could
be used to build a conventional explosive device to spread
radioactive material.
On the Net:
Energy Department: http://www.energy.gov
IAEA: http://www.iaea.org/
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2004
*****************************************************************
33 Clarion-Ledger: Vet tells of mid-air collision on simulated mission
May 25, 2004
[mdbrown@clarionledger.com]
Special to The Clarion-Ledger
Aircraft commander Major Howard Richardson (left) along with
crew mates co-pilot 1st. Lt. Robert J. Lagerstrom (center) and
navigator Capt. Leland W. Woolard all survived a collision with
another airplane during a training mission in 1958. Concerns for
the safety of himself and his crew are what Richardson has said
led him to drop a hydrogen bomb that had been aboard the plane at
the time off the coast of Georgia.
Howard Richardson has accomplished a lot of things that could be
deemed praiseworthy.
The 82-year-old retired from the U.S. Air Force after more than
30 years, which included fighting in World War II. He has served
in England, Germany, Spain and Morrocco. He worked in the
Pentagon for 4 years. He even owned a real estate agency in
Jackson after he retired in 1973.
Despite all of this, the knocks on his door and phone calls are
about a mid-air collision he had in 1958 that resulted in a
nuclear weapon being dropped off the coast of Savannah, Ga., and
recent efforts to have the weapon removed.
"It won't die," Richardson said. "That story will never die,
although we wish it would."
Richardson and two other pilots, Robert Lagerstrum and Leland
Wollard, were on a training mission one that was designed to
simulate an actual war time mission and as a part of the
mission had a real MK-15 nuclear weapon aboard the plane,
Richardson said.
At some point during the night, one of the "fighter" planes
collided with Richardson's B-47. "We really did not know what
actually happened," Richardson said in a statement. "If the
fighter had not turned at the last moment, then the fighter and
the bomber would have become one mass (of) fire and explosion."
Richardson's crew prepared to make an emergency landing at Hunter
Air Force Base in Georgia, but the base's runway had not been
completed so "a 12- to- 18 inch bare front edge was exposed,"
Richardson said. The unfinished runway could have created "a
situation where the MK-15 bomb "would go (through) the cockpit
like a bullet in a gun barrel," Richardson wrote. The crew
decided to go offshore and drop the bomb in the Atlantic ocean.
The bomb was never retrieved and Richardson's plane was too
damaged to ever be flown again.
That was almost 50 years ago.
Derek Duke, who according to the Associated Press grew up near
Savannah, Ga. and heard the stories of an H-bomb being dropped
off the shores of the state, contacted Richardson and others who
might have known the details of the story. He also unsuccessfully
pushed for the bomb's removal, even offering to locate it
himself, the AP reported.
"This is scaring thousands of people in the Savannah area, and I
hold that against him," Richardson said about Dukes.
According to Richardson, the Air Force decided not to move the
bomb because there was "no possibility of nuclear explosion, no
risk to (the) public," and by doing so they would avoid
"potential for unacceptable impact to the environment."
The weapon poses no danger to the residents of Savannah or
anywhere nearby because it did not have a capsule and could not
be detonated, Richardson said.
Even if it did explode, he said, it would not cause wide-spread
destruction.
The History Channel has a program about the incident, Richardson
said, and he was recently interviewed by a man from The Today
Show.
"To me, it's more important that he flew the Mississippi Miss,"
Richardson's wife, Vivian, said, referring to a plane he flew
while stationed in Germany. "The truth is, I don't understand why
it keeps coming up. It just interrupts everything."
Copyright © 2004, The Clarion-Ledger.
*****************************************************************
34 Boston.com: Russia said to mothball nuclear subs
By Vladimir Isachenkov, Associated Press | May 25, 2004
MOSCOW -- A top admiral alleged the chief of Russia's navy has
decided to mothball its most powerful nuclear submarines after
refusing to modernize their missiles. The navy denied it
yesterday and accused the admiral of divulging state secrets.
Admiral Gennady Suchkov, the head of the Northern Fleet, said
that Admiral Vladimir Kuroyedov had ordered the navy to
decommission the Typhoon-class submarines, depriving Russia of an
important component of its strategic nuclear arsenal.
"Nuclear weaponry is the only thing that brings respect to our
nation," he said in an interview published yesterday in the
liberal newspaper, Novaya Gazeta.
With a displacement of about 27,500 tons, the Typhoon-class
submarines are the world's largest. Each is equipped to carry 20
intercontinental ballistic missiles.
Suchkov said in separate comments to the Interfax-Military News
Agency that the Northern Fleet has three Typhoon-class submarines
-- the Arkhangelsk, the Severstal, and the Dmitry Donskoi. He
said his pleas for modernizing the missiles had fallen on deaf
ears, and that only the Severstal carries 10 missiles, while the
other two are unarmed.
Suchkov said the navy had refused to earmark about $1.1 million
to upgrade the submarines' missiles.
Captain Igor Dygalo, a navy spokesman, insisted yesterday that
there are no plans to scrap the Typhoon-class submarines.
"They will remain on duty fulfilling their tasks," Dygalo said.
He also assailed Suchkov for unveiling what he said was
confidential information about the submarines' weapons.
But Suchkov said he had written a letter to President Vladimir
Putin to inform him of Kuroyedov's plan to mothball the vessels.
The outspoken Suchkov has long been on a collision course with
Kuroyedov, the navy chief. Putin suspended Suchkov as the
Northern Fleet chief after the August sinking of a decommissioned
nuclear submarine, and a military court convicted him last week
of negligence that led to the death of nine of the submarine's 10
crew. He was given a four-year suspended prison sentence. [
© Copyright 2004 Globe Newspaper Company. [ title=]
*****************************************************************
35 Arizona Republic: Truckloads of nuclear waste in state's path
[http://www.azcentral.com
May 25, 2004
Palo Verde, other sites filling
Max Jarman The Arizona Republic
A proposal to ship nuclear waste through Arizona to a Nevada
storage site foreshadows what likely will be decades of such
efforts.
Government plans call for nuclear waste that has been building
up for more than 50 years at Defense Department sites and nuclear
power plants to be shipped to a storage facility in Nevada. Much
of that waste likely would pass through Arizona.
Among the waste that eventually must be moved are the hundreds
of metric tons of reactor fuel generated at Palo Verde Nuclear
Generating Station, the nation's largest plant, west of Phoenix.
The high-level waste has been accumulating at Palo Verde since
1987 but might not be moved for another 10 to 20 years.
"We won't even be in the queue until the 2020s at the earliest,"
said Jim Levine, executive vice president of generation for
Arizona Public Service Co., the plant's operator.
Earlier this month, Arizona Gov. Janet Napolitano raised concerns
about the planned shipment this year of 153 million pounds of
radioactive waste through the state to the Nevada Test Site
northwest of Las Vegas.
Napolitano believes the waste is high-level nuclear waste, but
the U.S. Department of Energy says it is less harmful, low-level
material.
"They're taking high-level nuclear waste and labeling it
low-level for shipping," said Patti Urias, a spokeswoman for
Napolitano.
The waste is from the cleanup of the Fernald uranium processing
plant in southwestern Ohio and is scheduled to be transported by
truck from this year until 2006. In all, 7,000 containers would
be shipped.
Napolitano sent a letter to the DOE opposing the shipments.
Low-level radioactive waste can include paper, wood and other
materials exposed to low doses of radiation. High-level waste
includes spent nuclear-fuel rods.
Arizona is a logical crossing place for nuclear waste being
collected in more than 40 operating reactors, many of them older
than Palo Verde, in the southern half of the United States.
The main storage facility proposed for the waste is at Yucca
Mountain in Nevada, but construction has not yet begun and may
not be completed until 2015 or later. Shipments from the older
plants could start as early as 2015 and extend for 30 to 50
years.
At Palo Verde, there are 1,500 metric tons of reactor fuel
stored in 36-foot-deep pools of demineralized water, APS
spokesman Jim McDonald said. An additional 120 tons are stored in
19-foot-high stainless steel casks encased in concrete.
The pools, which can store 15 years worth of spent fuel, reached
capacity in 2003, and APS has started moving 80 to 90 tons of
waste per year to the dry storage casks from the pools.
By 2020, there will be about 3,000 tons of waste stored at Palo
Verde, and by 2030, there will be about 4,000 tons.
By law, the DOE was to have begun moving the waste to a safe
storage facility in 1998. But delays in the building of the Yucca
Mountain facility have prevented any shipments.
Levine said the nation's oldest nuclear waste would be moved
first, and because Palo Verde is relatively new, the first of its
waste may not be moved until as late as 2030.
Copyright 2004, azcentral.com. All rights reserved. USA Today
*****************************************************************
36 Las Vegas RJ: BLM to hold public meetings on proposal for Yucca rail line
Tuesday, May 25, 2004
REVIEW-JOURNAL
The Bureau of Land Management will hold two open-house meetings
next month in rural Nevada on the Department of Energy's request
to withdraw public land for a rail line to haul nuclear waste to
Yucca Mountain.
The meetings on June 22 in Tonopah and June 23 in Pioche follow
five similar meetings the Department of Energy held this month.
The BLM received an application from the DOE in December to
withdraw public land along a 319-mile route from Caliente to the
planned repository at Yucca Mountain.
"The withdrawal is to evaluate lands for the potential
construction, operation and maintenance of a rail line,"
according to a BLM statement announcing the meetings.
The Tonopah meeting will be held at the Convention Center, 301
W. Brougher Ave.
The Pioche meeting is in the Lincoln County Courthouse, 1 North
Main St.
Both meetings are in split sessions from 1 p.m. to 3 p.m. and
from 6 p.m. to 8 p.m.
Written comments on the proposed Caliente rail corridor
withdrawal, land use plan amendments or the associated
environmental impact statement can be sent by June 30 to Dan
Netcher, Ely Field Office, BLM, BC33, Box 33500, Ely, NV
89301-9408.
Copyright Las Vegas Review-Journal
*****************************************************************
37 Las Vegas RJ: NRC urged to ignore features of Yucca dump
Tuesday, May 25, 2004
State says it is unclear when or even if planned drip shields
will be installed By STEVE TETREAULT
STEPHENS WASHINGTON BUREAU
WASHINGTON -- Nevada officials have previewed one of their
arguments to persuade government regulators to refuse a license
for the Yucca Mountain Project.
The state says the Nuclear Regulatory Commission should
disregard planned features of the proposed nuclear waste
repository because it is unclear when they will be installed, if
at all.
At issue are drip shields the Energy Department says will help
prevent radioactive particles from escaping into the environment.
The drip shields are titanium sleeves that are to be installed
over canisters of decaying nuclear waste to deflect water that
may find its way into repository tunnels and cause the
containers to corrode.
Bob Loux, executive director of the Nevada Agency for Nuclear
Projects, raised questions about the drip shields in a letter
sent May 18 to Nils Diaz, chairman of the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission.
Loux said the state wants to notify the NRC in advance of
issues it will bring up during licensing.
"We are in a process of trying to communicate with them on an
ongoing basis that we are watching these things and we have some
very specific ideas about them," Loux said Monday.
The Energy Department has scheduled to file its repository
application in December. If it is accepted for formal review,
the NRC will begin a three- or four-year license evaluation.
Loux said the drip shields likely will be made one of hundreds
of formal contentions, or objections, the state plans to file
during NRC licensing.
The Energy Department had no immediate comment Monday on the
state's letter.
Energy Department officials say the titanium drip shields,
along with the special alloy waste canisters and the natural
features of Yucca Mountain, will collaborate to keep radioactive
particles from decaying nuclear waste from migrating through the
mountain and into groundwater.
But Nevada officials contend the Energy Department is not
specifying when the shields will be installed.
"According to DOE's plans, this could be 100 years from now, or
possibly even 300 years from now," Loux said in the letter. At
this time, he said, the issue of whether the shields will ever
be installed "is a matter of sheer speculation."
Given the uncertainty, the drip shields shouldn't be factored
into the performance models that the NRC will study to gauge the
repository's safety, Loux told Diaz.
Copyright Las Vegas Review-Journal
*****************************************************************
38 BBC: Aborigines count cost of mine
Last Updated: Tuesday, 25 May, 2004
By Phil Mercer BBC correspondent in Darwin
To the ancient Mirarr people of Australia's Northern Territory,
the Ranger uranium mine has left a painful scar on their tribal
lands.
A recent contamination scare has again exposed the brittle
relationship between aboriginal groups and mining companies.
[Ranger mine, courtesy ERA (archive photo)]
The mine's operators point to the economic benefits
The Ranger facility, which lies within the Kakadu National Park,
was temporarily shut down in March after workers were
accidentally exposed to water polluted with uranium.
A report by the Northern Territory government has recommended
that the mine's operator, Energy Resources of Australia (ERA), be
prosecuted. The file has been handed to the justice department
and a decision is expected in the next few weeks.
The Minister for Mines and Energy, Kon Vatskalis, hinted that
tough action could be taken.
"I have put mining companies in the Northern Territory on notice
that they have to comply with the legislation, and there will be
increased auditing and inspections," he said.
Two days after the contamination alert at the Ranger mine,
tainted water overflowed from a tank into a small channel that
leads to a creek used by an indigenous community nearby.
Scientific tests showed there was no contamination downstream and
that the concentrations of all chemicals were well within legal
limits.
The incident, however, has alarmed the traditional owners of the
land in Kakadu.
The World Heritage area covers almost 20,000 sq km (7,700 sq
miles) in Australia's tropical Top End.
The park is a cultural wonderland. It has a stunning collection
of aboriginal rock art and a dazzling array of native flora and
fauna, including Magpie geese and crocodiles.
Mixed views
[Yvonne Margarula, a senior elder of the Mirarr clan (archive
picture)] Aboriginal leaders say they do not want another mine
Speaking through an interpreter, Yvonne Margarula, a senior elder
of the Mirarr clan, told BBC News Online that the Ranger mine had
"wrecked her country" and she wanted it closed down.
She claimed tribal leaders were forced to accept the start of
mining operations in the area more than two decades ago.
Ranger is due to close in 2011 when most of the uranium deposits
will be exhausted.
There are other uranium deposits nearby, but it seems unlikely
that aborigines will allow further developments.
"I don't want to see my country destroyed again," said Yvonne
Margarula. "I will not agree to any other mines."
Other indigenous leaders said that catastrophic events would
occur if sacred sites were disturbed by fresh mineral
exploration.
They need us and we need th and we will continue to build on that
relationship Harry Kenyon-Slaney, ERA
Harry Kenyon-Slaney from ERA told the BBC he was "very proud" of
the Ranger mine's environmental record, and that the mine was
safe.
"Consistently the Office of the Supervising Scientist, one of our
principle regulators, has confirmed that we've had no detrimental
effect on the surrounding environment for the life of the mine,"
he said.
The company has paid Aus$200m (US$142m) to aboriginal groups
since it began extracting uranium at Ranger.
These vast royalties have earned the local tribe the nickname
Uranium Sheikhs. The money has caused its leaders to wrestle with
a serious dilemma - just what sort of ecological and cultural
price are they willing to pay for such handsome financial
rewards?
"On the one hand, mining can provide the services that we badly
need," said Sonia Smallacombe, an aboriginal who is an indigenous
knowledge expert from Charles Darwin University.
"We're a poor group of people and we want to have a better
lifestyle. But on the other hand I see mining as destructive,"
she said.
ERA's Harry Kenyon-Slaney believes that both the mining company
and the traditional owners have a shared interest in carefully
monitored projects.
"We have a synergistic relationship," he said. "I think that to
an extent they need us and we need them, and we will continue to
build on that relationship."
*****************************************************************
39 Las Vegas SUN: State says Yucca shields too costly
By Suzanne Struglinski < [suzanne@lasvegassun.com] > SUN
WASHINGTON BUREAU
WASHINGTON -- The state wants the Nuclear Regulatory Commission
to ignore the Energy Department's plan to install drip shields
over nuclear waste storage containers inside Yucca Mountain.
The proposed shields will cost billions of dollar and may not
actually get installed, Bob Loux, director of Nevada's Agency for
Nuclear Projects, wrote in a letter to the commission last week.
"It is Nevada's position, one it will take in any NRC hearing on
DOE's (the Energy Department) license application, that the
planned duration between waste placement and repository closure
is so long that whether or not the successors to DOE will ever
install the drip shields before closure is a matter of sheer
speculation," Loux said in a letter to NRC Chairman Nils Diaz.
"The NRC cannot reasonably place any reliance on this happening
in any licensing proceeding on the adequacy of public
protection."
The department plans on submitting its license application for
the nuclear waste storage site at Yucca Mountain, 90 miles
northwest of Las Vegas, to the commission by the end of the year.
The license application is expected to include a plan to use
titanium drip shields over the containers storing the waste as a
barrier against water corroding the casks. The department plans
on installing these during the 'closure phase" of the site, which
could take place up from 100 to 300 years from now.
"When we talk in terms of centuries, any license conditions the
current NRC imposes on the current DOE will be totally
unenforceable and it would be a sham to pretend otherwise," Loux
wrote.
*****************************************************************
40 Las Vegas SUN: Nuclear experiment performed at Nevada Test Site
By KEN RITTER ASSOCIATED PRESS
LAS VEGAS (AP) - Government scientists performed an underground
nuclear experiment Tuesday at the Nevada Test Site, the National
Nuclear Security Administration said.
The subcritical experiment involved detonating high explosives
packed around plutonium in a steel sphere 963 feet below the
surface.
No radioactivity was released in the noon experiment, said
Kirsten Kellogg, spokeswoman for the nuclear security
administration in North Las Vegas.
Kellogg said scientists from Los Alamos National Laboratory in
New Mexico "recovered good data" using X-rays, radar and lasers
to observe the behavior of plutonium in an explosion that did
not reach the critical mass needed to become a full-scale
nuclear reaction.
Anti-nuclear groups criticize the subcritical experiments as
contrary to the spirit of the 1996 Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty
on nuclear arms. The U.S. has observed a moratorium on
full-scale nuclear testing since 1992, but has not ratified the
treaty.
"It's just the wrong message," said Peggy Maze Johnson, director
of Citizen Alert, a Nevada anti-nuclear advocacy group. "We'd be
screaming and yelling if any other countries were conducting
subcriticals."
Federal officials call subcritical experiments essential to
maintaining the safety and reliability of the U.S. nuclear
arsenal.
Tuesday's experiment, dubbed "Armando," was the 21st subcritical
experiment at the test site since 1997.
The 1,375-square-mile federal reservation, 80 miles northwest of
Las Vegas, hosted 928 full-scale nuclear tests involving 1,021
nuclear detonations from 1951 to 1992.
---
On the Net:
National Nuclear Security Administration:
http://www.nnsa.doe.gov [http://www.nnsa.doe.gov]
Nevada Test Site: http://www.nv.doe.gov/nts
[http://www.nv.doe.gov/nts]
Los Alamos National Laboratory: http://www.lanl.gov
[http://www.lanl.gov]
--
*****************************************************************
41 Deseretnews: No more N-tests in Nevada desert
[deseretnews.com]
Sunday, May 23, 2004
Deseret Morning News editorial
The scuttlebutt inside the Washington beltway is that nuclear
bomb testing may resume in the Nevada desert as early as 2007 or
2008.
After a cloud of radioactive dust was released during an
underground test at the Nevada Test Site in December 1970, new
containment procedures were adopted to prevent a similar
occurrence.
U.S. Department Of Energy
We would like to weigh in early, and hard, on the issue.
Do not test nuclear bombs in Nevada.
Do not sow another row of dragon's teeth in the Interior
West.
Do not allow nuclear testing to raise havoc with the
health of Utah's nuclear families.
The dark cloud of controversy and death from the testing
in the 1960s still hangs over the state. The fallout from the
tests was only equaled by the public health and political
fallout that came later. Lawsuits were filed by those affected,
and the courts agreed that the tests caused cancer and other
illnesses. The government fought its citizens every step of the
way.
Now is the time to prevent a battle no one has the
stomach to fight.
The concern is that President Bush, as a lame-duck
president, would feel no political pressure should he decide to
set off bombs upwind from Utah. Utah's senators and
representatives must make sure that fallacy is put to rest. The
administration must realize that the political price would not
be worth the potential strategic advantage.
According to Steve Erickson of the Citizens Education
Project, the current administration has already requested
funding not only for testing but for the development of an
earth-penetrating nuclear bomb. By opposing the comprehensive
test ban treaty, the Bush White House seems to have positioned
itself to resume testing.
And though Linton F. Brooks of the National Nuclear
Security Administration says no tests are planned for the
"foreseeable future," circumstantial evidence and reports from
the Arms Control Association indicate otherwise.
The 9/11 disaster has been used as a reason for many
changes in the nation in the past few years. Some measures have
been positive and constructive. Setting off nuclear bombs in
Nevada would not be one. After the nuclear-testing debacle of
the 1950s and 1960s, government promises of safety will not be
taken with a grain of salt, even for underground testing.
Historical film footage of nuclear mushroom clouds rising in the
sky within shouting distance of Las Vegas still haunt those who
trusted the government press releases at the time.
Testing at the Nevada Test Site burned Utahns once.
They will not be burned again.
The administration's thinkers needs to think more about
the downside of nuclear testing in Nevada.
© 2004 Deseret News Publishing Company
*****************************************************************
42 Seattle Post-Intelligencer: Hanford injury reports doubted
[seattlepi.com]
Tuesday, May 25, 2004
Audit finds nuclear-cleanup projects understated numbers for
three years
By LISA STIFFLER SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER REPORTER
Contractors have underreported the number of injuries and
illnesses at the Hanford Nuclear Reservation and other
nuclear-cleanup projects, creating a false image of safety and
possibly masking threats to workers, according to a federal
audit.
The inaccuracies, which had gone undetected by the federal
department responsible for overseeing the Hanford cleanup, also
helped boost payments to contractors by millions of dollars,
critics charged yesterday.
The revelations have Washington's senators, watchdog groups and
the Department of Energy's Inspector General's Office, which
performed the audit, calling for improvements at Hanford and
elsewhere.
"The Department of Energy cannot credibly claim that worker
safety at nuclear-waste cleanup sites is a top priority if it
can't accurately track work-related injuries and illnesses," said
Sen. Maria Cantwell. "I hope and expect the DOE will take the
results of this audit to heart."
When investigators compared records maintained by 10 contractors
at sites across the country with an Energy Department database,
they discovered large discrepancies with nine of the companies,
including Hanford's three biggest contractors.
The data are used to determine the effectiveness of safety
programs, identify hazards and trends in safety problems, and in
some cases calculate how much is paid to contractors working on
big-money projects.
Bechtel National, the company building a massive plant for
treating deadly waste stored in Hanford's leaky tanks, reported
1,113 days of "restricted work activity" in its own database, but
only 552 days in the government's for 2002.
And CH2M Hill Hanford Group, the company responsible for emptying
the tanks, reported 404 days of lost work because of accidents
and illness in 2002, whereas the government data showed 303 days.
"Tens of millions are paid out in bonuses to contactors every
year for driving their safety records down," said Tom Carpenter,
nuclear program director for the Government Accountability
Project, a watchdog group. "The department 'incentivizes'
underreporting ... while at the same time not overseeing the
quality of the data."
Energy Department officials said the agreements are generally
structured so contractors can lose money for poor safety
performance, but do not receive bonuses for their record. They
were not aware of any of the Hanford contractors reviewed in the
audit being docked for accidents.
The audit reviewed records for slightly more than three years,
beginning in 2000.
The report, made public yesterday, was sent Friday to Energy
Secretary Spencer Abraham.
The audit attributed the differences in reported injuries and
illnesses "to weaknesses in the department's quality-assurance
process," and recommended that the data be reviewed quarterly.
The report also found that even when mistakes were identified,
they weren't always fixed.
Hanford officials and contractors previously were made aware of
some of the findings in the audit and have resolved some of the
problems, they said, including more frequent reviews to make sure
the data match up.
"We responded even before the report was issued," said Joy
Turner, spokeswoman for CH2M Hill. "We made sure the problem was
corrected."
Federal and state officials emphasized that there are additional
programs in place to catch safety problems and identify worrisome
trends.
The Energy Department "has the ability to see what is going on in
the field beyond what the contractor reports," said Erik Olds,
spokesman for the federal Office of River Protection, which works
with Bechtel National and CH2M Hill.
"We do watch on a daily basis the work that is going on," he
said. "We're working to improve the quality of our oversight."
The third contractor reviewed was Fluor Hanford, whose contract
includes cleanup work along the Columbia River portion of the
site. In 2000, Fluor reported 37 lost-work days, but the
government database shows only one.
In 2002, the contractor tallied 1,465 days of restricted work
activity, while the official record has only 1,336.
Carpenter wants to see contractors pay back any money earned
based on "fraudulent" underreporting of injuries or illness.
Olds said the Energy Department will not penalize contractors for
the discrepancies.
There have been growing concerns about safety issues at Hanford,
particularly surrounding projects to transfer the tank waste and
vitrify it -- trapping it in a glasslike substance. The former
bomb-making site near Richland is located on 586 square miles and
is the nation's largest nuclear-waste cleanup site.
Watchdog groups maintain that site officials have played down and
underreported the harm caused to workers exposed to potentially
dangerous vapors seeping from the tanks.
The inspector general's report, Carpenter said, helps support
their claims, although he believes the problem is worse than the
audit revealed.
"We're convinced that this audit report simply scratches the
surface," he said. P-I reporter Lisa Stiffler can be reached at
206-448-8042 or lisastiffler@seattlepi.com
[Seattle Post-Intelligencer] 101 Elliott Ave. W. Seattle, WA
98119 (206) 448-8000
Send comments to newmedia@seattlepi.com [newmedia@seattlepi.com]
©1996-2004 Seattle Post-Intelligencer Terms of Service/Privacy
*****************************************************************
43 Tri-City Herald: Nitrous oxide low near tanks, test shows
This story was published Tuesday, May 25th, 2004
By Annette Cary Herald staff writer
Vapors coming from Hanford's underground radioactive waste
storage tanks appear to contain only low levels of nitrous oxide,
according to initial results of testing by contractor CH2M Hill
Hanford Group.
Workers at some of the waste tank "farms" have been required to
use Scuba-style, supplied-air systems for the last month because
of concerns over health effects of nitrous oxide in the vapors.
Some of the tanks, which hold wastes from the past production of
plutonium for weapons at Hanford, vent vapors through filters to
the atmosphere. The filters don't trap nitrous oxide, which also
is known as laughing gas.
CH2M Hill has come under scrutiny in the last six months after
the Government Accountability Project, a watchdog group,
questioned whether workers were adequately protected against
vapors from the tanks, which include nitrous oxide, ammonia and
volatile organic chemicals. Workers have reported symptoms such
as headaches, nose bleeds and shortness of breath after smelling
tank fumes.
CH2M Hill began requiring workers to wear respirators in the tank
farms in April, then added the supplied-air rule because the
respirators could not filter out nitrous oxide.
CH2M Hill sampled air at the filters at 10 tanks known to have
nitrous oxide vapors over a weekend that saw two cycles of
barometric pressure. Weather changes can trigger vapor releases.
"We found some at each, right at the exit filter," said Dale
Allen, senior vice president for CH2M Hill. "That's precisely
what we expect to see -- a small amount of nitrous oxide at the
source."
A couple of the readings were high enough to be of concern, said
John Swailes, assistant manager of the tank farms project for the
Department of Energy's Office of River Protection. The highest
were 38.2 and 18 parts per million.
But readings taken 3 to 5 feet from the filters showed the vapors
appeared to quickly disperse. All of those readings were less
than 1 part per million, except one that measured 16 parts per
million. Officials are doing more checks, but believe that
reading was caused by a faulty sampler.
"Below 25 parts per million, the medical profession believes
there is no long-term effect," Swailes said. "There may be some
unusual sensitivity in some people."
Symptoms of exposure start with laughter, then progress to a
light-headed feeling and loss of consciousness.
CH2M Hill also is checking 75 monitors worn close to the face of
tank farm workers for nitrous oxide. Of the 58 checks completed,
56 had had no detectable levels of nitrous oxide. The other two
had levels of less than 1 part per million.
Dentist and medical offices that use nitrous oxides don't
typically monitor for the gas at such low levels.
"We're pushing the limits of industrial hygiene here in what we
are doing," Swailes said. "We're trying to be sensitive to the
work groups. I think we're being very, very conservative."
Supplied-air respirators will continue to be worn as more data is
collected and until the contractor, DOE and the workers are
confident they are not needed, Allen said. CH2M Hill is
emphasizing that its 800 tank farm workers need to be
knowledgeable about risks and confident in the test results
before restrictions are lifted.
However, there is reason to stop using the supplied-air
respirators if they are found unnecessary. The cumbersome
equipment makes breathing more difficult and can impair vision.
Some workers using the systems have had heat exhaustion symptoms
with summer not yet near.
"We don't want people to be subject to an industrial risk anymore
than a chemical risk," Swailes said.
DOE and CH2M Hill also are taking other steps to protect tank
farm workers from vapors. Those include such steps as hiring
independent specialists to review programs, having monitoring
equipment tested, adding new monitoring equipment and raising
vent stacks high above workers.
© 2004 Tri-City Herald, Associated Press &Other Wire Services
*****************************************************************
44 PISJ: New lab director to move to Idaho Falls
Pocatello Idaho State Journal:
IDAHO FALLS - A group vying for the management and operation
contract of the new Idaho National Laboratory announced their lab
director candidate Monday.
Dan Arvizu, the former director at Sandia National Laboratories
in New Mexico, is the choice of Idaho Laboratory Affiliates, a
group headed up by the University of Chicago.
Arvizu plans to move his family to Idaho Falls, where Idaho
Laboratory Affiliates already has an office. Along with the
University of Chicago, the group consists of Kellogg, Brown &Root
Services, Inc., Teledyne Brown Engineering, Inc. and Nuclear Fuel
Services, Inc.
The University of Chicago already manages and operates Argonne
National Laboratory-West. According to DOE sources, a decision on
granting contracts for INL and Idaho Cleanup Project is expected
to be made in November.
Copyright © 2004 Pocatello Idaho State Journal P O Box 431
Pocatello, ID 83204-0431
*****************************************************************
45 Google News Alert - nuclear
Date: Tue, 25 May 2004 13:36:53 -0700 (PDT)
IRAN top of nuclear fuel pack
News24 - South Africa
Tehran - Iran has mastered between 60 and 70% of the technology needed
for the production of nuclear fuel, a former Iranian representative to
the International ...
See all stories on this topic:
WESTCHESTER commissions study on takeover of nuclear plants
Newsday - Long Island,NY,USA
... could be recovered in cheaper electricity and residents might be willing
to pay the rest to be rid of their fears of a catastrophe at the nuclear
station in ...
See all stories on this topic:
AUDIT doubts nuclear plant injury reports
Washington Times - Washington,DC,USA
25 (UPI) -- A federal audit cast doubt Tuesday on injury reports at the
Hanford Nuclear Reservation in Washington state and similar projects nationwide.
...
See all stories on this topic:
NORTH Korea Nuclear Weapons ' A Serious Worry ' - Blair
The Scotsman - Edinburgh,Scotland,UK
... North Koreans. But he added: “There is no doubt at all that North
Korea’s nuclear weapons programme is a serious worry.”. Mr ...
See all stories on this topic:
NUCLEAR power plant production on hold
Ohio News Network - Columbus,OH,USA
NORTH PERRY, Ohio A cooling pump at the Perry nuclear plant has failed
a test for the second time in less than a year, causing officials to shut
down the plant ...
See all stories on this topic:
COALITION reserved over Rusko's nuclear plans
Slovak Spectator - Bratislava,Slovakia
THE RULING coalition has remained reserved over the initiative of Economy
Minister Pavol Rusko to have the Mochovce nuclear power plant completed,
the daily ...
See all stories on this topic:
NUCLEAR energy still unpopular with Campbell
Rockford Register Star - Rockford,IL,USA
For decades I've been puzzled by environmentalists' frantic opposition
to all things nuclear. I'm against using nuclear bombs, too ...
TRUCKLOADS of nuclear waste in state's path
Arizona Republic - Phoenix,AZ,USA
A proposal to ship nuclear waste through Arizona to a Nevada storage site
foreshadows what likely will be decades of such efforts. ...
See all stories on this topic:
ENVIRONMENTALIST says nuclear energy the answer to global warming
ABC Online - Australia
... believes there's just one way left to prevent global warming from overwhelming
civilisation – by immediately expanding the use of nuclear energy. ...
See all stories on this topic:
NIGERIA'S nuclear interest only economic
Business Report - Johannesburg,South Africa
Lagos - Nigeria wanted to develop atomic power for economic development
but the African oil exporter had never sought nuclear weapons, foreign
minister Oluyemi ...
See all stories on this topic:
This daily-once News Alert is brought to you by Google News (BETA)...
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Remove this News Alert:
http://www.google.com/newsalerts/remove?s=92d1672a1b037a07&hl=en
Create another News Alert:
http://www.google.com/newsalerts?hl=en
Try Google News:
http://news.google.com/
*****************************************************************
46 [du-list] research into links between banks and (DU) arms trade
Date: Tue, 25 May 2004 14:45:48 -0700
>From "David Heller"
dear friends,
some of you will remember that some weeks ago I send an email looking for
information on the companies involved in the production of DU weapons. The
information was used for part of a project that For Mother Earth is working
on that tackles the links between the biggest Belgian banks (AXA, Dexia,
Fortis, ING and KBC) and the production and trade in weapons.
The report was published at the end of last month, and details the links
between these banks and the producers of landmines, cluster bombs and
atomic weapons, as well as uranium weapons. The short story is that all the
banks are investing either their money, or the money of their customers in
companies that produce all these types of weapons. With one exception, all
the banks invest in all of the DU related companies that we looked at -
Alliant Techsystems, General Dynamics and BAESystems
You can download the whole report (in Dutch) at
http://www.netwerk-vlaanderen.be/actie/dosier2.pdf
For the people who don't read Dutch, I attach (and pasted below) the
English version of the DU
section of the report. This also includes some (state owned) companies
which didn't make it into the final report.
One very good piece of news is that as a result of the campaign one of the
banks, Dexia, has announced that it will no longer invest in arms companies.
Thanks to everyone who provided useful information,
please let me know if you want any more information about the campaign,
in peace,
david
----
Voor Moeder Aarde
Maria Hendrikaplein 5
9000 Gent
België
tel: 09 242 87 52
fax: 09 242 87 51
email: david@motherearth.org
http://www.motherearth.org
Depleted Uranium
Depleted uranium is chemically toxic. It is an extremely dense, hard metal,
and can cause chemical poisoning to the body in the same way as lead or any
other heavy metal. However, depleted uranium is also radiologically
hazardous, as it spontaneously burns on impact, creating tiny aerosolised
glass particles which are small enough to be inhaled. These uranium oxide
particles emit all types of radiation, alpha, beta and gamma, and can be
carried in the air over long distances. Depleted uranium has a half-life of
4.5 billion years, and the presence of depleted uranium ceramic aerosols can
pose a long-term threat to human health and the environment.
Depleted uranium is a by-product after enriched uranium is separated from
natural uranium in order to produce fuel for nuclear reactors. During this
process, the majority of the fissionable isotope Uranium 235 is removed. The
remaining uranium, which is 99.8% Uranium 238 is called 'depleted uranium'.
While the term "depleted" implies it isn't dangerous, depleted uranium is
still radioactive and chemically toxic. There is also a growing concern that
a portion of the depleted uranium may have been obtained from spent nuclear
fuel, and is contaminated with fission products such as Plutonium and other
isotopes of Uranium, including Uranium 236, which are far more radioactive
and carcinogenic than Uranium 238. Another development may be the use of
"undepleted" uranium in weapons.
What's wrong with depleted uranium
The military use of depleted uranium is the source of much controversy.
Following the use of depleted uranium in the first Gulf War, Iraq has
suffered a significant increase in the number of babies being born with
birth defects, and the number of cancers has dramatically increased. New
previously unseen cancer types have appeared. Depleted uranium remains
dangerous long after the war because of it's chemical and radioactive
toxicity.
The effects of DU weapons can also be observed in Gulf War veterans (the
so-called Gulf War syndrome). A survey made by the Veteran¹s Administration
of 251 Gulf War Veterans families in Mississippi showed a that 67% of
children conceived and born since the war had rare illnesses and genetic
problems.
NATO troops and United Nations peace-keepers who served in the Balkans have
suffered similar problems, known as "Balkan syndrome". An estimated 6,000
Belgian soldiers are affected by Balkan syndrome.
In the majority of cases, veterans of these conflicts have been denied
compensation, as their employers (chiefly the US and British Ministries of
Defence) have refused to acknowledge a relationship between depleted uranium
and the illnesses suffered by the soldiers or peace-keepers.
A sub-commission of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights appointed
a 'rapporteur' to investigate the use of depleted uranium weapons among
other types of weapons, after passing a resolution which categorised
depleted uranium weapons alongside such as nuclear, chemical and biological
weapons, napalm, and cluster bombs as a 'weapon of indiscriminate effect'.
The testing of depleted uranium ammunition has also been linked to serious
consequences on the health of people living downwind from firing-ranges.
Depleted Uranium at War
In the 1950's the United States Department of Defense became interested in
using depleted uranium metal in weapons because of its extremely dense,
pyrophoric qualities and because it was cheap and available in huge
quantities. It is now given practically free of charge to the military and
arms manufacturers and is used both as tank armour, and in armour-piercing
shells. Over 15 countries are known to have depleted uranium weapons in
their military arsenals - UK, US, France, Russia, Greece, Turkey, Israel,
Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Egypt, Kuwait, Pakistan, Thailand, Iran and Taiwan -
with depleted uranium rapidly spreading to other countries.
The physical properties of depleted uranium mean that it can penetrate
armour more effectively than virtually any other material, although tungsten
alloys are replacing the depleted uranium in some types of ammunition.
The first suspected use of Depleted Uranium weapons was by Israel during the
Yom Kippur war in 1973. Other possible conflicts in which depleted uranium
could have been used include the Israeli invasion of South Lebanon (1982),
the Falklands conflict (1982) and the US invasion of Panama (1989).
The first confirmed, large scale, use of depleted uranium in military combat
was during the 1991 Gulf War, and it has since been used in Bosnia in 1995,
and again in the Balkans war of 1999. It was also used during the US-led war
in Afghanistan in 2001, and the second Gulf War in 2003.
The following types of depleted uranium have been used in war:
US:
M919 25mm ammunition is used in the Bradley Fighting Vehicle . It is went
into production in 2003, and is currently produced by General Dynamics
Ordnance and Tactical Systems. The Bradley Fighting vehicle fired DU
ammunition during the war against Iraq in 2003.
PGU/20-U 25mm ammunition is in use by the US Marines in Harrier jets. The
equivalent of 10 tons of depleted uranium were used in the form of this
ammunition during the first Gulf War. It is currently produced by General
Dynamics Ordnance and Tactical Systems.
PGU-14 30mm ammunition is used by the A-10 Thunderbolt II (also known as the
"warthog"). The equivalent of 260 tons of depleted uranium were used in the
form of this ammunition during the first Gulf War. Aircraft fired
approximately 10,000 30mm DU rounds (3.3 tons of DU) at 12 sites in
Bosnia-Herzegovina in 1994-1995. In 1999, they fired nearly 31,000 DU rounds
(10.2 tons of DU) at 85 sites in Kosovo. There are reports of the Warthog
being used during the war against Iraq in 2003.
The ammunition was developed for the U.S. Army AH-64 Apache helicopter, but
there is no evidence that Apache helicopters have ever fired DU ammunition.
It is currently produced by Alliant TechSystems.
M900 105mm tank round is in use with the US Army and Marine Corps. General
Dynamics Ordnance and Tactical Systems currently produce the ammunition.
M829A1 120mm ammunition is used by the M1 Abrams Main Battle Tank. This
ammunition was nicknamed the "Silver Bullet" by Operation Desert Storm tank
crews, and is widely regarded as the most effective tank-fired anti-armour
weapon in the world. The ammunition is currently produced by Alliant
TechSystems. It was previously manufactured by General Dynamics Ordnance
and Tactical Systems.
M829A2 120mm armour piercing tank round is also in use with the US Army in
the M1 Abrams Main Battle Tank. General Dynamics Ordnance and Tactical
Systems currently produce this ammunition.
MK149 20mm ammunition, previously used by the U.S. Navy's Phalanx Anti-Ship
Missile Defense System, has been replaced by a non-DU version with a
Tungsten penetrator.
It is also possible, but not confirmed, that depleted uranium is used in US
air-launched and sea-launched cruise missiles, produced by Boeing and
Lockheed Martin, as well as in the GBU-28 "Bunker Buster" produced by
Raytheon. These weapons were used extensively in the war in Afghanistan,
and the second Gulf War. Both Raytheon and Lockheed Martin hold patents on
missiles containing depleted uranium.
UK:
120mm CHARM 3 APFSDS L27 ammunition is the only depleted uranium ammunition
in use with the British Army. It was fired by the British Challenger II
tank, in both Gulf Wars. It is produced by Royal Ordnance Defence, a part
of BAE Systems.
Approximate Amount of Depleted Uranium Released During Operation Desert
Storm:
Branch Weapon System Ammo Type Quantity of Rounds Weight (pounds)
U.S. Army M1 Tank M1A1 Tank 105mm 120mm 504 9,048 4,254 82,243
U.S. Air Force A-10 30mm 783,514 521,655
U.S. Navy Phalanx CIWS 20mm Not Available Not Available
U.S. Marine Corps AV-8B Harrier M60 Tanks/ M1 Tanks 25mm 105mm 67,436 Not
Available 22,003 Not Available
United Kingdom Challenger Tanks 120mm 88 900
Totals (approximate) Tanks- 9,640 Aircraft- 850,950 Tanks - 87,397
Aircraft- 543,658 Total - 631,055
Depleted Uranium and Law
The particular characteristics of depleted uranium (most importantly the
toxic and radioactive effects of uranium which continue to have effect after
the end of armed conflict, and the production of fine particles which could
potentially spread across international borders) mean that the use of
depleted uranium weapons could be outlawed under international treaties
which are binding on the US and other states with stockpiles of these
weapons:
· The Hague Conventions, 1907, explicitly forbids the use of poison, and
guarantees the protection of neutral nations.
· The Geneva Gas Protocol, 1925 outlaws "... asphyxiating, poisonous or
other gases, and all analogous liquids, materials or devices."
· Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilians in Time of War,
1949 ensures the protection of the wounded, sick, the infirm, expectant
mothers, civilian hospitals and health workers.
· The 1977 Protocols Additional to the Geneva Conventions, protects against
incidental loss of civilian lives and widespread, long-term and severe
damage to the environment.
NATO spokesperson Francois Le Blevennec stated that depleted uranium "has
never been declared illegal by any war convention." However, the U.S. Air
Force law manual (issued in 1976) declares unequivocally: "Any weapons may
be put to an unlawful use.. A weapon may be illegal per se if either
international custom or treaty has forbidden its use under all
circumstances. An example is poison to kill or injure a person." Depleted
Uranium clearly fits into the definition of poison as it is provided by the
Air Force manual, "biological or chemical substances causing death or
disability with permanent effects when, in even small quantities, they are
ingested, enter the lungs or bloodstream, or touch the skin."
Opposition to Depleted Uranium
In February 2003, the European Parliament passed a resolution on the harmful
effects of unexploded ordnance (landmines and cluster submunitions) and
depleted uranium ammunition. This resolution, inter alia, "Calls on the
Council and the Member States, as well as on NATO and the members thereof
which are not EU Member States, to make a public declaration guaranteeing
that they will not use weapons or weapons systems that have been banned or
are deemed to be illegal under international law in present or future armed
conflicts." and "Requests the Member States - in order to play their
leadership role in full - to immediately implement a moratorium on the
further use of cluster ammunition and depleted uranium ammunition (and other
uranium warheads), pending the conclusions of a comprehensive study of the
requirements of international humanitarian law."
The Belgian Minister of Foreign Affairs has stated that "Ons land is ernstig
bezorgd over de mogelijke gevolgen van het gebruik van [depleted uranium]
wapens en neemt deel aan de vele discussies en onderzoeken die ter zake op
internationale vlak plaatsvinden. Ik kan U alvast meedelen dat ons land
[depleted Uranium] wapens niet produceert, dat we ze niet in ons bezit
hebben, dat we ze neit gebruikt of getest hebben en dat we evenmin voorzien
in de aanschaf ervan." The Minister of Defence gave a similar answer.
Neither ministry gave an answer on the question of whether the United States
stores DU ammunition in Belgium, or transported DU ammunition through
Belgium in the run-up to Gulf War.
Internationally, opposition to the use of Depleted Uranium has focussed on
the impact on the health of those soldiers and civilians exposed to debris
contaminated with depleted uranium after the end of the armed conflicts in
Iraq and the Balkans. Several veterans organisations, and citizens groups
have been formed to lobby and offer support on this issue.
There are also campaigns to ensure that the contamination on land used for
testing depleted uranium is cleared up. The US navy used the Puerto Rican
island of Vieques as a testing range for depleted uranium, until their
withdrawal in May 2003. There have also been campaigns against the testing
of depleted uranium on land belonging to indigenous peoples' in the U.S. ,
as well as in Scotland and Italy.
Other campaigns have brought attention to the military bases where depleted
uranium is stored, and from where aircraft using depleted uranium are based.
In recent years there has also been an increasing focus on the companies
involved in the production of Depleted Uranium. Notable here is the long
running campaign against the ATK depleted uranium production plant at Arden
Hills, Minnesota, and at the headquarters of the company.
In Belgium, a coalition for a ban on uranium weapons has been set up, to
bring together groups and individuals to campaign for global ban on the use
of weapons containing depleted uranium (as well as natural uranium and
uranium contaminated with fission products). The Belgian coalition has
links with the International Coalition for a Ban on Uranium Weapons.
Depleted Uranium and the military industrial complex
US
Manufacturing Sciences Corporation, a subsidiary of BNFL based in Oak Ridge,
Tennessee, manufactures Depleted Uranium for US Depleted Uranium weapons.
Aerojet Ordnance (part of GenCorp ) pioneered the application of depleted
uranium (DU) for military products at its Jonesborough, Tennessee, facility
that it acquired in 1976. The facility continues to provide DU penetrators
for a variety of programs, including ammunition for the M1 tank, the Bradley
Fighting Vehicle and the A-10 aircraft.
Starmet (formerly known as Nuclear Metals, Inc.) was an important producer
of DU penetrators for the US army , before declaring bankruptcy in 2002.
Alliant TechSystems Corporation (ATK) manufactures medium and large calibre
depleted uranium munitions. This includes the 30mm PGU-14, and the 120mm
M829A1, which were both used extensively in the first Gulf War. The company
also used small quantities of depleted uranium in its ADAM (area denial
artillery munition) and M-86 PDM (pursuit deterrent munition) landmines.
Ammunition containing DU produced by ATK has also been exported to Thailand
(150,000 rounds of 30mm ammunition) and Kuwait (11,336 rounds of 120mm
ammunition). ATK's ADAM landmines containing depleted uranium have also been
exported to Greece, South Korea, Turkey and Taiwan.
General Dynamics Ordnance and Tactical Systems (formerly Olin Ordnance Co.,
and then later Primex Technologies) produces the 25mm M919 ammunition for
use in the Bradley Fighting Vehicle , the 25mm PGU/20-U ammunition used by
the US Marines in Harrier jets , the M900 105mm tank round , the M774 105mm
round, and the M829A2 120mm armour piercing tank round.
The company was also responsible for the production of the now obsolete
105mm M833 anti-tank ammunition , which has been exported to several
countries including Bahrain, Israel, Jordan, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and
Turkey under the US Department of Defense "Excess Defence Articles" scheme.
M833 ammunition can be exported to NATO states, Taiwan, Major Non-NATO
Allies (including Argentina, Australia, Egypt, Israel, Japan, Jordan, the
Philippines, South Korea and since March 2004, Pakistan), as well as any
country for which Presidential permission is granted.
They also previously produced the 20mm MK149 ammunition for the U.S. Navy's
Phalanx Anti-Ship Missile Defense System, which has since been replaced by a
non-DU version with a Tungsten penetrator.
General Dynamic Land Systems Division produced the M60 Main Battle Tank,
equipped with Depleted Uranium armour, for over 20 countries including
Austria, Bahrain, Bosnia, Brazil, Egypt, Greece, Iran, Israel, Italy,
Jordan, Morocco, Oman, Portugal, Saudi Arabia, Spain, Sudan, Taiwan,
Thailand, Turkey and the United States. The M60 is no longer in production.
The company continues to produce the M1, M1A1 and M1A2 Abrams main battle
tank for the US Army and Marines, as well as the armed forces of Egypt,
Saudi Arabia and Kuwait.
UK
BNFL (British Fuels Nuclear Ltd) are involved in the production of depleted
uranium and hold patents relating to DU products. They admit that they store
depleted uranium at four sites in the UK.
Urenco is a British company involved in uranium enrichment, which produces
DU as a side product. They currently are thought to store 38,000 metric
tonnes of DU.
Royal Ordnance Defence, (part of BAE Systems), produces DU components for
120mm CHARM 3 APFSDS L27 projectile tank ammunition. It has a DU production
and handling site at Featherstone, near Wolverhampton in the UK. In 1999 it
was the scene of a serious fire, involving DU, which led to widespread fears
of local contamination. Although this DU ammunition is designed for use
with Challenger II tanks, which are in service with armies of Jordan and
Oman, there is no clear evidence that the DU ammunition is being exported.
France
Sicn (100% owned by COGEMA) machined 60,000 penetrators for the 120 mm
munition APFSDS-T OFL 120 F2, used by the Leclerc tank. The remainder of
the munition was made by Giat Industries of Salbris. Both of these companies
were also involved in the manufacture of the 105mm ammunition used in the F1
canon of the AMX-30 tank.
Israel
Palestinians have for a long time suspected that Israel had been using
ammunition containing depleted uranium in residential areas in Gaza and the
West Bank. Israel denies the charges but consistently refuses to reveal the
type of ammunitions used in bombing Palestinian buildings. Israel has tanks
capable of firing DU rounds, and has received exports of US made DU
ammunition.
Pakistan
The Pakistani National Development Complex (NDC) is developing a 125mm
armor-piercing fin-stabilized discarding sabot (APFSDS) projectile with a
depleted uranium (DU) long-rod penetrator for use with T-80UD tanks. The
Pakistani Army already posses 105mm DU tank ammunition.
Russia
General Export for Defence manufacture 125mm 3BM32 tank ammunition,
containing a DU penetrator. They have also marketed a shaped charge high
explosive tank round encased in a DU liner for "enhanced killing power."
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
Make a clean sweep of pop-up ads. Yahoo! Companion Toolbar.
Now with Pop-Up Blocker. Get it for free!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/L5YrjA/eSIIAA/yQLSAA/FGYolB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~->
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/
Attachment Converted: "c:\program files\eudora\attach\du3.doc"
*****************************************************************
47 Albuquerque Tribune: Manhattan Project vet remembers Oppie
May 25, 2004
By James W. Brosnan
[brosnanj@shns.com] Scripps Howard News Service
WASHINGTON - The chief of security for the Manhattan Project
gave Capt. Thomas O. Jones a mission: "Calm down Oppenheimer!"
Three things helped Jones achieve that task in the spring of
1945: a secretary, a death and the realization that forcing
Robert Oppenheimer, the internationally renowned physicist, to
leave the bomb-building team at Los Alamos over his ties to
communists could have blown the lid off the secret of the A-bomb.
"In my opinion he was close to resigning, which would have been
calamitous," said Jones, 87, the last chief of security at Los
Alamos during the war and the only living witness to the fight
within the Manhattan Project over Oppenheimer.
Jones will be one of the presenters, via videotape, at a June 26
symposium on the life of Oppenheimer at the Smith Civic
Auditorium in Los Alamos. The day before that, officials will
dedicate the Oppenheimers' old house at 1967 Peach St., which has
been sold to the Los Alamos Historical Society.
Oppenheimer is getting extra attention this year because April
22 was the 100th anniversary of his birth. (He died in 1967.)
U.S. Sen. Jeff Bingaman, a Silver City Democrat, has authored a
resolution, now awaiting Senate action, honoring Oppenheimer's
"loyal service" to the United States and his scientific
contributions to physics, nuclear energy and "the common defense
and security of the United States."
The resolution makes no mention of the security controversy that
dogged Oppenheimer at Los Alamos and that would ultimately result
in the government pulling his security clearance in 1953.
Jones recently recalled his time at Los Alamos, reminiscing at
his Washington, D.C., apartment four blocks from the White House.
It was a draft selection board that decided this English
literature major from Harvard should be assigned to
counterintelligence. Jones spent most of the war in plainclothes
working out of a false-front office in the Chicago loop, not far
from his parents' house in Highland Park, Ill.
One day he was the only junior officer around when Lt. Col. John
Lansdale came out to Chicago from the Manhattan Project office in
Washington looking for a security liaison in the Midwest.
To the security chief's surprise, Jones already knew a prominent
University of Chicago physicist, Arthur Compton, having
befriended Compton's son at summer camp.
Jones wasn't told what Manhattan was making, but he figured it
was some type of bomb. He was told to be very careful not to use
the word "implosion," which he would later learn was a key
bomb-designing process that involved compressing plutonium enough
to drive it to critical mass and make it explode.
The event that triggered Jones' departure for Los Alamos in
spring 1945 was a letter from his predecessor there, Peer De
Silva, to Gen. Leslie Groves, director of the Manhattan Project.
The letter detailed De Silva's argument that Oppenheimer's
associations with communists made him too great a security risk
to remain at Los Alamos.
For Groves, De Silva's letter came as the last straw: Groves had
already decided that Oppenheimer was too vital to the project to
be dismissed and wanted to ease his stress by transferring De
Silva, Jones said.
When Lansdale told Jones he had 30 days to move to Los Alamos,
"I started trembling in my boots. We knew so little about Los
Alamos we considered that it must be very awesome."
Lansdale told him much of the project was practically done, but
it "it was imperative to calm down Oppenheimer," Jones said.
There was no doubt Oppenheimer had many associates who "ranged
from pinkish to Communist Party members," Jones said.
But if Oppenheimer had resigned it would have been known by
scientists nationwide and could have led to disclosing the
existence of the project, he said.
On arriving in Los Alamos, Jones was pleasantly surprised to
find an ally in Oppenheimer's secretary. Anne Wilson had worked
in the Manhattan Project's Washington office, and the two had
often chatted over the phone while Jones waited to speak to
Lansdale. He was sure it was Wilson who told "Oppie" that Jones
was called "Thomas O."
Within days after Jones' arrival at Los Alamos, on April 12,
1945, Lansdale called him with the news that President Franklin
D. Roosevelt had died.
Jones raced out of his office and encountered Oppenheimer on a
footbridge. "He said, `Thomas O, is it true?' And I said, 'Yes,
Oppie.' " The two retreated to a hallway outside Oppenheimer's
office where the scientist recalled meeting Roosevelt in the
White House.
"It had been a very moving experience for him," Jones said.
"They were immediately intimate friends. It was instant rapport.
It brought us a rapport at a slightly lower place."
Jones' chief job at Los Alamos was supervising security for the
July 16, 1945, test of the plutonium device.
A photo published years later shows Jones watching as two men
load the bomb's plutonium core onto the back seat of a plain Army
sedan. "Although I knew perfectly well that it was not going to
blow up, somehow I felt better putting the car door between me
and the cargo," Jones said.
Some large pieces were moved by truck, but most went by car more
than 200 miles from Los Alamos to the test site near Alamogordo.
"Our policy was not to call attention to the thing, not to have a
parade with tanks and planes overhead and all that stuff. Just a
couple of cars taking a ride down that way; that's how it
worked," Jones said.
The day of the Trinity test found Jones in a room at La Posada
de Albuquerque, 100 miles or so north of the secret test site.
Security agents were stationed around the state to prepare for an
evacuation if the blast led to a "not necessarily wrong but
unexpected result," Jones said.
He recalled, "I was drowsy at the moment, having been up for
three days. And we had no close estimate of the zero hour. I was
exhausted and lay back on the bed. And all of a sudden it was as
if somebody put off 500 flashbulbs in the room - wham, and no
noise of course."
Jones jumped to the window and saw the whole sky turn red and
then fade. The Army put out a cover story about a huge munitions
accident, and the news media swallowed it.
Jones stayed at Los Alamos through the Bikini Atoll bomb testing
in 1946. He spent most of his later career with the Atomic Energy
Commission, although not in security.
Oppenheimer left Los Alamos after refusing to work on the
hydrogen bomb. He headed the Institute for Advanced Study at
Princeton, N.J., a school dedicated to independent research. In
1953 the government took away his security clearance. De Silva's
charges had caught up with him.
And Oppenheimer was accused of not being truthful with officials
about his conversations with a suspected spy. Jones was relieved
not to be asked to testify.
"I never have made up my mind on whether he should have been
cleared or not. I never had to do that," Jones said.
But he still treasures a photograph of Oppenheimer that the
scientist gave him before he left Los Alamos. Above his
signature, Oppenheimer wrote, "In memory of common woes."
© The Albuquerque Tribune.
*****************************************************************
48 NRC: Nuclear Regulatory Commission Honors Employees on May 27 in Rockville, Md
News Release - 2004-06 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Office
of Public Affairs Telephone: 301/415-8200 Washington, DC
20555-0001 E-mail: opa@nrc.gov No. 04-063 May 24, 2004
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission will hold its 27th Annual
Awards Ceremony on Thursday, May 27, at 2:00 p.m. on the Green
in front of agency headquarters at the White Flint Complex in
Rockville, Md.
During the ceremony, NRC will acknowledge recipients of the
Presidential Distinguished and Meritorious Executive Rank Awards
and the NRCs Distinguished and Meritorious Service Awards. The
recipients are:
Presidential Distinguished Executive Rank Awards
Samuel J. Collins Deputy Executive Director for
Reactor Programs
Office of the Executive Director for Operations
Hubert J. Miller Regional Administrator
Region I
Presidential Meritorious Executive Rank Awards
Lawrence J. Chandler Associate General Councel for
Hearings, Enforcement, and Administration
Office of the General Counsel
Douglas M. Collins Director
Division of Fuel Facility Inspection
Region II
Frank J. Congel Director
Office of Enforcement
William M. Dean Assistant for Operations
Office of the Executive Director for Operations
Margaret V. Federline
Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards
Jesse L. Funches Chief Financial Officer
Gary M. Holahan Executive Assistant for Reactors
and Research
Office of the Chairman
Arthur T. Howell III Director
Division of Reactor Projects
Region IV
Ledyard B. (Tad) Marsh Director
Division of Licensing Project Management
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Scott F. Newberry Former Director
Division of Risk Analysis and Applications
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
George C. Pangburn Director
Division of Nuclear Materials Safety
Region I
C. William (Bill) Reamer Director
Division of High Level Waste Repository Safety
Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards
Luis A. Reyes Executive Director for
Operations
James B. Schaeffer Director
Business Process Improvement and Applications Division
Office of the Chief Information Officer
Brian W. Sheron Associate Director for Project
Licensing and Technical Analysis
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
NRC Honorary Distinguished Service Awards
Maria E. Lopez-Otin Executive Assistant/Chief of
Staff
Office of the Chairman
James W. Johnson (Posthumous) Former Senior Advisor to the
Director
Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research
NRC Distinguished Service Awards
Marianne M. Aitcheson Senior Contract Analyst (Group
Leader)
Procurement Management Group
Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research
Richard P. Correia Chief
Resource Management Branch
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Francis M. Costello Deputy Director
Division of Nuclear Materials Safety
Region I
Robert E. Shewmaker Office of Nuclear Material
Safety and Safeguards
Jan Strasma Senior Public Affairs Officer
Region III Field Office
Office of Public Affairs
NRC Honorary Meritorious Service Awards
Steven F. Crockett Special Counsel
Office of the General Counsel
Pao-Tsin Kuo Program Director
License Renewal and Environmental Impacts Program
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Jeffry M. Sharkey Chief of Staff
Office of Commissioner Edward McGaffigan, Jr.
Nathan O. Siu Senior Technical Advisor for
PRA Analysis
Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research
NRC Meritorious Service Awards for Equal Employment
Opportunity Excellence
Marva C. Gary
Office of Small Business and Civil Rights
KimBerly B. Jones Management Analyst
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
NRC Meritorious Service Awards
Thomas H. Andrews, Jr. Emergency Response Coordinator
Region IV
Edith E. Barnhill Operator Licensing Assistant
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Russell L. Bywater, Jr. Senior Reactor Analyst
Region IV
Mary Faith Carter International Programs Manager
Office of International Programs
Kristin R. Davis Senior Human Resources Management
Analyst
Office of Human Resources
Victor Dricks Senior Public Affairs Officer
Region IV Field Office
Office of Public Affairs
Roland M. Frye, Jr. Senior Attorney
Office of Commission Appellate Adjudication
Carol A. Gallagher Regulations Specialist
Office of Administration
Peter J. Habighorst Senior Resident Inspector
Indian Point Unit 2 Resident Office
Region I
Bobby L. Holbrook Senior Resident Inspector
Browns Ferry Resident Office
Region II
Marcella J. Holmes Investigations Assistant
Region I Field Office
Office of Investigations
Elizabeth A. Jacobs-Baynard Senior Program Analyst
Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards
Kathaleen J. Kerr Senior State Assistant
Office of State and Tribal Programs
Janet Phelan Kotra Senior Project Manager
Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards
Dan Lurie Mathematical Statistician
Office of the Chief Financial Officer
George M. Mathews III Chief
Business Services and Project Management Branch
Office of the Chief Information Officer
Timothy J. McGinty Chief
Inspection and Communications Section
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Barbara D. Meehan Senior Contract Specialist
Office of Administration
Marvin M. Mendonca Office of Nuclear Reactor
Regulation
Reginald W. Mitchell Chief
Information Resources Branch
Region III
Andrew Persinko Senior Nuclear Process Engineer
Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards
Darrell J. Roberts Technical Assistant
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Constance C. Schum Program Analyst
Office of the Executive Director for Operations
Gary L. Shear Acting Deputy Director
Division of Nuclear Materials Safety
Region III
Mohammed A. Shuaibi Senior Project Manager
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Phyllis Sobel Senior Project Manager
Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards
Lars Solander Financial Manager (Team Leader)
Financial Management Team
Office of Nuclear Security and Incident Response
Dina Sotiropoulos Regional Human Resources Officer
Region III
Robert E. Trojanowski Regional State Liaison Officer
Region II
Lynda S. Venson Accountant
Office of the Chief Financial Officer
Tracy E. Walker Communications Coordinator
Region I
Roberta S. Warren Chief
Threat Assessment Section
Office of Nuclear Security and Incident Response
Darlene Kay Wright Administrative Secretary
Office of the Secretary
Vicki E. Yanez Program Analyst
Office of the Chief Information Officer
Last revised Tuesday, May 25, 2004
*****************************************************************
NOTE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107 this
material is distributed without profit or payment to those who
have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for
non-profit research and educational purposes only. For more
information go to:
*****************************************************************