***************************************************************** 05/26/04 **** RADIATION BULLETIN(RADBULL) **** VOL 12.126 ***************************************************************** 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 James Lovelock & Why Nuclear Power Is NOT The Solution To Global War 2 US: [NukeNet] Call Helen Caldicott On C-Span Now 3 US: [NukeNet] Energy Department Plans a Push to Retrieve Nuclear 4 US: Salt Lake Tribune: Weapons have been found 5 IPS-English BRAZIL-CHINA:Developing World Giants Talk Nuclear 6 BRITISH JOURNALIST HELD OVER VANUNU LINK NUCLEAR REACTORS 7 US: NRC: NRC to Discuss Performance of South Texas Project Nuclear P 8 US: Rutland Herald Entergy: Utilities liable for cost of search 9 US: Press Herald: Maine Yankee's bid for tax abatement rejected 10 TheStar.com - Nuclear plant misses deadline 11 TheStar.com - Manley nuclear report `flawed' 12 AU ABC: Vietnam pushes ahead with plans for nuclear power plant 13 US: NRC: Nuclear Management Company, LLC; Monticello Nuclear Generat 14 EU Business: Japan ready to pay 895 million dollars more to 15 US: projo.com: Maine Yankee loses decision on town's tax assessment NUCLEAR SAFETY 16 [du-list] 14 Reasons for Precaution 17 US: Chicago Sun-Times: Terror 18 US: AU ABC: US moves to keep nuclear materials out of terrorist hand 19 US: NRC: Atomic Safety and Licensing Board; Duke Energy Corporation, NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE 20 US: [CMEP] Nuke Waste Actions / Call to Bar Indicted Company from 21 US: 2 Alerts: Yucca Mt. and HLW reclassification 22 US: Las Vegas RJ: LETTERS: Barren landscape least of intersection's 23 Las Vegas SUN: DOE might miss Yucca deadline 24 KRNV: BLM plans meetings in Tonopah, Pioche on Yucca Mountain rail p NUCLEAR WEAPONS US DEPT. OF ENERGY 25 Seattle Post-Intelligencer: Bacteria found in Hanford waste 26 LinuxElectrons: Ground Broken for Nanotechnology Center at Sandia 27 chillicothe gazette: DOE gives update on USEC plant - 28 Tri-City Herald: Tough bacteria lurk under Hanford tank 29 Las Vegas SUN: Editorial: Corroding rationale 30 idaho mountain express: A dangerous gamble on nuclear sludge — 31 lamonitor.com: Lab embarks on nanotechnology path 32 Oak Ridger: More weapons material on the way 33 Paducah Sun: Appeal of states decision asks figures on USEC offer 34 Deseret news: 'Subcritical' tests not same as nuclear tests OTHER NUCLEAR 35 [du-list] DU in the news - 27th May 04 36 Google News Alert - nuclear ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** FULL NEWS STORIES ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** 1 James Lovelock & Why Nuclear Power Is NOT The Solution To Global Warming Date: Thu, 27 May 2004 01:18:50 -0400 ----- Original Message ----- From: "JULIOGRACE" To: Sent: Wednesday, May 26, 2004 10:50 PM Subject: Lovelock Dear friends: If anyone out there has the article about Lovelock saying that nuclear energy is the only way to stop the greenhouse effect or global warming, I just got a mail that tells about it but not the actual article; please send it. I find it appalling but then I have read about his position before, I thought maybe he had come to his senses but it seems that he has gone absolutely mad. Thanks, Grace Grace, James Lovelock, like Richard Rhodes [author of "The Making Of The Atomic Bomb" & "Dark Sun: The Making Of The Hydrogen Bomb" one a Pulitzer Prize Winner and both excellant books], is financially invested in nuclear power. That's probably the main, if not the only reason they both push nuclear power. Rhodes, when appearing on C-Span a few years ago, very disengeniously refused to mention this "minor detail." How honest of him. I don't have the article you're inquiring about but thought the two items below would be of interest to you and others re global warming and why the only thing nuclear power solves or makes more likely is mass murder and environmental devastation. -Bill Smirnow http://www.mothersalert.org/globalwarming2.html Why Nuclear Power is Not the Solution to Global Warming The Institute for Energy and Environmental Research (IEER) [ http://www.ieer.org ], Worldwatch Institute, and Sen. George Mitchell in his book, World on Fire have all spoken to the potential scale and cost of Carbon Dioxide offset through the use of nuclear. "Slowing Global Warming: A Worldwide Strategy" by Christopher Flavin, World Watch Paper # 91 published by the Worldwatch Institute, October 1989 ". .for nuclear power to offset even 5 percent of global carbon emissions would require that worldwide nuclear capacity be nearly doubled from today's level. That means that nuclear is simply not a medium term option for slowing global warming." World on Fire by Senator George Mitchell 1991 ".If nuclear plants replaced all coal-fired plants in the world, global warming could be cut by 20 to 30 percent by the middle of the next century (2050). But it would require bringing a nuclear power plant on line somewhere in the world every one to three days for the next forty years. The cost would be $9 trillion; the pace of construction would be ten times larger (greater?) than any the world has ever seen. Both figures are unthinkable. A totally safe reactor, a totally safe place to dispose of its deadly wastes, and a totally safe way to keep the wrong kind of nuclear materials from falling into the wrong hands none of these things have been resolved. By the time they are resolved, if they ever can be, it will be too late. The projected global warming will be full upon us." Greenhouse Warming: Comparative Analysis of Nuclear and Efficiency Abatement Strategies by Bill Keepin and Gregory Katz, Energy Policy, December 1988 The authors posit a conservative scenario in which one-half of non-fossil energy is supplied by nuclear power with a construction program beginning in 1988. ".This results in a total nuclear installed capacity of 8,180 GW by the year 2025, equivalent to some 8000 large nuclear power plants. This represents a 20-fold increase in world nuclear capacity, requiring that nuclear plants be built at an average rate of one new 1000 MW plant every 1.61 days for the next 37 years. At an assumed cost of $1.0 billion/1000MW installed, this results in a total capitol cost of 8.39 trillion (1987) dollars, an average of $227 billion each year for 37 years to build the required nuclear plants. Total electricity generation cost is $31.48 trillion, or an average of $787 billion/year. The required capitol investment is economically infeasible for the developing world." The authors point out that even with a massive nuclear construction program, the use of fossil fuels will continue to grow. " Thus, in this scenario, even bringing a new nuclear plant on line every day and a half for nearly four decades does not prevent annual CO2 emissions from steadily increasing to a value 60% greater than they are today." -------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------- Mothers' Alert Home | More Information | Actions | News | Email | Search http://www.mothersalert.org/globalwarming.html Nuclear Power No Countermeasure to Global Warming Apr 06 2000 06:35 TOKYO, April 6 (Kyodo) -- Nuclear power may bring lower carbondioxide emissions but will not be an effective countermeasure tocurb climate change, according to a report released Thursday by the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF). The report shows that developing countries must not be forced to adopt nuclear power, with its large energy consumption of uranium enrichment facilities, in the name of combating climate change because it is not a sustainable source of energy. It says that emissions of carbon dioxide, a leading global warming gas, must be controlled by thorough energy conservation and improvement in the efficient use of energy. The WWF, based in Switzerland, called its report ''Climate Change and Nuclear Power,'' and had experts compare the performance of different energy supply systems with various operating conditions. Greenhouse gas emissions per kilowatt-hour (kwh) were calculated as 35 grams for nuclear power, 33 grams for hydropower and 20 grams for wind power. Cogeneration technologies based on biogas from wood, landfills or agricultural origin emerged with the best performance, reaching an efficiency of 75% to 90% compared with conventional plants' 35% to 58%. Compared with nuclear power, combined heat and power (CHP) or cogeneration plants recover most of the waste heat in industrial processes or urban heating systems. The report said this transformation of biomass into synthetic gas makes it possible to nearly double the electricity generation of most current biomass-fired power plants. Citing Japan as an example of a country heavily reliant on nuclear power with ''one of the lowest cogeneration shares of any industrialized country,'' the WWF report said Japan's large-scale use of nuclear power blocks improvements in efficient energy use within the country. ''An efficient greenhouse gas abatement strategy will not be based on nuclear power but on energy efficiency,'' it said. The report appealed to governments not to use nuclear power as a main means of fighting climate change, pointing to the Soviet Union's nuclear disaster at Chernobyl, now in present-day Ukraine, and the Tokaimura nuclear accident in Japan last September. 2000 Kyodo News (c) Established 1945 -------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------- Mothers' Alert Home | More Information | Actions ***************************************************************** 2 [NukeNet] Call Helen Caldicott On C-Span Now Date: Wed, 26 May 2004 18:24:12 -0700 I think Dr Caldicott is on C-Span until 10AM this morning live. Please call in. See http://www.c-span.org It's also a good point to raise the ease with which people can attack nuclear power reactores and their spent nuke fuel pools: http://www.tmia.com/sabter.html _______________________________________________________________________ Subscribe/Unsubscribe Here: http://www.energyjustice.net/nukenet/ Change your settings at: http://energyjustice.net/mailman/listinfo/nukenet_energyjustice.net ***************************************************************** 3 [NukeNet] Energy Department Plans a Push to Retrieve Nuclear Date: Wed, 26 May 2004 18:25:05 -0700 Mothersalert Home: http://www.mothersalert.org Videos: http://www.envirovideo.com 1.Energy Department Plans a Push to Retrieve Nuclear Materials 2. Westchester to Examine Ways of Shutting Indian Mothersalert Home: http://www.mothersalert.org Videos: http://www.envirovideo.com http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/26/politics/26bomb.html Energy Department Plans a Push to Retrieve Nuclear Materials By MATTHEW L. WALD and JUDITH MILLER Published: May 26, 2004 n an effort to keep the raw materials for nuclear bombs out of the hands of terrorists, the Energy Department will undertake a $450 million campaign to retrieve nuclear materials that the United States and the Soviet Union originally sent around the world for research purposes, the energy secretary will announce on Wednesday in Vienna. Advertisement The department has been trying for years, with limited success, to recover unused uranium fuel at research reactors. An audit, announced in February, found that the department was likely to recover only about half of the 5,200 kilograms of uranium it was seeking and that no effort had been made to recover an additional 12,300 kilograms. Depending on the skill of the designers and builders, it takes as little as 5 kilograms to make a bomb the size of the one that destroyed Hiroshima, experts say. The energy secretary, Spencer Abraham, plans to announce Wednesday in a speech to the International Atomic Energy Agency that the effort will be accelerated and will expand to include used Soviet-era fuel from research reactors, as well as unused fuel, from research reactors that the United States has long been seeking to collect. The used fuel typically contains large amounts of unused uranium of the type suitable for bombs, which can be extracted and purified with techniques that are 60 years old and widely known. In addition, Mr. Abraham will report that the United States has drafted a global list of material that could be used to make bombs, ranked by risk factors, including the volume of material, the political stability of the area where it is located and the way it is guarded. In the past, American officials have looked at the materials by type or by region, but not on an integrated basis. Officials say the list is near completion. In a telephone interview on Monday, Mr. Abraham said, "We've had these programs on the books, but the programs haven't been formalized and there hasn't been a specific budget commitment to it." The American fuel was sent overseas under an Atoms for Peace program, starting in the 1960's and was lent or given to countries that promised not to develop nuclear weapons. The Soviets sent fuel to areas that became independent with the breakup of the Soviet Union and to other former Eastern Bloc countries. In remarks prepared for delivery in Vienna, Mr. Abraham said that as part of the new campaign, the Global Threat Reduction Initiative, all unused Russian-origin fuel would be repatriated by the end of next year. Used fuel would follow by 2010. A copy of the remarks was made available to The New York Times by the Energy Department. Fuel that originated in this country would also be returned on an accelerated basis. When the Energy Department began seeking return of the material, in the mid-1990's, it anticipated finishing the job by 2006, but officials are now hoping for 2010. The fuel in question is highly enriched uranium. Weapon design using highly enriched uranium is so simple that the first such bomb, used by the United States at Hiroshima in August 1945, was not even tested beforehand. Modern plants use centrifuges to enrich uranium, but a country or terrorist group that acquired enough highly enriched uranium would have a major head start on a bomb, experts say. Much of the material would also be suitable for use in a ''dirty bomb," a conventional explosive spiked with radioactive material. The effects of the radiation from such a bomb would be limited and unlikely to cause acute illness, except perhaps of the bomber himself. But such radiation could contaminate valuable real estate and could require expensive cleanup or abandonment for decades. Graham Allison, a Harvard professor and author of a new book on nuclear terrorism, said Mr. Abraham's new initiatives would be "important if the words are matched by deeds." Nonetheless, he added, the scale and speed of the effort are still woefully inadequate. "There is still a serious imbalance between the magnitude of the nuclear threat he describes and the remedies proposed," he said. Some of the fuel is in Western European countries, and those countries will pay the expenses to send it back to this country, energy officials said. Other fuel is spread around the world, including Iran and is not considered recoverable at the moment. CRAC-2 Report: http://www.mothersalert.org/crac.html NRC Admits To Probability Of Meltdown At 45%: http://www.mothersalert.org/probability.html http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/26/nyregion/26nuke.html Westchester to Examine Ways of Shutting Indian Point Plant By The New York Times Published: May 26, 2004 HITE PLAINS, May 25 - Aiming to create a new weapon in the fight against the Indian Point nuclear power plant, Westchester County will spend $385,000 studying how to shut down the controversial plant, the county executive, Andrew Spano, said on Tuesday. "This is by far the most comprehensive study of a nuclear power plant and the effect of closing it," Mr. Spano said. "We want to determine the best way to shut the plant down." Advertisement Mr. Spano said the study would address, among other things, whether and how Entergy, which owns Indian Point, could be encouraged to voluntarily replace the reactors; what it would cost to take over Indian Point, either by purchase or condemnation, if Entergy refused to act voluntarily; what it would cost to replace the lost energy; what the effect would be on the tax base of municipalities and school districts; and what the effect would be on energy rates for Westchester residents and businesses. An Entergy spokesman, James Steets, said any plan for a county buyout of the nuclear facility "defied common sense." _______________________________________________________________________ Subscribe/Unsubscribe Here: http://www.energyjustice.net/nukenet/ Change your settings at: http://energyjustice.net/mailman/listinfo/nukenet_energyjustice.net ***************************************************************** 4 Salt Lake Tribune: Weapons have been found May 26, 2004 We have found the weapons of mass destruction at last. They are hidden in the budget for the war on terror. If that budget state at risk. We will fund more testing of nuclear weapons in Nevada and we will fund testing of both chemical and biological weapons. Citizens of Utah, we have been here before! During the Cold War we tested very potent nuclear weapons which caused illnesses which impair the immune system, leukemia, lymphoma, all other cancers and some immune disorders. Then we tested germ warfare in the open air at Dugway. I am one of the people who developed an immune disorder related to the atomic testing. Then I moved to Salt Lake City and was exposed to the germs escaping from the test site at Dugway. I spent most of the '60s and '70s in hospitals fighting for my life. I will not allow our government to do this to my grandchildren. Perhaps the real WMDs are sitting in the West Wing of the White House and need to be replaced by people who think before they act. Darlene M. Phillips Bountiful "> --> Copyright Salt Lake City Tribune ***************************************************************** 5 IPS-English BRAZIL-CHINA:Developing World Giants Talk Nuclear Date: Wed, 26 May 2004 18:18:58 -0700 ROMAIPS LA AP IF EN=20 BRAZIL-CHINA:Developing World Giants Talk Nuclear Cooperation By Mario Osava RIO DE JANEIRO, May 26 (IPS) - The possibility of nuclear cooperation bet= ween Brazil and China, discussed during President Luiz Inacio Lula da Sil= va's six-day visit to Beijing, has Brazilian experts thinking of opportun= ity, but environmentalists warn of greater potential for disaster. New energy ties between the giants of Latin America and Asia -- one with = large uranium deposits, the other with plans to build 11 nuclear power pl= ants over the next 10 years to meet the electricity demands of its enormo= us population and fast-growing economy -- has awakened dreams and fears. For that reason, Brazilian Minister of Science and Technology, Eduardo Ca= mpos, underlined Wednesday that no agreement has been reached yet and tha= t Brazil has no plans to become an exporter of uranium. An official statement issued by the Ministry of Science and Technology so= ught to correct what it called distortions in news reports based on an in= terview Campos gave in Shanghai. According to the press, Brazil was negot= iating an agreement for the sale of non-enriched uranium to China. The communiqu=E9 confirmed that Campos met with Chinese authorities in Be= ijing to discuss possible advances in scientific and technological cooper= ation, in areas like space, biotechnology, bioinformatics and nuclear ene= rgy. But the minister clarified that ''Brazil does not participate in the inte= rnational trade involving uranium ore.'' The Chinese government had expressed interest in acquiring non-enriched u= ranium and Brazil's know-how and technology in enriching uranium. Brazil is also in the midst of reviewing its nuclear energy policy, a pro= cess that is centred on a study that is to be completed within the next t= hree months. Only after a new nuclear energy programme is designed will the country be= able to make decisions involving cooperation, which would be limited to = ''countries that respect international regulations.'' The issue is expected to come up for discussion once again in August, whe= n China's Committee on Science and Technology for Industry and National D= efence will send a mission to Brazil. The Chinese government also expressed an interest in Brazil's participati= on in the construction of 11 new nuclear power plants in the Asian countr= y. Brazil possesses the know-how for enriching uranium through =94ultracentr= ifugation=94, but does not yet produce the fuel needed by its two nuclear= power plants, so it still relies on imports. A bilateral agreement with China could provide ''decisive leverage'' for = the development of the nuclear energy industry, which comprises the entir= e nuclear fuel cycle, the construction of new power plants and the produc= tion of equipment, Aquilino Senra, professor of Nuclear Engineering at th= e Federal University of Rio de Janeiro, told IPS. The ideal would be for Brazil to supply enriched uranium, due to the adde= d value, but sales of yellow cake, which is produced in the first phase o= f processing uranium ore, ''could be justified as a means to obtain the n= ecessary resources for developing the industry,'' said the expert. Brazil has the sixth largest uranium reserves in the world, but could mov= e up to third place if it expands exploration efforts, which so far cover= just 30 percent of its national territory, says Carlos Lessa, president = of the National Bank for Economic and Social Development. The country could thus produce nuclear fuel with its own uranium, with an= advantage over industrialised countries that only possess the technology= . In addition, Brazil has the capacity to build nuclear power plants at c= ompetitive costs with competitive technology, according to Senra. China is interested in Brazilian uranium as well as its nuclear engineeri= ng for its lower costs and competitive technology, the professor said. Br= azil could then become an important player on the international market fo= r that sector, estimated to be worth 20 billion dollars a year. This Chinese-Brazilian marriage would have commercial, economic and even = geopolitical impacts, says Senra. Added to the aerospace cooperation betw= een the two countries -- considered a successful model to be followed by = other nations of the South -- it is building up the weight of the bloc of= big developing countries in the international arena. Environmentalists, however, have reacted negatively to the possibility of= a uranium agreement, saying it favours the development of that sector an= d the construction of nuclear power plants in Brazil, therefore increasin= g the threat of ecological disaster. The business deals emerging during Lula's visit to China are =94absurd=94= , Kathia Vasconcelos Monteiro, coordinator of Friends of the Earth-Brazil= , told IPS. In addition to the nuclear energy deal is the Chinese coal that Brazil wi= ll import under an agreement between corporations in the two countries. I= t is a setback that contradicts =94the vision for sustainable development= =94 that was expected from the Lula administration, she said. =94We are going in the opposite direction of the rest of the world=94 by = fomenting nuclear power, which other countries are abandoning, said Sergi= o Dialetachi, spokesman for the environmental watchdog Greenpeace-Brazil. (END/IPS/LA-AP/IF-EN/TRASP-SW-LD/MO/04) =20 =3D 05270116 ORP001 NNNN ***************************************************************** 6 BRITISH JOURNALIST HELD OVER VANUNU LINK Date: Wed, 26 May 2004 21:15:27 -0700 Free Mordechai Vanunu - Info & Action Alert #16 ** PLEASE FORWARD TO SYMPATHETIC LISTS ** UPDATE 1. BRITISH JOURNALIST HELD OVER VANUNU LINK 2. Vanunu in Court for Libel Suit Hearing 3. Write to Mordechai Vanunu ============== 1. British Journalist Held Over Vanunu Link By Donald Macintyre in Jerusalem via the Independent (UK) May27, 2004 Peter Hounam, the Sunday Times journalist who broke the story of Mordechai Vanunu's revelations about Israel's nuclear weapons programme 18 years ago, was arrested by plain clothes agents in Tel Aviv last night. Mr Hounam, who has been in Israel since Mr Vanunu's release last month after 18 years in prison for publishing state secrets, was seized on his way to a dinner with a longstanding Israeli supporter of the former nuclear technician. Before being taken into custody, he was driven at high speed back to his hotel in Jerusalem where he broke away from his captors long enough to grab a fellow guest by the hair to attract her attention and urge her to "tell people, tell The Sunday Times that I am being arrested". Mr Hounam's seizure came as he was traveling to meet Yael Lotan, an Israeli journalist and Vanunu campaigner who last Saturday conducted a two-hour interview with Mr Vanunu scheduled for publication in this weekend's Sunday Times. Mr Hounam was in detention last night, facing probable interrogation by Shin Bet, Israel's domestic intelligence service. Ms Lotan said that she had been telephoned by Mr Hounam at about 8.10pm and that he appeared to be having trouble finding her home to take her to a restaurant which he had booked. He then failed to show up and calls to his mobile phone elicited no response. The BBC, for whom Mr Hounam has been making a documentary about Mr Vanunu, said it was "very concerned" about his arrest. Donatella Rovera, the Middle East specialist for Amnesty International, who like Mr Hounam has been staying at the Jerusalem Hotel in Nablus Road, was sitting at a table near the door of the hotel's garden restaurant at around 9.30pm. "He grabbed me and told me to tell people that he was being arrested," she said. Ms Rovera said that he was with about five men, wearing T-shirts and jeans who then ushered him upstairs to his room. When he came downstairs about 20 to 30 minutes later he seemed less agitated and waved to Ms Rovera as he left the hotel before being driven away in one of two unmarked cars which had been waiting outside with a police jeep. He seemed to have all his luggage with him and the agents were helping him to carry it down and out to the car. Ms Lotan said last night that she and not Mr Hounam had conducted the interview for The Sunday Times. The conditions attached to Mr Vanunu's release severely restrict his rights to make contact with foreigners. Ms Lotan said that while the interview included a personal narrative of his period in solitary confinement, it did not contain new material threatening Israel's security. "I don't think it endangers Israel at all," she added. After Mr Vanunu was released from prison on 21 April he was embraced by Mr Hounam in an emotional reunion as he arrived to take communion at Jerusalem's Anglican cathedral.Mr Vanunu converted to Anglicanism in the 1980s. He subsequently moved into a hostel attached to the cathedral. A government spokesman said last night that he was unable to give details of Mr Hounam's arrest and detention because of a gagging order. ============== 2. Vanunu in Court for Libel Suit Hearing By Zvi Harel, Haaretz Correspondent and agencies via Haaretz May 24, 2004 Vanunu appears at court in case against Yedioth Aharonoth Mordechai Vanunu attended a court hearing Monday at the Tel Aviv Magistrate's court, his first public appearance since being released last month from an 18 year prison sentence, in a libel case against Yedioth Aharonoth newspaper and journalist Ron Ben Yishai The suit filed for the amount of NIS 368,000 was submitted in September 2002 in the wake of an extensive article, which stated that during Vanunu's prison sentence he passed on information to the Hamas on how to manufacture explosive devices. Vanunu's defense attorney, Avigdor Feldman, said the report was fabricated. The article was never verified and Yedioth Aharonoth did not even ask Vanunu for his response on the matter. Ben Yishai said on Monday, that that the preliminary information he received on the case came from Ami Ayalon, former head of the Shin Bet security services who discussed it in a meeting with a group of some 10 journalists at the end of 1999. Ben Yishai said, he had decided to publish the article five months later, only after verifying the information with another source and because there was public interest at the time since Vanunu had submitted a request for his early release. Ben Yishai stressed that he did not reveal Ayalon's name (Haaretz revealed that Ayalon was the source of the information [ZH]). Ben Yishai also said that he did not ask the other source to testify in order not to divulge journalistic sources. Ayalon is expected to testify at the next hearing. Vanunu was released from an Israeli prison last month after serving an 18-year prison sentence for providing The Sunday Times of London with information and pictures of Israel's nuclear reactor. Based on the pictures and information provided by Vanunu - who worked as a technician in the reactor - experts assessed at the time that Israel has the sixth-largest stockpile of nuclear weapons in the world. After his release from prison Vanunu - a convert to Christianity- stayed St. George, an Anglican Church in Jerusalem's Old City. - END - ================= 3. Write to Mordechai Vanunu Mordechai would love to hear from his friends and supporters. You can write to him at: Mordechai Vanunu c/o Cathedral Church of St. George 20 Nablus Road PO Box 19018 Jerusalem 91190 Israel The U.S. Campaign to Free Mordechai Vanunu would appreciate any news clippings about the release for our files. Please send to the campaign at PO Box 43384, Tucson, AZ 85733 US. Also, if anyone taped any of the TV or radio coverage, we would appreciate a copy. Thanks! ================= If you would like to receive these alerts directly, please subscribe by sending a blank e-mail to free_vanunu-subscribe@yahoogroups.com - END - Felice Cohen-Joppa Coordinator U.S. Campaign to Free Mordechai Vanunu POB 43384 Tucson, AZ 85733 Phone/Fax 520-323-8697 freevanunu@mindspring.com www.nonviolence.org/vanunu ***************************************************************** 7 NRC: NRC to Discuss Performance of South Texas Project Nuclear Plant June 3 News Release - Region IV - 2004-02 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Office of Public Affairs, Region IV No. IV-04-023 May 26, 2004 CONTACT: Victor Dricks Phone: 817-860-8128 E-mail: opa4@nrc.gov The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff will meet with representatives of the South Texas Project Nuclear Operating Company on June 3 to discuss the results of the agencys assessment of safety performance at the South Texas Project nuclear power plant during 2003. The plant is located in Bay City, Texas. The meeting will be held at 6 p.m. at the Bay City Civic Center, 201 Seventh Street, Bay City. 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. The performance period to be discussed is January 1 to December 31, 2003. In addition, the NRC staff will provide an overview of how the agency Reactor Oversight Process works. A letter from the NRC to South Texas Project officials addresses the performance of the plant during this period and will serve as the basis for the meeting discussion. It is available on the NRC web site at: http://www.nrc.gov/NRR/OVERSIGHT/ASSESS/LETTERS/stp_2003q4.pdf [PDF Icon] . The NRC concluded that the plant operated safely last year. However because the number of automatic shutdowns crossed a critical threshold during the first quarter of 2003, the NRC conducted a supplemental inspection, which concluded that appropriate corrective actions had been taken, said Arthur T. Howell III, Director of Region IVs Division of Reactor Projects. Routine inspections will continue in 2004. With regard to security issues, the letter points out that the NRC has issued several orders and threat advisories to enhance security capabilities at all nuclear power plants 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 plant conditions. The NRC will continue security inspections during 2004. Current performance indicators for Unit 1 are available on the NRC web site at: http://www.nrc.gov/NRR/OVERSIGHT/ASSESS/STP1/stp1_chart.html. Current performance indicators for Unit 2 are available on the NRC web site at: http://www.nrc.gov/NRR/OVERSIGHT/ASSESS/STP2/stp2_chart.html. Last revised Wednesday, May 26, 2004 ***************************************************************** 8 Rutland Herald Entergy: Utilities liable for cost of search May. 26, 2004 By SUSAN SMALLHEER Herald Staff Entergy Nuclear has put the former owners of Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant on notice that it holds them financially responsible for the missing nuclear fuel rods. Entergy bought the Vernon reactor in July 2002 from Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp., a consortium of New England utilities led by Central Vermont Public Service Corp. and Green Mountain Power Co. Entergy spokesman Robert Williams said Tuesday the company interpreted its 2002 purchase-and-sales agreement to mean that the Vermont utilities and their partners were on the hook for the cost of finding the missing fuel rod pieces. "We want to ensure a common view of our agreement. It's our reading that the costs remain with Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp.," Williams said. "I'm not going to get into specifics, but the costs remain with VYNPC." Since the fuel rods were discovered missing last month, Entergy has brought in several remote cameras to search the spent fuel pool, and has started a detailed review of computer and written documents to try and track down where the fuel went. Investigators will also be sent to three low-level nuclear waste sites in Nevada, South Carolina and Washington state, where Vermont Yankee sent its waste from the past 32 years. Entergy Nuclear paid $180 million for the Vernon reactor in July 2002. It was a move widely interpreted as an attempt by its Vermont and New England owners to get out from under the financial liability of owning a nuclear power plant. Bruce Wiggett, president of VYNPC, said he interpreted Entergy's notice as the company "reserving its right" to sue the former owners over the missing fuel rod pieces. "It's a potential lawsuit, I suspect," Wiggett said. "Our position is we need more information, and we're assessing the situation," Wiggett said. "We thought they purchased all the _nuclear liabilities. That's one of the things we're trying to analyze as well, what under the agreement makes us liable." Wiggett, the longtime chief financial officer for the original owners of the plant, now oversees a staff of three, including himself. The company's offices are located within Entergy's corporate offices in Brattleboro. Wiggett said all documents that might have to do with the missing fuel rod pieces were turned over to Entergy when the plant was sold. Stephen Costello, spokesman for CVPS, referred all comment about Entergy's letter to Wiggett. CVPS, in a recent filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission, acknowledged the financial uncertainty associated with the missing rods. "We cannot predict the outcome of this matter at this time," the CVPS notice with SEC concluded. "ENVY (Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee) informed VYNPC that it believes that VYNPC is responsible under the purchase and sale agreement between VYNPC and ENVY, for all costs arising in connection with ENVY's inspection," both utilities stated to their stockholders in the filing. Green Mountain Power included an identical notice in a SEC filing earlier this month. Dorothy Schnure, spokeswoman for Green Mountain Power, said the Entergy letter was "a pro forma" notice. "We don't have a lot of information yet. It's very early in the process," she said. She said Green Mountain had to include the notice about Entergy's assertions in its quarterly earnings report to the SEC because it had the potential to affect the company's earnings. "We had to report that this was going on," she said. According to filings with the SEC, CVPS owns 35 percent of Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp., Green Mountain Power, 20 percent; National Grid, 22.5 percent; Northeast Utilities, 9.5 percent, Central Maine Power and Public Service Co. of New Hampshire, both 4 percent. By all accounts, the missing fuel pieces were missing long before Entergy Nuclear bought the plant, even though they were only discovered missing last month. The last time someone saw the fuel rod pieces, which are 7 and 17 inches long and about the thickness of a Magic Marker pen, was in 1980. They were removed from the reactor core in 1979 because they were damaged and leaking excess amounts of radiation. The fuel rod pieces were supposed to have been stored in a stainless steel pail, which had been outfitted with special tubes to hold them. A close-up inspection by Entergy and an inspector from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission on April 20 revealed they were missing. Vermont Yankee is the only currently operating nuclear reactor that has discovered it has lost some of its nuclear fuel; the other 103 commercial reactors in the country are supposed to be completing an inventory of their nuclear material. John Sayles, deputy commissioner of the Department of Public Service, said the department was unaware of the action by Entergy against the former owners. He declined any comment on the purchase-and-sales agreement between Entergy and the plant's former owners. The sale was approved by the Public Service Board in July 2002, with the support of the Department of Public Service, which acts as the ratepayers' advocate. Wiggett said VYNPC had already responded to the Entergy letter. The company's sole job is to act as the broker for power contracts between Entergy and the former utility owners. Only one other nuclear utility, the owners of Millstone 1 reactor in Connecticut, has lost old radioactive fuel. Millstone spent $10 million over two years in its futile attempt to find its missing fuel rods. Williams said he had no idea how much Entergy had spent so far on the search for the fuel rod pieces. "We are focusing on the search itself and we are committed to keeping the former owners informed," Williams said. Contact Susan Smallheer at susan.smallheer@rutlandherald.com. ***************************************************************** 9 Press Herald: Maine Yankee's bid for tax abatement rejected Wednesday, May 26, 2004 By DENNIS HOEY, Portland Press Herald Writer Copyright © 2004 Blethen Maine Newspapers Inc. WISCASSET — The town's selectmen unanimously rejected a plea for a property tax abatement from its largest taxpayer Tuesday night, setting the stage for what will likely be a lengthy court battle. At issue in the dispute between Maine Yankee and the town of Wiscasset over the company's 2003 tax bill is the method used by the town to assess the value of what remains of the former nuclear power plant. Maine Yankee officials argue that there are no willing buyers for the Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation that houses 60 airtight, stainless-steel canisters that hold about 600 tons of high-level radioactive waste. By next year, the storage facility will be the only building left on what was once the site of the state's only nuclear plant. Peter Murray, a Harvard University professor and Portland attorney hired by the town to appraise what is left of the plant, says it would be irresponsible for the town to disregard the income potential of a licensed radioactive waste site. Maine Yankee officials disagreed. "We understand that the selectmen are looking for new revenues following the shutdown and decommissioning of the plant. But it is simply not right to try to get new revenues by radically and unlawfully increasing property valuation in this unprecedented manner," Michael Thomas, Maine Yankee's vice president and chief financial officer, said in a prepared statement. "In assessing a property's taxable value under Maine law, the central question is what would a willing buyer pay a willing seller for the property? In the case of Maine Yankee's high-level nuclear waste storage facility, the answer is not very much, if anything," Thomas said. But in an interview after the selectmen's decision, Murray asserted that the property "has great income potential as a licensed site for the storage of nuclear waste." At its peak, Maine Yankee paid $12 million a year in property taxes. But its relationship with the town began to change in 1997 when Maine Yankee announced it would shut down and stop producing electricity. In the years that followed, Maine Yankee demolished buildings and cleaned up the 800-acre property on the Sheepscot River, with a goal of being decommissioned by 2005. The fuel storage facility will likely remain for another 20 years, or until the federal government begins accepting high-level waste at Yucca Mountain in Nevada. Maine Yankee has continued to pay property taxes, but in increasingly lower amounts. Company officials said they paid $1.6 million in 2001, $1 million in 2002 and $682,000 in 2003. The 2003 amount is significantly lower than the $3.5 million the town demanded. Murray's appraisal team set Maine Yankee's worth at $212 million for 2003. Thomas said Maine Yankee is worth no more than $4.3 million, which would result in a tax payment of $71,000. Selectmen, who also serve as assessors, made no comment during Tuesday night's abatement hearing. They voted 5-0 to reject the company's abatement request. "The town's approach defies logic, is unfair to the homeowners and businesses who bear the cost of Maine Yankee taxes through their electric bills, and we believe violates the Maine Constitution. If the town can do this to Maine Yankee, then no property owner is safe," Thomas said. Murray denied the town had done anything illegal. "The board (of selectmen) acted very responsibly when they hired us to do this study," Murray said. "They came to us and said, 'We have this peculiar property. Would you find out what the value of a nuclear waste site is.' " Staff Writer Dennis Hoey can be contacted at 725-8795 or at: © Blethen Maine Newspapers Inc. ***************************************************************** 10 TheStar.com - Nuclear plant misses deadline Wed. May 26, 2004. | Updated at 05:25 PM The Pickering A nuclear generating station was finished in 1971 for $662M, which is about $3.2B in today's dollars. Only working reactor out of service Woes plague Ontario Power Generation JOHN SPEARS BUSINESS REPORTER Ontario Power Generation Inc. will miss another target date for refurbishing the Pickering A nuclear generating station. Meanwhile, the only operating unit at the A plant, one of two Pickering plants, has been out of service due to a malfunction for nearly two weeks, the company has acknowledged. The project to return the station to service since it was laid up in 1997 is years behind schedule and billions over budget, with only one of the four reactors now able to function. A panel headed by former finance minister John Manley recommended returning a second reactor to service, and set a target date of June 1 to start construction. The panel estimated the cost of restarting the second reactor at $450 million to $600 million. But the provincial government won't be able to give the go-ahead for construction by the June 1 target because OPG still hasn't submitted final project plans, said Angie Robson, press secretary to Energy Minister Dwight Duncan. "We are still waiting for a final proposal from OPG in terms of time and cost," Robson said yesterday. As a result, there won't be time for Duncan's office to prepare a recommendation to cabinet for its next meeting, scheduled for June 2. The Manley panel estimated that if construction started June 1, the second unit could be back in service in the second half of 2005. In its report last March, the Manley panel flagged several problems that could lead to further delays, one of which was OPG's preparation of "comprehensive work packages." These are detailed instructions, prepared by engineering and planning staff, that are given to contractors or work crews telling them exactly what to do. The panel said the work packages were behind schedule. But it said construction could probably begin on June 1 if at least 80 per cent of the work packages were ready. But sources at Pickering A say that there are ongoing problems in preparing accurate work packages. OPG won't say whether the Manley panel's target of finishing 80 per cent of the work packages by June 1 will be met. "Over-all, OPG is making substantial progress on each of the (Manley panel) recommendations," OPG spokesperson John Earl said in a written reply to questions. "Rather than to `cherry pick' progress on individual report references, I can say categorically that OPG is focused on completing recommendations. To this end, management has been updating OPG's Board of Directors regularly, and the Board is satisfied with the progress made to date." The one functioning reactor at Pickering A encountered unexpected problems this month, OPG said yesterday. It returned to service last fall, and had a scheduled maintenance shutdown earlier this spring. But problems cropped up when OPG began to bring the reactor back into service May 10-11, Earl said in an interview. "We didn't like one of the control system responses that we were seeing," Earl said. The unit was shut down May 13 for further work, but is expected to return to service very soon. After Pickering A was shut down in 1997, plans were soon under way to restart it. Original estimates put the cost at less than $1 billion, but the board of directors first approved a cost of $1.3 billion in the fall of 1998. The first reactor was supposed to return to service by late 2000. In the end, the first reactor didn't start up until fall 2003. The Manley panel estimates the cost of restarting all four reactors at $3 billion to $4 billion. Legal Notice: Copyright Toronto Star Newspapers Limited. All ***************************************************************** 11 TheStar.com - Manley nuclear report `flawed' Wed. May 26, 2004. | Updated at 05:30 PM Group argues for gas-fired generators Analysis challenges economic rationale JOHN SPEARS BUSINESS REPORTER Building efficient natural gas-fired electricity generators makes more economic sense than refurbishing another reactor at the Pickering A nuclear generating station, says the Ontario Clean Air Alliance. The alliance released an analysis today challenging the position put forward by a special provincial advisory panel headed by former finance minister John Manley. In a report released in March, the Manley panel recommended proceeding with the restart of a second nuclear reactor at the Pickering A nuclear station. The four-reactor station was mothballed in 1997, and one reactor was restarted last fall. The Manley panel estimates it will likely cost $500 million to restart a second reactor. It says the nuclear plant will produce electricity at a cost of 2 cents to 3 cents a kilowatt hour less than a natural-gas plant. But Jack Gibbons, chair of the clean air alliance, said Manley used "deeply flawed" assumptions when comparing the economics of nuclear and natural gas generators. Among them: The Manley panel assumes that the reactor will operate at an average capacity of 85 per cent. The alliance says 69 per cent is more realistic; The panel assumes the reactor will start on time and on budget. The alliance argues that nuclear projects in Ontario have a long history of delays and cost overruns, and the project is likely to be 40 per cent over budget. The alliance says the cost of capital for the project will be 50 per cent higher than the Manley report estimated; The alliance says the Manley panel overestimated the cost of producing electricity from natural gas. Gibbons said the alliance plugged its own assumptions into the spreadsheet used by the Manley panel and concluded that natural gas is a better bet. An efficient natural gas plant can produce power at 5.89 cents a kilowatt hour, while a refurbished Pickering A unit will produce power at a cost of 10.7 cents a kilowatt hour, he said. "The assumptions we've used are based on Ontario Power Generation's historical experience," Gibbons said. Legal Notice: Copyright Toronto Star Newspapers Limited. All ***************************************************************** 12 AU ABC: Vietnam pushes ahead with plans for nuclear power plant Vietnam's program to build its first nuclear power plant by 2020 is gathering pace, with officials saying that a pre-feasibility study will be submitted to the government later this year. The director of the international affairs department at the Vietnam Nuclear Energy Institute, Le Doan Phac, says a study has determined three possible locations for the plant in the coastal provinces of Phu Yen and Ninh Thuan. The blueprint envisages that the plant, which will have a capacity of either 2,000 or 4,000 megawatts, will be built with international cooperation. Mr Phac's comments came as government experts and nuclear power companies from France, Russia, Japan, South Korea and India began a four-day meeting in Hanoi. 26/05/2004 20:54:48 | ABC Radio Australia News www.abc.net.au ***************************************************************** 13 NRC: Nuclear Management Company, LLC; Monticello Nuclear Generating FR Doc 04-11854 [Federal Register: May 26, 2004 (Volume 69, Number 102)] [Notices] [Page 29983-29984] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr26my04-105] Plant; Revised Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is considering issuance of an amendment to Facility Operating License No. DPR-22, issued to Nuclear Management Company, LLC (NMC), for operation of the Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant (Monticello), located in Wright County, Minnesota. Therefore, as required by 10 CFR 51.21, the NRC is issuing this revised environmental assessment and finding of no significant impact. Revised Environmental Assessment Identification of the Proposed Action The proposed action would revise the Monticello operating license to change the Monticello design bases and the Updated Safety Analysis Report (USAR). The proposed action would revise the existing analyses for the following: Long-term containment response to the design-basis loss- of-coolant accident (LOCA). Containment overpressure (the pressure above the initial containment pressure) required for adequate available net positive suction head (NPSH) for the low-pressure emergency core cooling system pumps following a LOCA, reactor vessel isolation, or Appendix R fire. In addition, NMC intends to use these analyses to justify revising the service water temperature licensing basis. NMC administratively limits the service water temperature to 85 [deg]F, instead of its current licensing basis value of 90 [deg]F, because the results of analyses of a new scenario (reactor vessel isolation with high-pressure coolant injection unavailable) showed that the design temperature for the piping attached to the wetwell would be exceeded. A license amendment is required since NMC used different methods of evaluation in the updated containment analyses from those currently described in the Monticello USAR and previously approved by the NRC. NMC's submittal of December 6, 2002, demonstrates acceptable results for the long-term containment LOCA response with a service water temperature of 94 [deg]F. The NPSH analyses were performed using a service water temperature of 90 [deg]F. The lower service water temperature, 90 [deg]F, would be operationally controlling. That is, exceeding a service water temperature of 90 [deg]F would exceed the Monticello licensing basis since the NPSH calculations would no longer be valid. The proposed action is in accordance with NMC's application of December 6, 2002, as supplemented September 24, 2003, and March 12, 2004. The Need for the Proposed Action NMC needs this license amendment because it has determined, in accordance with 10 CFR 50.59(c)(2)(viii), that the updated containment analyses involve different evaluation methods from those currently described in Monticello's USAR and previously approved by the NRC. Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action The NRC staff reviewed NMC's amendment request and will issue a safety evaluation documenting its review. The NRC staff has reviewed NMC's calculation of the mass and energy releases that are used to determine containment pressure response, including the methods and key underlying input assumptions (e.g., decay heat generation). NMC used conservative assumptions in its reanalyses which underestimate the containment pressure and overestimate the suppression pool water temperature. Some overpressure is necessary to ensure sufficient available NPSH. The conservative assumptions used in NMC's calculations and the cautions in Monticello's emergency operating procedures are intended to ensure that this pressure will be available. The NRC has completed its evaluation of the proposed action and concludes, as set forth below, that there are no significant environmental impacts associated with the proposed changes to the Monticello design basis and USAR. The details of the NRC staff's review of the amendment request will be provided in the related safety evaluation when it is issued by the NRC. The proposed action will not significantly increase the probability or consequences of accidents, no changes are being made in the types or amounts of effluents that may be released off site, and there is no significant increase in occupational or public radiation [[Page 29984]] exposure. Therefore, there are no significant radiological environmental impacts associated with the proposed action. With regard to potential nonradiological impacts, the proposed action does not have a potential to affect any historic sites. It does not affect nonradiological plant effluents and has no other environmental impact. Therefore, there are no significant nonradiological environmental impacts associated with the proposed action. Accordingly, the NRC concludes that there are no significant environmental impacts associated with the proposed action. Environmental Impacts of the Alternatives to the Proposed Action As an alternative to the proposed action, the staff considered denial of the proposed action (i.e., the ``no-action'' alternative). Denial of the application would result in no change in current environmental impacts. The environmental impacts of the proposed action and the alternative action are similar. Alternative Use of Resources The action does not involve the use of any different resource than those previously considered in the Final Environmental Statement for Monticello dated November 1972. Agencies and Persons Consulted On January 6, 2004, the staff consulted with the Minnesota State official, Nancy Campbell of the Department of Commerce, regarding the environmental impact of the proposed action. The State official had no comments. Finding of No Significant Impact On the basis of the environmental assessment, the NRC concludes that the proposed action will not have a significant effect on the quality of the human environment. Accordingly, the NRC has determined not to prepare an environmental impact statement for the proposed action. For further details with respect to the proposed action, see NMC's letter of December 6, 2002, as supplemented September 24, 2003, and March 12, 2004. Documents may be examined, and/or copied for a fee, at the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR), located at One White Flint North, Public File Area O1 F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland. Publicly available records will be accessible electronically from the Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) Public Electronic Reading Room on the Internet at the NRC Web site, http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. Persons who do not have access to ADAMS or who encounter problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS, should contact the NRC PDR Reference staff by telephone at 1 (800) 397-4209 or (301) 415-4737, or by e-mail to pdr@nrc.gov. Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 20th day of May 2004. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. L. Raghavan, Chief, Section 1, Project Directorate III, Division of Licensing Project Management, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. [FR Doc. 04-11854 Filed 5-25-04; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P ***************************************************************** 14 EU Business: Japan ready to pay 895 million dollars more to host ITER project: report http://www.eubusiness.com 26 May 2004 Japan is planning to pay an extra 895 million dollars to ensure construction of the world's first prototype nuclear fusion reactor happens on home soil, a daily reported Wednesday. The initiative is a bid to break the deadlock between Japan and the European Union over the venue of the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER) project, the evening edition of the Nihon Keizai Shimbun said. Participants in the 10-billion-dollar project are the European Union, Japan, China, Russia, South Korea and the United States. According to an agreement among the participants, the host country or region will pay 274 billion yen (2.5 billion dollars), or 48 percent of the construction costs, the Nihon Keizai said. But Tokyo is now planning to increase the size of its contribution by 100 billion yen (895 million dollars) to bring the project to the northern Japanese village of Rokkasho-mura, the economic daily said. Immediate confirmation of the report was not available. The EU, which is trying to host the project at the French town of Cadarache, has reportedly won support from Russia and China, while the United States, Japan and South Korea appear to prefer the Japanese site. Government ministers, including Chief Cabinet Secretary Hiroyuki Hosoda and Science and Technology Minister Takeo Kawamura, are due to meet soon at Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi's residence to discuss the new proposal, the business daily said. Japan aims to announce the final proposal to a conference of ITER participants to be held in Vienna in mid-June, it added. If Japan is selected to host the reactor, it will cost the country a little over 700 billion yen, including the cost of running the facility for 30 years, the Nihon Keizai said, adding that it would be one of the costliest international technology projects in which Japan has participated. The project is aimed to be a test-bed for what is being billed as a clean, safe, inexhaustible energy source of the future. It will cost five billion dollars to build the reactor, and five billion to run it for 10 to 20 years, according to project supporters. The choice of the site must be made by consensus, and not by a simple majority, partly because all parties will be required to fund the reactor. The Japanese site has many assets: the proximity of a port, a foundation of solid bedrock and the close proximity of a US military base. The French site offers an existing research facility and a better climate. [Web link: ITER - International Fusion Energy Organisation] ITER - International Fusion Energy Organisation Text and Picture Copyright © 2004 AFP. All other copyright © 2004 EUbusiness Ltd. All rights reserved. This material is ***************************************************************** 15 projo.com: Maine Yankee loses decision on town's tax assessment | Providence, R.I. | AP's The Wire 05.26.2004 02:16 A.M. The Associated Press WISCASSET, Maine (AP) - By a unanimous 5-0 vote, the town selectmen rejected Maine Yankee's plea to lower the 2003 tax assessment for property that used to house the state's only atomic power plant but now is a storage site for radioactive waste. The selectmen, who also serve as assessors, made no comment during the tax abatement hearing. Tuesday night's 5-0 vote set the stage for what could be a long court battle. Maine Yankee protested its $3.5 million property tax bill based on an assessment that puts the value of the decommissioned 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. Peter Murray, a Portland attorney hired by the town to appraise what's left of the power plant, said it would be irresponsible for the town to disregard the income potential of a licensed radioactive waste site. "The board (of selectmen) acted very responsibly when they hired us to do this study," Murray said. "They came to us and said, we have this peculiar property. Would you find out what the value of a nuclear waste site is?" 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. Providence Journal newsroom at (401) 277-7303. © Belo Interactive Inc. ***************************************************************** 16 [du-list] 14 Reasons for Precaution Date: Wed, 26 May 2004 18:24:14 -0700 When we call for and end to the use of DU or a Ban on DU- a strong logical argument in support is the Precautionary Principle..... > Slightly revised version of: > RACHEL'S ENVIRONMENT & HEALTH NEWS #791 > http://www.rachel.org > May 13, 2004 > > FOURTEEN REASONS FOR PRECAUTION > > In Rachel's #789 and #790, we offered responses to the critics > of precaution. Here we take a positive approach and offer > 14 basic arguments FOR precaution. > > Probably the strongest argument for precaution is that the old > risk-based approach has harmed large numbers of people and has > badly damaged the environment. > > For example, many millions of children have been hurt by the > old risk-based approach. Consider just toxic lead. As early as > 1897, some paint companies knew enough about the dangers of > lead to advertise that their paints were NOT made with toxic > lead. (See the 1897 paint label at > http://www.rachel.org/library/getfile.cfm?ID=263.) Obviously, > if one paint company knew it, all paint companies knew it -- or > should have. A least-harmful alternative was clear in 1897. > > But from 1897 to 1976, risk assessment was used to justify the > continued use of toxic lead in paint and many paint companies > continued to use it. First the risk assessors said 60 > micrograms in a tenth of a liter of blood was "safe" for > children. Large numbers of children were severely poisoned by > this assessment, and so a new "risk assessment" established > that 40 micrograms was "safe." More children were badly > poisoned by this "safe" amount, so a new risk assessment was > undertaken: "Twenty micrograms is safe -- and this time we've > got it RIGHT," said the risk assessors -- but more children > were poisoned, their IQs diminished, their ability to > concentrate ruined, their capacity to cope with stress > destroyed -- they became aggressive, even violent, they dropped > out of school and headed for life in prison or permanent > low-wage hell, or they committed suicide. All thanks to > mistaken risk assessments. Today risk assessors claim 10 > micrograms of lead is "safe," but many scientists and doctors > know this isn't true and wonder if even 2 micrograms of lead in > a tenth of a liter of blood deserves to be called "safe." (For > more of this shameful history, see Rachel's #189, #213, #214, > #294, #376, #686, #688, #689.) > > The old risk-based approach to decisions asked, "How much harm > is acceptable?" or "How much harm can we get away with?" The > newer precautionary approach asks, "How much harm can we > avoid?" The difference is profound. > > Here (once again) is the basic statement of the precautionary > principle[1]: > > If we have reasonable suspicion of harm even in the face of > some scientific uncertainty we all have a duty to take action > to avert harm. We can take four kinds of precautionary action: > > 1. Set and state our goals (including implicit ones, such as > justice and democratic participation). Different parties may > have different goals, and it's good to acknowledge this. > > 2. Assess available alternatives for achieving the goals. > > 3. Gather and consider complete and accurate information -- and > the proponent bears the burden of providing it. This is what we > mean by "shifting the burden of proof" onto the proponent of a > new technology. > > 4. Involve affected parties in decisions (beginning at the > earliest possible stages when questions are being asked and > goals set). Provide them the wherewithal to participate in a > sustained way and respect their values, knowledge, experience > and preferences. > > OBSTACLES TO PRECAUTION > > My observation, from living in New Jersey, is that the major > obstacle to a precautionary approach is the refusal of > decision-makers to consider all available information. By > cherry-picking information, officials can avoid seeing threats > of harm and thus precautionary action is never triggered. > > Somehow we need to establish a "duty to consider" all available > information. (Thanks to Nancy Myers for this phrase.) This will > not be easy because some government officials advance their > careers by NOT examining available information. Just two > examples will illustrate the point: > > New Jersey recently issued a license to a garbage incinerator > to spew 10,000 pounds of toxic lead, in the form of a fine, > breathable dust into a predominantly black, Hispanic and > low-income community during the next 5 years. The state's top > environmental official, Dr. Bradley Campbell, argues that this > poses an "acceptable risk" to the affected children because his > "risk assessment" shows that the lead would only cause an > "acceptable" number of cancers -- conveniently ignoring 100 > years of data showing that the greatest danger from lead is not > cancer but is damage to the central nervous system, reduced IQ, > and destruction of a child's life possibilities. By restricting > the risk assessment to cancer, and ignoring the main toxic > effect of lead, the state is able to keep an incinerator owner > happy. Will N.J. governor James McGreevey's re-election > campaign be rewarded by lawyers and consultants close to the > incinerator company? > > Example number two: Recently the state of New Jersey refused to > examine the toxic chemicals in sewage sludge -- arguing that > they didn't need to know what was in sludge today because their > previous risk assessment (which they cannot locate in their > files) had determined that sludge was "safe" to use as > fertilizer on soil. The state's top environmental official, Dr. > Bradley Campbell, says flatly that sludge-as-fertilizer will > not release troublesome amounts of toxins into soils, water or > air. He says that criticisms of his sludge policy "have no > basis in the science and data." > > Without any testing, Dr. Campbell and his colleagues claim to > know to a scientific certainty that sludge does not contain > worrisome amounts of perfluorooctanes; phthalates; phenols > (e.g., nonylphenol); polybrominated flame retardants, including > hexabromocyclododecane (HBCD); DDE; tributyl tin; fenvalerate; > cesium-137; strontium-90; radium; antidepressants; > birth-control hormones; pain relievers; insect repellents; > antibiotics; sun block; disinfectants and antimicrobials; > deodorant fragrances; perfumes; anti-cholesterol drugs; growth > hormones; caffeine; nicotine; aspirin; fluoxetine and > norfluoxetine (the active ingredients in Prozac); and > sertraline and norsertraline (found in Zoloft), Viagara, and > other pharmaceutical and personal care products. It is worth > noting that fish living downstream from sewage treatment plants > in New Jersey contain most or all of these substances.[2] > > There's no end to the scientific information that can be > ignored by dedicated risk assessors when they set out to shore > up a political decision. > > Yes, we need somehow to establish a "duty to consider" all > available information -- to prevent sleazy bureaucrats from > cherry-picking data and phonying up "risk assessments" to > support decisions that have been made for political purposes. > (Readers' thoughts on how to establish a "duty to consider" all > available information would be welcome at erf@rachel.org.) > > But scientific information is not the only kind of information > needed for decisions. Complete and accurate information means > more than just scientific knowledge (which is, of course, > essential). It includes historical knowledge, spiritual > knowledge, local knowledge, business knowledge, community > preferences, cultural values, artistic perceptions, and so on. > This is not anti-science; it merely acknowledges that there are > other valid ways of knowing about the world. As the European > Environment Agency is fond of saying, "Science should be on > tap, not on top." > > Sometimes non-scientific information is characterized as > "emotional" and "emotional" is then equated with "irrational." > However, we should recognize that emotions -- including fear -- > have served humans well for eons, so there is nothing wrong > with an "emotional" response. When you're operating in the > dark, it's smart to be cautious -- and somewhat fearful -- so > being "emotional" can be entirely rational. Emotional does not > equal irrational. > > FOURTEEN ARGUMENTS for PRECAUTION > > #1: Past practices have failed us: As noted above, many past > practices have damaged the environment and public health. The > old risk-assessment-based approach has been harmful, so we need > a new way of making decisions. As a result of past practices, > many kinds of chronic diseases are now increasing: childhood > cancers, breast cancer, cancers of the testicles and prostate, > nervous system disorders (Parkinson's Disease, Lou Gehrig's > disease), immune system disorders (diabetes, asthma), are all > increasing.[3] > > Birth defect rates are steadily increasing. The federal > Centers for Disease Control in 1990 summarized the trends in 38 > types of birth defects; they found 29 increasing, 2 decreasing, > and 7 remaining unchanged.[4] > > In 1987, about 45% of Americans were living with one or more > chronic conditions (a term that includes chronic diseases and > impairments). In 1935, the proportion was 22%, so chronic > conditions have approximately doubled during the last 60 years. > The majority of people with chronic conditions are not > disabled, nor are they elderly. In fact, one out of every four > children in the U.S. (25%) now lives with a chronic > condition.[5] > > #2: The world is now full: On a global scale, there is abundant > evidence that the world is no longer empty but is now full -- > of humans and their artifacts. > > Examples: Humans are now appropriating for their own use 40% of > all terrestrial net primary product of photosynthesis; within > one doubling of human population (40 to 45 years), this number > will rise to 80%.[6] In other words, humans are appropriating > 40% of ALL the biological activity that creates the bottom of > the food chain for ALL land-based creatures. We are squeezing > other life-forms out of existence. > > Some consequences of a full world: Worldwide, topsoil is being > depleted at least 10 times as fast as nature can create it.[7] > Species are being driven to extinction at rates somewhere > between 100 and 1000 times as fast as historical rates of > extinction.[8] The earth's capacity to absorb or assimilate > wastes has been exceeded -- the evidence for this is > unmistakable: global warming, depletion of the Earth's ozone > shield, the presence of toxic chemicals in salmon and other > fish, and industrial poisons in breast milk, for example. There > is no longer any place called "away" where it is safe to throw > our discards. Living in a full world means that we have new > responsibilities to be careful, to try hard to avoid causing > further harm, and to give the benefit of the doubt to the > environment and human health. > > Our current ways of making decisions evolved when the world was > thought to be "empty." Now the world is a different kind of > place -- it is full, and new conditions demand new ways of > making decisions. > > #3: Early warnings: When traveling in the dark, we naturally > move cautiously and keep all our senses attuned for signs of > danger. When flying blind, we pay close attention to the first > sign of shapes emerging in the clouds ahead and take action to > avert harm at our earliest opportunity. In other words, we look > for, and heed, early warnings. In the recent past, we as a > society have failed to heed early warnings. Evidence: asbestos, > lead in paint, lead in gasoline, PCBs [polychlorinated > biphenyls], phthalates, polybrominated diphenyls, and many > pesticides, for example.[9] Precaution tells us to look for, > pay close attention to, and ACT upon, early warnings. > > #4: Benefit of the doubt: When we're not sure what the effects > of our actions will be (uncertainty), we should give the > benefit of the doubt to public health and the environment. > > #5: Natural rights: We all have a right to a clean, healthful > environment. To avoid breaching this right, we all have a > responsibility to anticipate harm and take steps to avert it. > > #6: Responsibility for our behavior: We are all responsible > for the consequences of our behavior, and we all have a > responsibility to prevent impending harm. > > #7 Our role as trustees: We are all trustees of the world that > we inherited. We have a responsibility to preserve it, and pass > it along to the next generation undamaged. This is a > traditional "conservative" view, as espoused by, for example, > Edmund Burke (1727-1797). > > Once we accept the responsibility to try to prevent harm, then > the rest follows: the way to protect the future is to set > goals, examine alternative ways of achieving those goals, > consider all information (which entails democratic > participation by affected parties) -- and give consideration, > too, to the information that is missing -- and choose the > least-harmful alternative. > > #8: Local Precedents: In most locales, we already have > precautionary language and behavior in some of our laws and > practices. As San Francisco has done (see Rachel's #765), we > can catalog these and organize them into a coherent > "environmental code," which can begin with a preamble that > asserts everyone's right to a clean environment, everyone's > responsibility to protect the environment and avert harm, and > the need for an anticipatory, precautionary approach to > stewardship. > > At the federal level, we have precaution built into the > pre-market testing of pharmaceutical products, and the U.S. > Food and Drug Administration's (FDA's) monitoring program that > aims to identify unexpected reactions to pharmaceutical > products. The European Union is trying to establish pre-market > testing as the norm for all industrial chemicals -- a proposal > known as REACH (Registration, Evaluation and Authorization of > Chemicals). The Europeans have a slogan that captures the > essence of REACH: No data, no market. In other words, if a > chemical has not been thoroughly tested for effects on human > health and the environment, it cannot be marketed. Needless to > say, REACH is being opposed bitterly and vociferously by the > Bush Administration and the chemical industry world-wide, who > favor the "flying blind" approach because it has made them > hugely wealthy (at enormous cost to the public). > > Surely it's only a matter of time before pre-market testing > becomes standard procedure and "No data, no market" is widely > applied to products far beyond mere chemicals. > > #9: Public decision-making process: Precaution establishes a > decision-making process where perhaps there was none before. In > many locales, decisions are made ad hoc ("by the seat of your > pants"), not by any systematic procedure. Precaution offers a > systematic way to make decisions, and thus rationalizes > governmental decision-making. > > #10: Redefining the Role of Governmental Decision-makers: The > precautionary approach redefines several key questions for > governmental decision-makers. It is no longer sufficient to > ask, "Is it legal?" and "Is it safe?" Government must now also > ask, "Is it necessary?" That raises the question, "How do we > determine what's necessary?" Can necessity be tied to goals -- > can our goals define what is "necessary" and what is not? > Another way to approach it: If there are alternatives, then a > thing is not "necessary." > > Governmental decision-makers can also now say with confidence, > "We acknowledge that our world will never be free from risk. > However, any risk that is unnecessary or not freely chosen is > not acceptable." This highlights the point that government > decisions are only legitimate if they are made with the > informed consent of those affected. (As the Declaration of > Independence says, governments derive their "just powers" from > "the consent of the governed.") Precaution revitalizes and > strengthens democracy. > > The precautionary approach also gives governmental > decision-makers permission (and an obligation) to consider the > full range of costs including costs beyond the original price. > > #11: Religious: The Earth belongs to God and we have a duty to > protect it from harm. In trying to protect God's creation, we > have a duty to try to foresee and forestall harm because if we > wait for proof of harm before acting, harm will occur and we > will have failed in our duty. If harm becomes evident, we have > a duty to stop the harmful activity (and to look around and > find and stop similarly harmful activities elsewhere) and to > take restorative action. > > #12: Economic arguments: > > 1) Publicly-traded corporations are severely restricted in what > they can do. Under law, they have a fiduciary duty to return a > modest, more-or-less steady profit to investors, and any goal > that conflicts with that duty is, as a matter of law, of > secondary importance. This gives corporations a powerful > incentive to externalize their costs -- dumping wastes into the > environment (usually legally, thanks to pliant governments), > harming and disrespecting their workers, avoiding and evading > their fair share of taxes, and so on.) It's not that > corporations are run by bad people -- it's that the law that > creates every corporation requires good people to do bad things. > > 2) We should note that precaution is fundamental to the > insurance industry -- anticipating harm and taking steps to > mitigate its effects (partly by sharing the costs, partly by > agreeing to avoid risky behavior). Often insured parties are > required to take steps to avert foreseeable harm (install smoke > detectors; minimize the use of radioactive or highly reactive > chemicals; maintain and inspect equipment such as elevators, > etc.) So precaution is built in to some businesses. > > 3) Precaution stimulates innovation, creating satisfying and > long-term (sustainable) jobs.[10] > > 4) Waste is evidence of design failure. We pay to produce, > process, and dispose of something that we don't even want. > Avoiding waste is precautionary and makes economic sense. > > #13: Medical: Medical practitioners take precautionary action > all the time. They rarely have full information, but they take > action to avert harm, giving the benefit of the doubt to the > well being of their patient. Public health practitioners have > taken "primary prevention" as the starting point of public > health policy since about 1850. > > #14: Media: Reporters (and more importantly editors) could take > a precautionary approach by asking what alternatives were > considered in any unfolding story that has ramifications for > public health or the environment. They could also ask the three > basic precautionary questions: > > 1) Has anyone found less harmful alternatives? (Has anyone > looked?) > > 2) How much harm is preventable? > > 3) Do we know enough to act to prevent harm? > > --Peter Montague > ================ > > [1] Article 15 of the Rio Declaration (1992) contains an early > statement of the precautionary principle and can be found here: > http://www.rachel.org/library/getfile.cfm?ID=201 . The > Wingspread Statement on the Precautionary Principle (1998) can > be found here: http://www.rachel.org/library/getfile.cfm?ID=189 > > [2] See the eight articles on N.J. groundwater contamination by > Matthew Brown and Jan Barry published in the Bergen Record > Sept. 22, 23 and 24, 2002. And see Alex Nussbaum, "NJ Water > Contains Traces of Daily Life," Bergen Record March 5, 2003. > And see Chris Gosier, "Water Detectives Search for Poisons," > Daily Record March 3, 2003. And see "Analyzing the Ignored > Environmental Contaminants," Environmental Science and > Technology [ES&T] April 1, 2002, pgs. 140A-145A. The N.J. > newspaper articles can be found by searching www.gsenet.org. > > [3] Rising rates of many kinds of diseases were documented in > Rachel's #417, available at > http://www.rachel.org/bulletin/index.cfm?issue_ID=708 . > > [4] Larry D. Edmonds and others, "Temporal Trends in the > Prevalence of Congenital Malformations at Birth Based on the > Birth Defects Monitoring Program, United States, 1979-1987," > MMWR [Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report] CDC SURVEILLANCE > SUMMARIES Vol. 39, No. SS-4 (December 1990), pg. 22. > > [5] Catherine Hoffman and others, "Persons With Chronic > Conditions," Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) > Vol. 276, No. 18 (November 13, 1996), pgs. 1473-1479. The data > describe the non-institutionalized population. > > [6] Peter M. Vitousek, and others. "Human Appropriation of the > Products of Photosynthesis," Bioscience Vol. 36 No. 6 (June, > 1986), pgs. 368-373. Available at: > http://www.rachel.org/library/getfile.cfm?ID=376 > > For additional evidence supporting the "full world" hypothesis, > see Peter M. Vitousek and others, "Human Domination of Earth's > Ecosystems," Science Vol. 277 (July 25, 1997), pgs. 494-499; > available at http://www.rachel.org/library/getfile.cfm?ID=200 . > And see Jane Lubchenco, "Entering the Century of the > Environment: A New Social Contract for Science," Science Vol. > 279 (Jan. 23, 1998), pgs. 491-497, available at > http://www.rachel.org/library/getfile.cfm?ID=203 > > [7] David Pimentel and others, "Environmental and Economic > Costs of Soil Erosion and Conservation Benefits," Science, Vol. > 267, No. 5201. (Feb. 24, 1995), pp. 1117-1123, available at > http://www.rachel.org/library/getfile.cfm?ID=381 > > [8] Stuart L. Pimm and others, "The Future of Biodiversity," > Science Vol. 269 (July 21, 1995), pgs. 347-350, available at > http://www.rachel.org/library/getfile.cfm?ID=382 > > [9] Poul Harremoes and others, Late lessons from early > warnings: the precautionary principle 1896-2000 [Environmental > Issue Report No. 22] (Copenhagen, Denmark: European Environment > Agency, 2001). This report is available free at > http://www.rachel.org/library/getfile.cfm?ID=301 but be aware > that it's a couple of megabytes in size. > > [10] Frank Ackerman and Rachel Massey, Prospering With > Precaution. This short report, published during 2002 by the > Global Development and Environment Institute at Tufts > University, argues that precautionary policies promote > industrial innovation and create jobs. Available at > http://www.rachel.org/library/getfile.cfm?ID=218 > > ============== > This listserv is maintained by Environmental Research Foundation. > To send a message to the PP Strategy listserv, address your Email to ppst@rachel.org; > To remove yourself from the PP Strategy listserv, send a request to peter@rachel.org. > > ------------------------ 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/ ***************************************************************** 17 Chicago Sun-Times: Terror [War on Terror] Critics rip FBI for mistaken terror arrest May 26, 2004 BY CURT ANDERSON WASHINGTON -- Another arrest in a high-profile crime, another pullback by the FBI. The release of Oregon lawyer Brandon Mayfield after the FBI acknowledged it had mistakenly matched his fingerprint to one found near the scene of the deadly Madrid train bombings is the latest illustration of what critics say is a flawed U.S. anti-terror policy that threatens civil liberties. ''It underscores the dangers of this kind of policy of arrest first, ask questions later,'' David Cole, a Georgetown University law professor and critic of post-Sept. 11 law enforcement tactics, said Tuesday. The FBI made a rare apology to Mayfield on Monday night, after he was cleared of any connection to the March 11 bombings that killed 191 people. Now, the agency is reviewing how it handles fingerprints, especially in cases such as the one involving Mayfield where forensic experts must rely on digital images, rather than original evidence. For the review, an international panel of experts will examine what happened in the Mayfield case. This is not the first time the FBI has targeted an innocent person, to its embarrassment. Richard Jewell was wrongly accused in the 1996 bombing at the Atlanta Olympics. And nuclear scientist Wen Ho Lee was freed in 2000 after a criminal case alleging he stole secrets from the Los Alamos Laboratory in New Mexico fell apart. President Clinton apologized to Lee for that foul-up. Mayfield was taken into custody on a material witness warrant, a law that allows prosecutors, with a judge's approval, to detain people so they can testify when there is a reasonable fear they might flee. ''It's an easy tool for the government to use to detain someone when they don't have evidence of a crime,'' said Anjana Malhotra, an attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union. Justice Department and FBI officials contend that they followed long-established procedure every step of the way in the Mayfield case. AP ***************************************************************** 18 AU ABC: US moves to keep nuclear materials out of terrorist hands. 26/05/2004. ABC News Online The United States has unveiled a $US450 million ($635 million) plan to try and prevent nuclear materials stored around the world from falling into the hands of terrorists who could use them to make a "dirty" bomb or even a full-fledged atomic device. The US plan will include working with Russia "to repatriate all Russian-origin fresh HEU [highly enriched uranium nuclear] fuel by the end" of 2005, Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham said at a meeting with senior staffers of the Vienna-based International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). He also called for an international conference on this US Global Threat Reduction Initiative in the fall of 2004, as Washington continued to ratchet up its anti-terrorism fight in the wake of the September 11, 2001 attacks in the United States. US President George W Bush had in February designated a possible nuclear or dirty-bomb terrorist attack as the greatest risk to the United States. "Where one hundred years ago, authorities had to worry about the anarchist placing a bomb in the downtown square, now we must worry about the terrorist who places that bomb in the square but packed with radiological material," Mr Abraham said. "Now we must worry about the madmen whose ambition is to destroy a world capital." IAEA chief Mohamed El Baradei said at a press conference with Mr Abraham that the US initiative was a "key step" in the fight against nuclear proliferation and "to protect ourselves against nuclear terrorism." "The key in nuclear defence is better control of nuclear materials," Mr El Baradei said, adding that there was a lot of highly enriched uranium in the world, in 100 facilities in 40 countries. "We have a lot of work ahead of us," he said. Mr Abraham said the main players would have to be the United States and Russia, since they were responsible for most of the nuclear materials worldwide, but "we hope there will be universal participation in this." The United States plans "to take all steps necessary" to repatriate "all US-origin research reactor spent fuel" and to "identify other nuclear and radiological materials and related equipment that are not yet covered by existing threat reduction efforts," Mr Abraham said, referring to radioactive sources used in places like hospitals. He said the United States had already recuperated all the fresh fuel - material not yet used in a reactor - that it had given to countries abroad. He said the United States was reacting to revelations about an international black market in nuclear technology run by Pakistani scientist A Q Khan. This, coupled with continuing terrorist attacks, forces us "to assume that rogue states and terrorists, in concert with for-profit proliferators, will act vigorously to achieve their ends," Mr Abraham said. He said the "large quantities of uncontrolled or lightly controlled nuclear and radiological material of potential use in nuclear weapons or radiological dispersion devices have added an entirely new dimension to this worldwide threat." Mr El Baradei had said in March that the plan was "to clean up all the HEU and plutonium that is still in the civilian cycle." HEU can be used to make an atom bomb but also as fuel in civilian research reactors. The US initiative will also aim to recycle research reactors that use HEU into ones using low enriched uranium (LEU), Mr Abraham said. -- AFP © 2004 Australian Broadcasting Corporation ***************************************************************** 19 NRC: Atomic Safety and Licensing Board; Duke Energy Corporation, FR Doc 04-11853 [Federal Register: May 26, 2004 (Volume 69, Number 102)] [Notices] [Page 29982-29983] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr26my04-104] (Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2); Notice of Evidentiary Hearing and Opportunity To Make Limited Appearance Statements Before Administrative Judges: Ann Marshall Young, Chair, Anthony J. Baratta, Thomas S. Elleman May 20, 2004. This Atomic Safety and Licensing Board hereby gives notice that, beginning on Tuesday, June 15, 2004, it will convene an evidentiary hearing in Charlotte, North Carolina, to receive testimony and exhibits and allow the cross-examination of witnesses on certain matters at issue in this proceeding. In addition, the Board gives notice that, in accordance with 10 CFR 2.715(a), it will also entertain oral limited appearance statements from members of the public, as specified in section B below. This proceeding involves certain challenges of Intervenor Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League (BREDL) to a request filed by Duke Energy Corporation (Duke) to amend the operating license for its Catawba Nuclear Station to allow the use of four mixed oxide (MOX) lead test assemblies at the station. (MOX fuel contains a mixture of plutonium and uranium oxides, with plutonium providing the primary fissile isotopes; Duke has submitted its request as part of the ongoing U.S.-Russian Federation plutonium disposition program, a nuclear nonproliferation program to dispose of surplus plutonium from nuclear weapons by converting the material into MOX fuel and using that fuel in nuclear reactors.) On September 17, 2003, this Licensing Board was established to preside over this proceeding. 68 FR 55,414 (Sept. 25, 2003). By Memorandum and Order dated March 5, 2004, the Licensing Board granted BREDL's request for hearing. LBP-04-04, 59 NRC--(2004). At the June evidentiary hearing, the Board will receive evidence on BREDL's challenges to the adequacy of certain aspects of Duke's license amendment request, relating to asserted differences in the behavior of MOX fuel and typical low enriched uranium fuel and the impact of those differences on accident scenario analyses for the Catawba plant. A. Timing and Location of Evidentiary Hearing The evidentiary hearing will commence the morning of Tuesday, June 15, 2004 at 9 a.m. in the Federal Courthouse, 401 West Trade Street, Charlotte, North Carolina. The hearing of the above-described evidence will continue on June 16 and the morning of June 17, 2004, as necessary. At the conclusion of each day, the Board will announce when the hearing will reconvene, which will generally be at 9 a.m. each day. The Board may make changes in the schedule, lengthening or shortening each day's session or canceling a session as deemed necessary or appropriate to allow for witnesses' availability and other matters arising during the course of the proceeding. Members of the public are encouraged to attend any and all sessions of this evidentiary hearing, but should note that these sessions are adjudicatory proceedings open to the public for observation only. Those who wish to participate are invited to offer limited appearance statements as provided in section B, below. There will be security screening for all sessions, and electronic devices may not be brought into the courthouse. B. Participation Guidelines for Limited Appearance Session On the evening of June 15, 2004, beginning at 6 p.m. and continuing until 8 p.m. as necessary, in a portion of the Grand Ballroom (lobby level) of the Omni Charlotte Hotel (132 East Trade Street), any persons who are not parties to the proceeding will be permitted to make oral statements setting forth their positions on matters of concern relating to this proceeding. Although these statements do not constitute testimony or evidence, they may nonetheless help the Board and/or the parties in their consideration of the issues in this proceeding. The time allotted for each statement will normally be no more than five minutes, but may be further limited depending on the number of written requests to make oral statements that are submitted in accordance with section C below, and/or on the number of persons present the evening of June 15, 2004, who wish to make unscheduled comments. Persons who submit timely written requests to make oral statements will be given priority over those who have not filed such requests. If all scheduled and unscheduled speakers present have made their oral statements prior to 8 p.m., the Licensing Board may terminate the session before 8 p.m. [[Page 29983]] C. Submitting Requests To Make an Oral Limited Appearance Statement To be considered timely, a written request to make an oral statement must be mailed, faxed, or sent by e-mail so as to be received by close of business (4:30 p.m. e.s.t.) on Monday, June 7, 2004. Written requests should be submitted to: Mail: Office of the Secretary, Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001. Fax: (301) 415-1101 (verification (301) 415-1966). E-mail: . In addition, using the same method of service, a copy of the written request to make an oral statement should be sent to the Chair of this Licensing Board as follows: Mail: Administrative Judge Ann Marshall Young, Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel, Mail Stop T-3F23, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001. Fax: (301) 415-5599 (verification (301) 415-7550). E-mail: . D. Submitting Written Limited Appearance Statements A written limited appearance statement may be submitted at any time. Such statements should be sent to the Office of the Secretary using any of the methods prescribed above, with a copy to the Licensing Board Chair by the same method. E. Availability of Documentary Information Regarding the Proceeding Documents relating to this proceeding are available for public inspection at the NRC Public Document Room (PDR), located at One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland; or electronically through the publicly available records component of the NRC Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS). ADAMS is accessible through the NRC Web site at . The PDR and many public libraries have terminals for public access to the Internet. Persons who do not have access to ADAMS or who encounter problems in obtaining access to the documents located in ADAMS may contact the NRC PDR reference staff by telephone at 1 (800) 397-4209 or (301) 415-4737, or by e-mail to . For the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board. Dated: Rockville, Maryland, May 20, 2004. Ann Marshall Young, Chair, Administrative Judge. [FR Doc. 04-11853 Filed 5-25-04; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P ***************************************************************** 20 [CMEP] Nuke Waste Actions / Call to Bar Indicted Company from Date: Wed, 26 May 2004 17:30:01 -0500 (CDT) *** Please forward widely *** May 26, 2004 This e-mail contains three items: (1) An ACTION ALERT on the DOE's environmental review of its proposed rail project for transporting radioactive waste to the Yucca Mountain repository. (2) A new ACTION ALERT regarding a petition to stop the legislative attempt to reclassify high-level radioactive waste. (3) A PRESS RELEASE in which Public Citizen calls for the debarment of Reliant Energy from federal contracts due to company's indictment for its role in the California energy crisis. ========== !!! A C T I O N A L E R T !!! Hold DOE Accountable on Waste Transportation to Yucca! On April 8, 2004, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) published a notice in the Federal Register (69 FR 68: 18565-18569) calling for comments on the scope of its upcoming Environmental Impact Statement regarding rail transportation of radioactive waste in Nevada on the way to the proposed Yucca Mountain repository. Basically, by law, the DOE is required to write a report detailing all the potential environmental effects that will result from construction and operation of a 319-mile rail line for transporting irradiated, or "spent", nuclear fuel through the Nevada desert to Yucca. The route is known as the Caliente corridor, and was chosen, also on April 8, as the route waste will take by train through the state. The implications of constructing hundreds of miles of train tracks through pristine desert, both flat and mountainous, through ranchers' land and sensitive wilderness areas, and then shipping thousands of tons of nuclear waste through it over the course of decades, are wide-reaching. We want to ensure that all the various effects of this proposal are fully evaluated, from terrorism and health effects to land use issues and environmental effects. TAKE ACTION! Submit comments to the DOE on the environmental impacts of its proposal via Public Citizen's Web site: http://www.citizen.org/fax/background.cfm?ID=351&source=3 ========== !!! A C T I O N A L E R T !!! Don't let Congress absolve the DOE from its responsibility to clean up radioactive waste! The Senate's Defense Authorization bill (S. 2400, the "National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005"), as currently drafted, would allow the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) to shirk its cleanup responsibilities by reclassifying high-level radioactive waste in South Carolina so that it can be simply covered with cement and abandoned in aging tanks. The bill would also require that the states of Washington and Idaho agree to these lower cleanup standards -- or they will lose funding for the cleanup of their nuclear waste legacy sites. This legislation would make these sites high-level waste dumps, threatening severe contamination of important water resources such as the Savannah River. SIGN A PETITION sponsored by Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.) to register your opposition to this regressive, environmentally-destructive policy: http://cantwell.senate.gov/contact/nuclearwaste_petition.html SUPPORT AN AMENDMENT sponsored by Sens. Cantwell (D-Wash.) and Hollings (D-S.C.) to strike the waste reclassification language -- in sections 3116 and 3119 -- from the Defense Authorization bill. Connect to your senators via the U.S. Capitol Switchboard at 202-224-3121 or find their contact information at: http://www.congress.org BACKGROUND South Carolina's Republican Senator, Lindsay Graham, has done the DOE a favor by inserting language into the Defense Authorization bill (Sec. 3116) that would absolve the DOE from carrying out the waste management requirements of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act in South Carolina. This waiver would allow the DOE to abandon millions of gallons of high-level radioactive waste in the state. Instead of properly managing this waste, the DOE would be able to proceed with a plan to simply fill the aging storage tanks containing waste residue with concrete. This would create high-level waste dumps at the site, threatening vital water supplies that are used for drinking, irrigation, fishing, and recreation. Section 3116 would also (1) overturn a ruling by a federal court in Idaho that prohibited the DOE from unilaterally reclassifying radioactive waste and (2) give the DOE the sole authority to determine which radioactive waste may be classified as "high-level" in South Carolina. Moreover, Sec. 3119 would withhold $350 million in essential cleanup funds until the states of Washington and Idaho also agree to adopt the DOE's weakened cleanup standards. ========== *** P R E S S R E L E A S E *** For Immediate Release: May 26, 2004 Contact: Tyson Slocum (202) 454-5191; Erica Hartman (202) 454-5174 Public Citizen Calls for Debarment of Reliant Energy from Federal Contracts Due to Company's Indictment for Role in California Energy Crisis Although Indicted, Reliant Has Snagged $35.9 Million Defense Contract; Corporations Shouldn't Be Rewarded While Under Investigation for Criminal Activities, Group Says WASHINGTON, DC - Public Citizen today called for the debarment of Reliant Energy from its newly awarded $35.9 million electricity contract by the U.S. Department of Defense (DOD) -- and any new contracts -- while it is under federal indictment for its role in creating the California energy crisis. Tuesday's contract announcement designated Reliant as the sole electricity provider to several military installations, including Andrews Air Force base in Maryland and Walter Reed Army Medical Center in Washington, D.C. According to the Code of Federal Regulations, 48 CFR 9.406, government agencies "shall solicit offers from, award contracts to, and consent to subcontracts with responsible contractors only ... Indictment ... constitutes adequate evidence for suspension [of any government contract]." In April 2004, the U.S. Department of Justice obtained an indictment of Reliant for price-gouging California consumers during the energy crisis in 2000-2001; the company is accused of shutting down power plants to increase energy prices before the alleged "electricity shortages" began. "Reliant Energy is neither a responsible nor ethical company," said Wenonah Hauter, director of Public Citizen's energy program. "Federal tax dollars should not be awarded to companies that are under criminal indictment. It's particularly egregious that one government agency would award Reliant with a contract when just last month it was indicted by another government agency." Precedent has been set for banning or suspending companies from new contracts when they are either under investigation or have been convicted of a federal crime. Both Enron and Arthur Andersen were barred from federal contracts when they were indicted; in fact, Arthur Andersen was suspended from new contracts in March 2002, prior to its June 2002 jury conviction. Further, WorldCom was suspended for five months while under investigation for falsifying balance sheets to hide expenses and inflate earnings in 2003. In the WorldCom case, the U.S. General Services Administration (GSA), which is responsible for managing building and services contracts for the government, noted that "suspension from government procurements is appropriate where adequate evidence shows that a company or person has committed misconduct related to business ethics and integrity, or other irregularities relevant to their present responsibility, and where a pending investigation or legal proceeding is examining those questionable activities." In addition to the criminal indictment, Reliant has agreed to pay $125 million thus far to government regulators to settle allegations that the company manipulated energy markets: * In July 2002, California regulators ordered Reliant to pay $42 million to settle allegations that the company manipulated the state's energy market. * In January 2003, Reliant agreed to pay $13.8 million to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) to settle allegations that the company withheld power from the California market. * In October 2003, the company agreed to pay as much as $50 million to FERC to settle charges that Reliant engaged in economic withholding and physical withholding of generation, and attempts to manipulate prices at an electricity trading hub near the California border. * In November 2003, Reliant agreed to pay $18 million to the Commodity Futures Trading Commission to settle charges of false reporting and attempted manipulation, as well as charges of illegal sales. Reliant has contributed $539,900 to President Bush and the Republican National Committee from the 2000 election on. Two former Reliant executives -- Don Jordan, the former chairman, and J. Steve Letbetter, the former chief executive officer -- were named Pioneers (the honorary title given to backers who raise at least $100,000) by the Bush administration for their campaign contributions in 2000. A third Reliant executive, former president and CEO David McClanahan, was named a Pioneer in 2004. Moreover, the company has given $1.7 million to all federal candidates since 1999, 83 percent of which went to Republican candidates. ### Public Citizen is a national, nonprofit consumer advocacy organization based in Washington, D.C. For more information, please visit www.citizen.org. ********** If you would like to be removed from the CMEP ListServ, send an email to listserv@listserver.citizen.org with the words "unsubscribe CMEP" in the message. Questions about the CMEP ListServ can be directed to CMEP-request@LISTSERVER.CITIZEN.ORG. To learn more about this and other Public Citizen Critical Mass Energy and Environment Program campaigns, visit our website at http://www.citizen.org/cmep/ -Public Citizen's Critical Mass Energy and Environment Program ***************************************************************** 21 2 Alerts: Yucca Mt. and HLW reclassification Date: Wed, 26 May 2004 18:25:02 -0700 NIRS Action Alert, May 25, 2004 Dear friends: Below are two Action Alerts, one on Yucca Mountain and one on an upcoming Senate vote on reclassification of some high-level radioactive waste. We hope you’ll take action on both of these important issues. HELP STOP DOE’S YUCCA MOUNTAIN DUMP & MOBILE CHERNOBYL IN THEIR TRACKS! U.S. Dept. of Energy is attempting to lock in Yucca Mountain transport decisions with national implications while keeping the public in the dark. Send comments (see sample below) to DOE by June 1, 2004 Fill out DOE’s “Public Scoping Comment Form for the Rail Alignment Environmental Impact Statement” on-line at: http://www.ocrwm.doe.gov/wat/comment_eis.shtml (see * at the bottom of this email for additional contact info. for DOE) For more information on this and other Yucca Mountain issues, contact Kevin Kamps at Nuclear Information and Resource Service, 202.328.0002 ext. 14, kevin@nirs.org. BACKGROUND DOE recently announced its decision to use “mostly rail” shipments to haul 77,000 tons of high-level radioactive waste and commercial irradiated nuclear fuel to the proposed national dumpsite at Yucca Mountain, Nevada. In addition, DOE has announced its preferred corridor in Nevada within which to construct a 319-mile-long railway, to provide direct rail access to Yucca Mountain from Caliente (ironically, Spanish for “hot”), Nevada northeast of Las Vegas. These decisions have national implications for where, and how much, high-level radioactive waste would travel on its way to Yucca Mountain if DOE succeeds in opening the proposed dump. Despite this, DOE has only held a small number of public scoping meetings on its decisions, all in Nevada and nowhere else in the country. Worse still, DOE’s public scoping comment period has been woefully short. DOE’s public comment period on its “Notice of Intent to Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement for the Alignment, Construction, and Operation of a Rail Line to a Geologic Repository at Yucca Mountain, Nye County, Nevada” [Federal Register,Vol. 69, No. 68, Thursday, April 8, 2004, pages 18565 to 18569] ends June 1st. Please take a few minutes to submit comments. Review the sample comments below. Use them as is, or to prepare your own comments. To submit comments, fill out DOE’s public comment form on-line before June 1st at http://www.ocrwm.doe.gov/wat/comment_eis.shtml SAMPLE COMMENTS DOE’s bad process DOE’s decision to use “mostly rail” shipments to haul 77,000 tons of highly radioactive wastes to its proposed national dumpsite at Yucca Mountain, Nevada, and to build a rail line from Caliente, NV to provide direct rail access for waste shipments to Yucca Mountain, has vast implications for where, and how much, high-level radioactive waste would travel across the U.S. These decisions inevitably impact the entire national high-level radioactive waste transportation system, meaning larger numbers of shipments on certain railways in certain states and cities and less in others. DOE has not adequately assessed or analyzed these national impacts of its decisions. Thus, DOE’s scoping process must encompass these vast implications and impacted localities. DOE has only allowed a 52 day comment period, insensitively including the Memorial Day holiday weekend. How are concerned citizens across the U.S. supposed to be able to figure out the impacts of DOE’s announcements on their communities and submit comments in just 52 days, when DOE has not performed adequate national assessments in the past two decades? DOE should allow for 180 days of public comment. In addition, DOE should hold public scoping hearings for gathering public comments in the states and cities across the country that would be most impacted by its decisions. All comments received should be transcribed and posted immediately to the DOE’s website to enhance public participation and interaction. Hearings should be conducted so that speakers go one at a time, so that all present can hear what is being said. If this means that longer hearings or multiple days of hearings must be held in the same city to accommodate meaningful public involvement, then so be it. What is DOE’s rush? DOE is putting the cart before the horse on high-level radioactive waste transportation route decisions within Nevada. How can DOE select a specific rail spur route within Nevada when it has never completed an adequate nationwide transport analysis? Not only is this illogical, it also violates the legal requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act. DOE’s manipulation of the facts for political purposes Leading up to the 2002 votes in Congress on whether to override the Governor of Nevada’s veto of the Bush Administration’s “thumbs up” to a dump at Yucca Mountain, Energy Secretary Abraham said that as few as 175 train casks annually would be needed to haul waste from reactors across the U.S. to the proposed dump. But in DOE’s “mostly rail” scenario in its Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for Yucca Mountain (Feb. 2002), DOE projects that it would require from 10,725 train shipments over 24 years to 22,057 train shipments over 38 years. That’s 447 to 580 shipments per year under the “mostly rail scenario,” not 175 as Secretary Abraham told Congress. Did DOE use “fuzzy math” with Congress, to try to downplay public concerns? What about the 2,500 barge (on the Great Lakes, rivers, and seacoasts) and/or heavy-haul truck shipments that would be required to get waste from certain reactors sites lacking rail access to the nearest railway? DOE making it up as it goes along (at public expense and peril)? In its March 2004 “Supplemental Analysis,” DOE proposed shipping smaller “legal weight truck casks” (40 tons loaded) upon rail cars (and then off-loading them in Nevada onto semi trucks for the final leg of the journey) for the first six years of Yucca Mountain operations, until the Caliente-to-Yucca Mountian rail spur is constructed that could accommodate larger rail-sized casks (100 to 150 tons loaded). But DOE itself had rejected such a proposal in its Yucca FEIS as “impractical,” increasing shipment activities by more than a factor of 5,” as well as leading to the “highest estimates of occupational health and public health and safety impacts” (Chapter 6, Environmental Impacts of Transportation, page 6-33; Appendix J, Transportation, J.2 Evaluation of Rail and Intermodal Transportation, pages J-74 and 75). Such “intermodal” transport would involve multiple handling steps “loading, unloading, transfer, activities between transport lines“ which DOE in its own FEIS admitted lead to worse impacts and dangers to the environment, worker and general public health and safety. Risks from “routine” radiation exposures would increase, as would risks of accidents. In addition, not only 30 sites across the country lacking rail service or ability to load rail-sized casks would need intermodal capabilities, all 77 current high-level radioactive waste storage sites discussed in the FEIS would need intermodal capability. In addition, truck casks could heat up so much more quickly than the larger rail casks in a railway fire, exposing the irradiated fuel in their center to dangerous and damaging temperatures. How many hours would a truck-sized cask have endured the temperatures of the July 2001 Baltimore Train Tunnel fire? Even though truck-sized containers hold less fuel than rail-sized containers (up to 40 Hiroshima bomb’s worth of radioactive cesium isotopes, as opposed to over 200), a breach of a truck sized container could still release catastrophic amounts of radioactivity. For all these reasons, DOE must perform a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement on its new “legal weight truck cask” piggybacking rail cars proposal. Dangers and destructive impacts along the targeted corridor of land between Caliente and Yucca Mountain, Nevada It is truly frightening that this proposed rail line hugs the border of the Nellis Air Force bombing range for hundreds of miles. An accidental or intentional aircraft crash or bombing of a high-level radioactive waste train could release catastrophic amounts of radioactivity impacting large areas downwind and downstream. It is similarly frightening that this railway would pass so closely by mining operations, raising the specter of accidental or intentional explosions of high-explosives used in mining. It is very troubling that much of the land has never been evaluated or inventoried for threatened and endangered species of wildlife. A comprehensive assessment of animals and plants in the targeted rail corridor must be done during DOE’s environmental impact statement process. DOE should pay for such work to be done by an independent organization that can be trusted to not allow political or economic pressures to bias its wildlife survey. It is unacceptable that DOE would trample Native American rights by constructing this railway. The entire Caliente-to-Yucca Mountain railway would lie on lands belonging to the Western Shoshone Indian Nation under the Treaty of Ruby Valley, which the U.S. government signed and ratified in 1863. Such treaties with sovereign Native American tribes are the highest law of the land, equal in stature to the U.S. Constitution itself, and DOE should not violate the Treaty of Ruby Valley by building this proposed railway, or by building the Yucca Mountain dump. DOE’s proposed rail line and dump immorally and illegally threaten cultural resources, archaeological sties, artifacts, sacred sites and holy lands of the Western Shoshone and other Native American tribes. It is dangerous to public and worker health that DOE’s proposed rail line is likely blanketed with radioactivity from nuclear weapons testing fallout from the Nevada Test Site. Given that large scale railway construction would disturb massive amounts of contaminated soil and release radioactive dust into the air, DOE must do a complete inventory of the radioactive contamination of the proposed land corridor. After all, it was the Atomic Energy Commission and DOE itself that conducted those nuclear weapons tests and caused that radioactive contamination in the first place. *ADDRESSES: Written comments on the scope of this Rail Alignment EIS, questions concerning the proposed action and alternatives, requests for maps that illustrate the Caliente corridor and alternatives, or requests for additional information on the Rail Alignment EIS or transportation planning in general should be directed to: Ms. Robin Sweeney, EIS Document Manager, Office of National Transportation, Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management, U.S. Department of Energy, 1551 Hillshire Drive, M/S 011, Las Vegas, NV 89134, Telephone 1-800-967-3477, or via the Internet at http://www.ocrwm.doe.gov under ``What's New on the Website'' and then “Mode and Corridor Decision Information.” URGENT ACTION ALERT Support the Cantwell-Hollings amendment to stop the Department of Energy's plan to declassify highly radioactive nuclear waste to "low-level" so it does not require "high level" waste disposal. DOE wants to leave it in underground tanks even though some are already leaking into or toward major watersheds. · Call your Senators and Representatives at 202-224-3121 or 225-3121 (Congressional switchboard) · Write your Senators and Representatives using email at http://www.webslingerz.com/jhoffman/congress-email.html · Sign a petition supporting cleanup of highly radioactive nuclear waste http://cantwell.senate.gov/contact/nuclearwaste_petition.html Timing: Act Now! The Senate will vote on amendments to the defense authorization bill (S. 2400) following the Memorial Day recess (June 1 or after). Background: Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) pushed a provision through Senate Armed Services Committee providing South Carolina with an exemption to the Nuclear Waste Policy Act. The exemption allows the Department of Energy to declassify millions of gallons of highly radioactive waste from reprocessing irradiated fuel from nuclear reactor cores. The waste could be left in rusting tanks at the Savannah River Site in South Carolina. Funding for cleanup of high-level waste at other key sites in Washington and Idaho is being held hostage until those states agree to DOE's proposal to leave more waste behind at those sites. The DOE wants the exemption so it can cement the wastes in place as part of its accelerated cleanup strategy to "finish" cleanup early and save billions of dollars. Doing so, however, would create massive high level waste dumps at these sites and threaten future generations with severe contamination. The federal court in Idaho already ruled in 2003 against DOE's plan to reclassify waste. The DOE has appealed the case, but the affected states have all submitted friends of the court briefs opposing DOE's plan. Senators Maria Cantwell (D-WA) and Ernest Hollings (D-SC) plan to offer an amendment to the defense authorization bill to remove DOE's authority to reclassify high-level radioactive waste. The amendment will uphold the Nuclear Waste Policy Act and direct the $350 million in DOE's "High-Level Waste Fund" be spent on continuing cleanup of the high-level waste tanks. The DOE urgently needs to clean up the mess now, not "cap and cover" the waste, jeopardizing the water supply of those downstream for generations to come. Suggested message to Senators: Please support the Cantwell-Hollings amendment to the Dept of Defense authorization bill to stop the Department of Energy's plan to declassify highly radioactive nuclear waste in leaking underground tanks. This is the NIRS E-Mail Alert list. You are on this list because you signed up on our website, at a NIRS table at a concert, on a petition, or directly to NIRS. Your name and address are never sold, rented, or traded with anyone for any reason. For address changes or to unsubscribe, just send an e-mail to nirsnet@nirs.org. If you have friends or colleagues who would like to be on this list, have them send a note to nirsnet@nirs.org ***************************************************************** 22 Las Vegas RJ: LETTERS: Barren landscape least of intersection's woes Wednesday, May 26, 2004 To the editor: In regard to the May 18 article "Spaghetti Bowl to get a bit of color" by Omar Sofradzija: With all due respect to resident Lester Whitfield, who is quoted in the story as favoring landscaping, I would be more satisfied to simply be able to drive through the Spaghetti Bowl (and other freeways) at the posted speed limit regardless of efforts to "spiff up" the drab hub of Las Vegas Valley traffic. The article also states, "Views of aesthetic touches will be noticeably blocked at key traffic points ... ." Unfortunately for motorists attempting to slowly navigate the Spaghetti Bowl, we will still have plenty of time to look at these "accents" -- from all traffic points. Dan Hill, an architectural consultant, also says, "You want to make it look nice, but not so attractive where tourists think it's a photo moment." Well, in my opinion the $4 million spent on landscaping would be more useful spent on traffic flow improvements -- and the tourists could save their film for some of the more realistic (attractive) "Kodak moments" we have in the Las Vegas Valley. WAYNE MORRIS BOULDER CITY Sick days To the editor: The Clark County School District feels that it has met its contractual obligation toward teachers' sick leave reimbursement (Review-Journal, May 21). The district financial officer feels that a one-time payment of $1.4 million is sufficient. But the teacher union believes this payment should be made yearly. Either way, though, it should be clear that the district is saving a huge amount of money under this agreement. At today's rate, the school district pays a substitute teacher $90 per day. Teachers who retire with up to 300 sick days can qualify for the maximum reimbursement of $5,000. Those same 300 sick days would cost the school district $27,000 in substitute pay if they were used by the employee. If teachers want to prove a point to the district, they should use sick days. Every day that a teacher goes to work when he is not feeling well saves the district $90. The 200-plus teachers who will qualify for this program this year could cost the district $1.4 million. The district should be thankful. Two-hundred teachers who used 300 sick days each could have cost $5.4 million. Maybe the district's chief financial officer, Walt Rulffes, should just thank the teachers for saving the district $4 million in substitute pay. How's that for fiscal responsibility? BARRY WHITAKER LAS VEGAS Nuclear tests To the editor: As a 42-year resident of Las Vegas, I have been very fortunate to make the acquaintance of a large number of Las Vegans, as well as people from other parts of Nevada. I must strongly disagree with John L. Smith's statement in the May 9 Review-Journal that most Nevadans are opposed to Yucca Mountain. If Mr. Smith were to actually get out and talk to people instead of parroting politicians and media types, he would find that most Nevadans are either for the project, or simply don't care. From 1951 into the 1990s, tests consisting of the actual detonation of nuclear devices were being conducted at the Nevada Test Site. Were these less dangerous than a storage facility? Where were the voices of Harry Reid, Richard Bryan, Shelley Berkley, Oscar Goodman, Mr. Smith, et al. at this time? These are people who were present in Las Vegas for some or all of the time these activities took place. All had one thing in common: silence. JACK KIRKEY LAS VEGAS It's outrageous To the editor: In his congressional testimony, Donald Rumsfeld highlighted the tremendous difference there is in reading words about atrocious actions and in seeing those actions in graphic photos. He is right. What if the whole world could see, in graphic detail, the wounding and dying of each of the more than 700 U.S. soldiers killed in Iraq, and the grieving of their families? What if the whole world could see, in graphic detail, the wounding and dying of the more than 10,000 civilians killed in Iraq, and the grieving of their families? When will we extend our outrage at the atrocious human degradation exposed in the prison pictures to the ultimate human degradation of humans killing other humans in war? Is there anything more outrageous than that? PETER EDIGER LAS VEGAS Time for change To the editor: Up until now, I have been a supporter of the war in Iraq and believed that all that has taken place there since we decided to invade was just a part of war. But after reading John Baer's May 19 commentary, I'm not so sure about the future of Iraq and our future there. I still believe that Saddam needed to go. He was a hideous monster and had we not gone in, he still would be there today. But George W. Bush didn't plan this very well at all -- or did he? I just hope that come November, changes will be made. BOB SHUMWAY LAS VEGAS Land costs To the editor: I saw the article, "Bill would allow development" regarding the legislation that was introduced to allow commercial development on land leased by Walters Golf as part of the Bali Hai Golf Course. Isn't that the same Walters Golf and Bali Hai that the Review-Journal wrote about on April 26? The Walters Golf and Bali Hai Golf Course that were complaining that the county assessor was overvaluing the land by putting a value of $25,000 per acre on it? Land for a mega-casino project is worth far in excess of $25,000 per acre. Which is basically what the legislation is about. It's not being done just to put in some low-rent, one-story office suites. By comparison, it was reported on March 17 that the county paid about $1,200 per square foot to The Venetian in order to put in a footbridge. There are approximately 43,560 square feet per acre. That would value one acre at $52 million. Yes, $52 million. And Circus Circus (now Mandalay Resorts) paid $80 million (or a little over $1 million per acre) in 1995 for the 72 acres of the Hacienda, which is just across Russell from the Bali Hai. Both numbers are in excess of the $25,000 per acre that Walters Golf is griping about. RICHARD L. ROSENHEIM BLUE DIAMOND Copyright Las Vegas Review-Journal ***************************************************************** 23 Las Vegas SUN: DOE might miss Yucca deadline Today: May 26, 2004 at 9:09:32 PDT By Suzanne Struglinski SUN WASHINGTON BUREAU WASHINGTON -- The Energy Department has four weeks to process more than 5 million e-mails and documents for its Yucca Mountain license application, and an internal audit found that problems with document handling could prevent the department from meeting its Dec. 23 deadline for submitting the application. The Energy Department must fully review and categorize its dump-related e-mails and other documents before submitting the required data to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, according to commission rules. All the materials must be posted online and available to the public for at least six months before the commission's rules allow it to accept an application for a license to store high-level nuclear waste at Yucca, 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas. To meet the department's self-imposed deadline, documents would have to be completely processed and turned in to the commission by June 23, as commission rules require the data to be publicly available six months before the department's license application can be submitted. The department has 87 percent of the documents and e-mails it needs, while 71 percent of the expected final tally of documents have been processed, officials said. When all of the documents are processed, images of all of the documents will be downloaded into its License Support Network. The network is a first-of-its-kind computer service expected to allow the state and other interested parties to access millions pages of documents related to the project. The department has developed software for the network, but the audit noted there are still a "number of obstacles" that could "prevent" the department from meeting its deadline, according to the department audit completed on Thursday. For example, if the department does not improve how it sends documents to the commission to be indexed, the commission may not be able to make them all open to the public until May 2005, auditors found. Commission rules prevent it from moving forward with the license application until the public has access to everything, according to the report. Once submitted, the commission must accept, or certify, the documentation. Once the commission certifies the documentation the department would be allowed to move forward with the project. If the department does not submit all of its documentation or if the commission does not agree the department included all the required documents by the end of June, there is no way the license can be submitted by December, said Attorney Joe Egan, who works on Yucca issues for the state. Egan said in the "grand scheme of things" a missed documentation deadline does not stop the project from coming to Nevada, but politically it is important. It would raise additional questions about credibility and capability, and Bechtel, the project's main contractor, could lose millions of dollars in bonuses if it does not complete its work on time, Egan said. In a response included in the report, W. John Arthur, the deputy director of the department's Las Vegas-based Office of Repository Development, agreed with the results and recommendations. Arthur pointed out that many of the problems are currently being handled and that the department expects to meet its deadline. The report said project personnel have reviewed 1.4 million of the department's 6.4 million e-mail documents. The department originally had a computer program to do the review, but it did not work properly so employees have had to review their own e-mail. ***************************************************************** 24 KRNV: BLM plans meetings in Tonopah, Pioche on Yucca Mountain rail plan LAS VEGAS, NV, May 26 The federal Bureau of Land Management is scheduling two open-house meetings in rural Nevada about a proposal to build a new rail line to haul radioactive nuclear waste across the state to Yucca Mountain. One meeting will be June 22nd in Tonopah. The other will be June 23rd in Pioche. The Energy Department hosted three similar meetings earlier this month in Amargosa Valley, Goldfield and Caliente. The BLM is collecting comments on a DOE request to withdraw from public use a mile-wide swath of land for the 319-mile rail corridor. It would run from a rail head near Caliente, 150 miles northeast of Las Vegas, to a national nuclear waste dump at Yucca Mountain, 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas. The DOE wants to open the nuclear repository in 2010. (Copyright 2004 by The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.) All content © Copyright 2001 - 2004 WorldNow and KRNV. All ***************************************************************** 25 Seattle Post-Intelligencer: Bacteria found in Hanford waste [seattlepi.com] Wednesday, May 26, 2004 Toxic radioactive soil below leaking tank unlikely place for life By TOM PAULSON SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER REPORTER Scientists studying the soil beneath a leaking Hanford nuclear waste storage tank have discovered more than 100 species of bacteria living in a toxic, radioactive environment that most would have thought inhospitable to all forms of life. "Even in some of the most contaminated zones, we found a few living organisms," said Fred Brockman, a microbial ecologist at the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory in Richland. Brockman is presenting the findings today at the American Society for Microbiology's annual meeting in New Orleans. For most living creatures, the nuclear and chemical waste in the underground storage tanks on the Hanford Nuclear Reservation is the deadliest mixture of toxins and radioactive muck on the planet. For certain bacteria, however, this toxic goop left over from decades of nuclear weapons production appears to be just a second home. "Scientifically, it's pretty interesting stuff," said Jim Fredrickson, Brockman's colleague on this project and a fellow microbiologist at the lab. "The material in the tank is self-boiling and quite hot, so it's not just radioactive and harsh chemicals but also in extreme heat." The waste in the Hanford tanks is made up of highly radioactive cesium, strontium and various other toxic chemicals left over from the World War II bomb works. About 53 millions gallons was stored in 177 underground tanks, some of which have leaked an estimated 1 million gallons into the surrounding soil of the Columbia Basin. The U.S. Department of Energy now wants to empty and close 40 single-shelled Hanford tanks by 2006. Critics of the department and state Ecology officials are concerned that this could be too hasty an agenda and divert energy or resources from the massive clean-up effort still needed to protect against further environmental contamination. Brockman, Fredrickson and their colleagues piggybacked their microbial studies on efforts by DOE and its waste tank managers to track the leaks. They asked to study sediment samples collected in 2000 from boreholes dug around one of the leaking tanks. "I believe this is the most radioactive soil that's ever been looked at for microorganisms," Brockman said. "If you were to just drop these same bacteria directly into this tank waste, none of them would survive." But on the outside of the tanks, exposed to the same deadly mixture, some bacteria learned to survive. "One of the most interesting findings was a strain of Deinococcus," Fredrickson said. It's a type of bacteria that's been found in Antarctica and on irradiated meat, he said, but never at Hanford before. Brockman said they didn't discover any new species of bug -- based on the standard method for identifying species -- but genetic analysis of the Hanford versions of these bacteria indicate they may have at least found some unique new strains. "These bacteria have learned to shield themselves somehow, to produce proteins or other molecules that protect against the radiation," Brockman said. "Their genes appear to be quite dissimilar (from standard strains of these bacteria)." Though the Richland microbiologists have nothing to do with the tank clean-up effort and didn't launch the study with that problem in mind, their findings could be of some use. Deinococcus, for example, is able to chemically alter one of the contaminants, chromate, in a way that slows its migration through the soil. "It's possible that we may learn how to contain the waste biologically, using these kinds of organisms," Fredrickson said. But for now, Brockman said, the next step will be in figuring out just what kind of microbes they have found, more about their genetics and perhaps identifying some of the novel proteins they produce that allow them to live in such a noxious neighborhood. The Hanford tank study was largely funded by the Department of Energy's Microbial Genome Program -- the microbial version of the Human Genome Project , which also was also launched by the Department of Energy in the 1980s. P-I reporter Tom Paulson can be reached at 206-448-8318 or tompaulson@seattlepi.com P-I reporter Lisa Stiffler contributed to this report. [Seattle Post-Intelligencer] 101 Elliott Ave. W. Seattle, WA 98119 (206) 448-8000 Send comments to newmedia@seattlepi.com ©1996-2004 Seattle Post-Intelligencer Terms of Service/Privacy Policy ***************************************************************** 26 LinuxElectrons: Ground Broken for Nanotechnology Center at Sandia and Los Alamos Labs Wednesday, May 26 2004 @ 01:56 AM Contributed by: ByteEnable ALBUQUERQUE, NM -- The new Center for Integrated Nanotechnologies (CINT) at the Department of Energy’s Los Alamos (LANL) and Sandia National Laboratories (SNL) moved closer to reality with two groundbreaking ceremonies this week. The $76 million center is one of five new Nanoscale Science Research Centers to be built by the Department of Energy’s Office of Science to provide researchers with world-class facilities for the interdisciplinary study of matter at the atomic scale. DOE’s Office of Science Director Raymond L. Orbach, U.S. Senator Pete Domenici, U.S. Representative Heather Wilson, Sandia Labs Director C. Paul Robinson and Los Alamos Lab Acting Deputy Director Carolyn Mangeng presided at today’s ceremonial turning of soil at the 95,000 square-foot Core Facility in Albuquerque. Orbach and lab representatives participated yesterday in a groundbreaking at a 34,000 square-foot Gateway Facility to Los Alamos. “Nanoscale science and technology is at the frontier of materials science, chemistry, biology, computational science and engineering,” Secretary of Energy Spencer Abraham said. “By accelerating the advancement of nanoscience, this new center will pave the way for new technologies that benefit our Nation's energy, environment, and national security and enable the United States to compete in the high technology world economy.” The center’s primary objective will be to develop the scientific principles that govern the performance and integration of nanoscale materials, thereby building the foundations for future nanotechnologies. “This joint enterprise will leverage science and engineering facilities at both laboratories, creating a unique environment where cutting-edge science can transition into technology that improves our world,” Dr. Orbach said. LANL and SNL will operate CINT jointly. Through its laboratory partnership, the center will make facilities in areas such as semiconductor, microelectronics and combustion research available to the user community of scientists and researchers. The CINT scientific user community will also have access to dedicated research capabilities in a new Core Facility in Albuquerque, the new CINT Gateway to Los Alamos and the existing CINT Gateway to Sandia. Together, these three facilities will provide laboratory and office space for researchers to synthesize and characterize nanostructured materials, model and simulate their performance, and integrate nanoscale materials into larger-scale systems. The Core Facility will include synthesis labs for chemical and biological work, characterization labs for optical and laser work, and Class 1000 clean rooms for integration operations. In order to ensure open access to the user community, the Core Facility will be constructed on DOE property outside Kirtland Air Force Base. The CINT Gateway to Sandia will focus on nanomaterials and microfabrication from the existing Integrated Materials Research Laboratory, while the CINT Gateway to Los Alamos will include synthesis and characterization labs which primarily focus on biosciences and nanomaterials work. The new Gateway to Los Alamos facility will be in an open security environment at the lab. Nanomaterials -- typically on the scale of billionths of a meter or 1,000 times smaller than a human hair -- offer different chemical and physical properties than bulk materials, and have the potential to form the basis of new technologies. Understanding these properties may allow researchers to design materials with properties tailored to specific needs such as strong, lightweight materials, new lubricants and more efficient solar energy cells. By building structures one atom at a time, the materials may have enhanced mechanical, optical, electrical or catalytic properties. DOE’s Office of Science has played a major role in developing facilities and tools to characterize and analyze materials at the nanoscale, but world-class facilities available to the scientific community to synthesize, process and fabricate nanoscale materials and structures do not exist. To fill that need, the Office of Science is funding the construction of five new DOE Nanoscale Science Research Centers which will be the nation’s premier user facilities for interdisciplinary research at the nanoscale. The centers will provide researchers with state-of-the-art capabilities to explore, fabricate and study nanoscale materials. The centers are part of the department's contribution to the National Nanotechnology Initiative, and they form an integrated national network. The centers will be located at DOE’s Argonne, Brookhaven, Lawrence Berkeley, Oak Ridge and Los Alamos/Sandia National Laboratories. DOE’s Office of Science is the single largest supporter of basic research in the physical sciences in the Nation, manages 10 world-class national laboratories and builds and operates some of the Nation’s most advanced R&D user facilities. More information about the office and about the Nanoscale Science Research Centers is available at www.sc.doe.gov. Copyright © 2004 LinuxElectrons and its licensors.  All ***************************************************************** 27 chillicothe gazette: DOE gives update on USEC plant - chillicothegazette.com Wednesday, May 26, 2004 Waste must be moved before building begins By DANIEL PRAZER Gazette Staff Writer PIKETON -- At a semi-annual meeting conducted by the Department of Energy Tuesday night, the DOE official charged with overseeing operations at the Piketon uranium enrichment plant gave a rundown of the site's status to a relatively sparse crowd. Bill Murphie, manager of the Portsmouth/Paducah Project Office that oversees the Piketon plant and its sister site in Paducah, Ky., said the department is making strides on readying the buildings that will house United States Enrichment Corp.'s next-generation enrichment plant. "We are going through these facilities and essentially getting the DOE legacy waste out of here," Murphie said. The buildings slated to house the $1.5 billion American Centrifuge were built for a plan to use similar technology in the 1980s, but those plans were scrapped. USEC said the buildings were a major incentive to place the centrifuge facility in Piketon. But the buildings are housing DOE waste and must be vacated before any of the new plant can be installed. Beside moving 60 personnel from the buildings, the DOE has moved thousands of containers of waste either off site or to other locations on site, Murphie said. "USEC needs this space to do its pilot plant," he said. He also said construction on a waste-conversion facility is on track to begin this July, and the department has been moving containers of waste up from its Oak Ridge, Tenn., facility to Piketon. An average of 15 cylinders a day are moved up to the Piketon plant by truck, with plans to move 2,900 of them during fiscal year 2004. The conversion facility will take the depleted uranium compound that is a byproduct of the enrichment process and chemically treat it so the depleted uranium is in a stable state for either reuse or disposal, said Doug Adkisson, Operations and Maintenance Manager of Uranium Disposition Services, the company contracted to build the conversion facility. The other byproduct produced, hydrofluoric acid, is widely used and will be sold to industry, Adkisson said. (Prazer can be reached at 772-9364 or via e-mail at dprazer@nncogannett.com) Originally published Wednesday, May 26, 2004 chillicothegazette.com ***************************************************************** 28 Tri-City Herald: Tough bacteria lurk under Hanford tank This story was published Wednesday, May 26th, 2004 By Annette Cary Herald staff writer Beneath the leak-prone tanks of highly radioactive waste at the Hanford nuclear site lie some of the most inhospitable underground environments in the world. For seven years in the 1960s, Tank SX-108 there leaked tens of thousands of gallons of a stew of radioactive, toxic and caustic waste left from the past production of plutonium at Hanford. But when scientists at Pacific Northwest National Laboratory studied the contaminant-soaked soil beneath the buried tank, they found a surprise -- an abundance of life. In a study to be presented today at the American Society of Microbiology's annual meeting in New Orleans, PNNL chief scientist Fred Brockman will discuss the diverse microorganisms they found living in the highly radioactive and toxic underground environment. "Despite the extremely harsh conditions, a total of 56 different genera of bacteria were found, representing over 150 different species," Brockman wrote in a paper outlining the work. Sediments from beneath the tanks are among the most radioactive in the world to have been studied with molecular biological methods, he said. The bacteria that call the soil under Tank SX-108 home are tough. Some may have survived because they're in microscopic areas that may not be as heavily contaminated as other areas, he said. As sediments were collected from increasingly contaminated areas along a bore hole run diagonally beneath the tank, fewer and fewer bacteria were found. But the bacteria that did survive -- what Brockman calls "the real heroes" -- are of a type that scientists know have a much stronger cell wall than other bacteria. They also have the chemical ability to adapt to stressful conditions. "What they have to do is produce proteins to help stabilize their nucleic acids and cell membrane molecules," he said. Using methods that have been standard for several decades to analyze a small part of the DNA in the bacteria cells, the microbes did not appear unique, he said. But using technology only recently available to rapidly sequence all the DNA of the bacteria, it looks very different to other microorganisms in a massive international database. Part of the point of the study was to satisfy scientific curiosity. It shows "how tenacious certain life forms are," Brockman said. "We've never investigated such an extreme environment." It also indicates that a greater breadth of microbes are able to survive highly toxic environments and that the microorganisms likely contain many novel proteins, he said. Learning more about how such microorganisms survive could be useful in cleanup projects, as scientists investigate how microorganisms might be one day used to help stabilize or clean up contaminated environments. © 2004 Tri-City Herald, Associated Press &Other Wire Services ***************************************************************** 29 Las Vegas SUN: Editorial: Corroding rationale Today: May 26, 2004 at 9:09:31 PDT LAS VEGAS SUN The U.S. Energy Department application for permission to build a nuclear waste dump at Yucca Mountain is expected to include a plan to place titanium drip shields over the containers that would store the waste. The department believes the shields would act as a barrier against water so the casks wouldn't corrode, but the state of Nevada doesn't want the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to consider the drip shields when weighing the application. Nevada officials reason that because the shields are anticipated to cost billions of dollars, they may never get used, a situation that demands a conservative approach by the NRC when weighing the application. There also have been concerns that titanium drip shields wouldn't do the job of protecting the nuclear waste canisters from corrosion in the first place. For that matter, the nation's final resting place for 77,000 tons of high-level nuclear waste is supposed to be a "geologic" repository that doesn't need jury-rigged extra protection to keep the waste from escaping and jeopardizing the public. It should be increasingly evident to the NRC that Yucca Mountain, which sits in an earthquake-prone region, is one of the worst places in the nation to bury nuclear waste and that a dump application should be rejected -- with or without titanium drip shields. ***************************************************************** 30 idaho mountain express: A dangerous gamble on nuclear sludge — Our View : Wednesday, May 26, 2004 [Our View] Changing the rules is the hallmark strategy of President Bush’s administration when confronted with laws it doesn’t like. Don't want to provide lawyers to suspects in the war on terror? Classify them as "enemy combatants" and lock ’em up. Don't like the system of counting wild salmon to measure species attrition? Throw in hatchery salmon to boost the numbers. Don’t like scholars pawing through presidential papers? Issue an executive order sealing them from view. Want to start a war? Claim weapons of mass destruction from halfway around the world threaten the nation. And on it goes. Now the administration wants to apply this sort of fudging to millions of gallons of radioactive nuclear sludge, and let the public health take the hindmost. The Energy Department’s rationale? To save time and money, it claims, even if Americans could be at risk for generations to come. The issue is this: Hundreds of underground tanks at weapons-making and waste-disposal plants at the Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory, Washington state’s Hanford Site and the South Carolina Savannah River Site contain radioactive nuclear sludge. The Energy Department wants to downgrade the sludge as low-level risk, mix it with grout—better known as a household sealant—and leave it, rather than ship it to the Yucca Mountain storage site in Nevada as required by law. Standing in the way, happily, is U.S. District Judge Lynn Winmill of Boise. In August 2002, the judge sided with allegations in a lawsuit brought by the National Resources Defense Council and ruled that "(I)t is inconceivable that Congress intended to allow the DOE unfettered discretion in the management of radioactive waste ... ." So, the Bush administration is pressuring Congress to change the law to give DOE discretion in reclassifying the waste as virtually harmless so portions of it can be left in the tanks. Not only is gambling with public wellbeing involved in this cavalier attitude, but also breaking decades-old promises to the public that the waste would be removed and stored at the Nevada site. Americans understand and are sympathetic to reasonable and logical efforts to use public funds prudently. This is not one of those cases, however. Just as the administration has tried to conduct the war in Iraq on the cheap by deploying troops without proper and sufficient equipment, now it hopes to risk exposure to nuclear waste by cutting corners on costs. Enough. Despite their willingness to endure absurd politics, Americans have no tolerance for risking their health in the name of dubious budget belt tightening. The Idaho Mountain Express ***************************************************************** 31 lamonitor.com: Lab embarks on nanotechnology path The Online News Source for Los Alamos ROGER SNODGRASS, roger@lamonitor.com, Monitor Assistant Editor It was a ground-breaking moment for a groundbreaking new technology. An array of speakers at Monday's ceremonies for a new facility at Los Alamos National Laboratory lauded the vast scientific potential, competitive necessity and economic promise of nanotechnology. "It's a brand new way of industrial processing of chemicals, building materials and electronics," said Tom Meyer, LANL's associate director for strategic research. "It will lead to a significant transformation in our ability to manufacture new kinds of things." Nanotechnology holds the promise of creating extremely miniaturized tools and materials, highly customized therapies for medical purposes, and new predictive capabilities for modeling and simulation by high performance supercomputers, he said. Nanotechnology is engineering at the scale of atoms and molecules. The National Academies of Science has predicted it may become a trillion dollar industry in the next decade. Critics have called it a dangerous departure from nature, and science fiction writers have speculated on frightening swarms of self-replicating nano-devices run amok, or imagined tabletop factories and skyscrapers that can build themselves. "That makes wonderful science fiction and entertainment, but it doesn't capture the spirit of nanotech today," said Neal D. Shinn, outreach coordinator for CINT from SNL. "Like any new science, we'll have to study the safety and health effects, while we're learning how to use them." He added, "Nanotech will make existing things work smarter and better." The future building will house the new Center for Integrated Nanotechnologies (CINT) Gateway to Los Alamos. The Los Alamos facility is part of a partnership between LANL and SNL that will become one of five nanotech user facilities in the country under the umbrella of the Department of Energy. DOE's Nanoscale Science Research Center (NSRC), which will coordinate the activities of the new program at the federal level, is dedicated to establishing the scientific principles that govern the design, performance, and integration of nanoscale materials. Raymond L. Orbach, director of Doe's Office of Science, introduced as "the person who was signing the check for this," called the initiative, "truly a major accomplishment," that would enable private and government researchers, on both sides of the security fence, to participate. Pete Lyons, representing Sen. Pete Domenici, R-NM, said the senator had strongly supported the research effort and that it was "an exciting opportunity to lead the way across an important frontier." Jonathan Epstein, representing Sen. Jeff Bingaman, D-NM, said he had accompanied the senator on an Asian trip, where they found Japan investing $6 billion dollars in nanotechnology, and Taiwan graduating 800 engineers a year devoted to working in this and related fields. "There is competition out there," he said. The Los Alamos building will be 38,000 square-feet and will cost $18.2 million. Expected to be completed in September 2005, it will house researchers from LANL's Bioscience, Chemistry, Materials Science and Technology and Theoretical Divisions. A similar ceremony is scheduled to take place today at Sandia in Albuquerque, where a counterpart gateway facility will be built, along with CINT's core facility. Alan Hurd, interim associate director of the project said a key concept of CINT would be work on a "discovery platform," which he described as a "lab on a chip." One application for this research might be biological sensors, capable of rapid detection of a biological attack. CINT received 80 proposals in response to a request last summer, according to the CINT Web site. Of those, 36 were accepted, involving researchers from 24 universities and 16 states. Scientists from New Mexico universities will lead seven of the projects. The new projects include studying the flow of liquids through nano-scale channels, advanced imaging of biological membranes and development of super-strong nano-composite materials. Hurd said the scientific thrust areas for CINT would be in complex functional materials, nanophotonics and nanoelectronics, nano-bio interfaces, nanomechanics and theory and simulation. The other NSCRC components are the Center for Functional Nanomaterials at Brookhaven National Laboratory, Center for Nanophase Materials Sciences at Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Molecular Foundry at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, and the Center for Nanoscale Materials at Argonne National Laboratory. © 2003 Los Alamos Monitor All Rights Reserved. ***************************************************************** 32 Oak Ridger: More weapons material on the way Story last updated at 11:24 a.m. on May 26, 2004 PLANT CHIEF: 'There are some materials, I think, still in transit.' By: Paul Parson | Oak Ridger Staff paul.parson@oakridger.com While efforts are moving forward to build a new storage facility for bomb-grade uranium at the Y-12 National Security Complex, the Oak Ridge facility continues to get weapons-related material from at least one foreign country. "We've received some additional things, but nowhere near the level of the first shipments," Dennis Ruddy, president and general manager of BWXT Y-12, confirmed during an impromptu interview Tuesday. "The number of shipments, we don't like to tell." The initial shipments of Libyan nuclear weapons materials and components arrived at Y-12 in late January. The material was extracted from Libya by a U.S.-led team, including some Oak Ridge experts. When asked if Y-12 expected more shipments, Ruddy responded: "We're in that business. Whether it's Libya or some place else, you never can tell. "There are some materials, I think, still in transit, but I really don't know. The government tells us when they want to engage us in that kind of work." On a similar note, The New York Times reported today that the Department of Energy will undertake a $450 million campaign to retrieve nuclear materials that the United States and the Soviet Union originally sent around the world for research purposes. No word yet on if any of that material will be coming to Oak Ridge. Y-12 is considered the nation's principal storehouse for bomb-grade uranium or what's officially known as highly enriched uranium. Y-12 is currently in the midst of an effort to build a new storage facility for the material. Ruddy suggested that Y-12 has three bids in hand, adding that officials could announce soon what partnership will build the storage facility. "All of the firms have at least a local partner, but they're not all single contractors," said Ruddy, whose company manages Y-12 for the federal government. Due to confidentiality issues, Ruddy said one bidder dropped out because of "foreign ownership concerns." He also said some other teams didn't make the cut because they didn't meet all the qualifications. If all goes according to plan, workers could start laying the foundation for the new facility in October. Construction would tentatively start in April or May. Ruddy admitted that the storage facility has not been without controversy. The cost and design of the storage facility have been criticized by both the Department of Energy's Inspector General's Office and the Washington, D.C.-based watchdog group known as the Project On Government Oversight. Ruddy didn't specify whether design plans for the facility would be changed. Officials have said the non-berm design will not provide improved security over the original design that included an earthen berm on the top and three sides of the facility. ***************************************************************** 33 Paducah Sun: Appeal of states decision asks figures on USEC offer Staff Report @@UPLOAD_TIME:200405242310 @@EDITION: @@SUMMARY:The Paducah Sun has appealed a decision by the Kentucky Economic Development Cabinet to withhold details of the incentive package offered to USEC Inc. last year to build a gas centrifuge plant in Paducah. Paducah, Kentucky Wednesday, May 26, 2004 The Paducah Sun has appealed a decision by the Kentucky Economic Development Cabinet to withhold details of the incentive package offered to USEC Inc. last year to build a gas centrifuge plant in Paducah. USEC announced in January that the plant would be built in Piketon, Ohio. Former Gov. Paul Patton said the incentive package was worth well in excess of $100 million and was better than the package offered by Ohio. Patton had said he would release a summary of the package, but his term expired before the announcement. The Sun sought a copy of the incentive package under Kentucky's Open Records Law so the incentives could be compared with the package offered by Ohio. The state released 240 pages of documents, but none spelled out the package. Attorneys for the state contend that incentive proposals are exempt under Kentucky's Open Records Law because they are preliminary and become public documents only if the package is accepted by the company. The Sun filed an appeal with Attorney General Greg Stumbo, who by law has authority to rule on Open Records cases. It is the first step of an appeal. The next step if either side is dissatisfied is to file action in Franklin Circuit Court. The Sun contends in the appeal that once the financial package was rejected by USEC, the rejection represented final action and the details should be released. "It is important that the residents of the commonwealth receive information concerning the size and scope of financial incentives, funded with taxpayer dollars, which are being offered to attract or retain industry in the state," attorney Mark Whitlow said in the Sun's appeal. Catherine Staib, attorney for the Economic Development Cabinet, responded for the state, expressing concern that releasing the package would hurt future economic development efforts because other states would have details of the state's resources, and companies considering Kentucky would demand packages similar to that offered USEC. Whitlow said it could take six months or longer for the attorney general to rule. ***************************************************************** 34 Deseret news: 'Subcritical' tests not same as nuclear tests [deseretnews.com] Wednesday, May 26, 2004 U.S. isn't on verge of resuming Nevada blasts, official says By Joe Bauman Deseret Morning News The Nevada Test Site is host to programs intended to ensure the U.S. nuclear arsenal remains safe and reliable, according to the director of public affairs for the National Nuclear Security Administration, Nevada State Office. But that doesn't mean the NTS is about to resume underground nuclear detonations. Darwin J. Morgan, the director, was responding to concerns that an increase in scientific activity at the site might be a prelude to the resumption of underground nuclear explosions. He was interviewed Tuesday via cell phone while driving back to Las Vegas following the latest "subcritical" test at the NTS. The National Nuclear Security Administration is the branch of the U.S. Department of Energy that administers the Nevada Test Site. The NTS, where nuclear explosions were carried out in the past, is a reservation of 1,350 square miles northwest of Las Vegas, reaching to within about 65 miles of that city. By "subcritical," planners mean that nuclear detonations do not take place even though radioactive materials are used in the experiment. The latest test, "Armando," was to examine the behavior of plutonium when shocked by conventional high explosives. "It went very well," Morgan noted. Besides this "subcritical" series, the NTS has a two-stage gas gun that experiments on plutonium — the Joint Actinide Shock Physics Experimental Research (JASPER). Also, a pulse-power machine was moved to the site from the Los Alamos National Laboratories in New Mexico to conduct experiments on non-nuclear material, he said. These projects are part of the Nevada Test Site's work on its Stockpile Stewardship Program, to ensure America's nuclear weapons are safe and reliable, he said. The results of such experiments can be used to certify to the president that the weapons are in good condition. As long as these non-nuclear explosion tests provide results allowing officials to make that finding, "there's no need to conduct a nuclear weapons test," he said. One of the biggest misconceptions about the Nevada Test Site, he said, is that subcritical tests are the same as nuclear test. A nuclear test is defined by treaty. "It's where you obtain yield," he said. That is, an experiment should not be considered a nuclear test just because it uses radioactive material like plutonium. To be "nuclear," by that definition, a test must unleash the power of the atom's nucleus — as when a nuclear bomb detonates. Asked if he foresees the resumption of underground nuclear testing, Morgan said, "At my level, I have no way of knowing that." If at some time in the future Test Site personnel can't confirm that nuclear weapons remain safe and reliable, a nuclear test might be considered to check the status of the arsenal. "That's when the debate would occur whether we need to do a test," he said. It would be a careful process, he added. "Since we did the last underground (nuclear explosive) test in 1992, we've been under a mandate to maintain test capability," Morgan said. Until recently, the NTS was under orders to be able to resume that type of testing within 24 to 36 months, he said. "Then in October, Congress passed legislation that narrowed that window," Morgan said. The new mandate is to be able to resume testing in 18 to 24 months after a notice to do so. "There's no ramping up," he said. "We have to be ready on a quicker time frame to do a test if we're so directed by Congress or the president." Asked about the discussion that the Test Site could begin experiments with "bunker buster" devices, he said nothing going on there is associated with such a project. The subject is strictly part of policy considerations now, not operations. "One of the big programs that we've got going out here is we're training first-responders," he said. This fiscal year, about 8,000 firemen, police officers, emergency medical technicians and others were trained how to respond to a terrorist incident involving radiation. "We've got the facilities out here to be able to bring them in and give them hands-on experience, using controlled radiation sources so that they can learn how to measure it, what they're looking at, how to do the appropriate decontamination," he said. Associated with that sort of approach, the Department of Homeland Security wants the NTS to begin doing research to improve radiation detection. The devices would be used at border crossings, ports of entries and on highways to check for smuggled radioactive material. The radiological defense complex would replicate roads and other facilities, he said, "so we can test the sensors . . . and use radioactive sources." E-mail: bau@desnews.com © 2004 Deseret News Publishing Company ***************************************************************** 35 [du-list] DU in the news - 27th May 04 Date: Wed, 26 May 2004 18:24:47 -0700 ABS CBN News - Quezon City,Philippines ... This is because they have admittedly pumped out thousands of shells and bombs in which the explosive is encased in depleted uranium (DU), the same "dirty ... <http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/NewsStory.aspx?section=Opinion&OID=51871> DOE gives update on USEC plant Chillicothe Gazette - Chillicothe,OH,USA ... The conversion facility will take the depleted uranium compound that is a byproduct of the enrichment process and chemically treat it so the depleted uranium ... <http://www.chillicothegazette.com/news/stories/20040526/localnews/505956.html> 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 720c7.jpg 72103.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: 720c7.jpg: 00000001,29d26868,00000000,00000000 Attachment Converted: 72103.jpg: 00000001,29d26869,00000000,00000000 ***************************************************************** 36 Google News Alert - nuclear Date: Wed, 26 May 2004 14:10:59 -0700 (PDT) NUCLEAR Experiment Conducted at Nevada Test Site KVBC - Las Vegas,NV,USA Security is a major issue at the Nevada Test Site, where scientists have resumed underground testing of nuclear materials. But it's ... See all stories on this topic: FEARS of nuclear site attacks Ananova - England,UK Numerous reports of aircraft breaching no-fly zones around British nuclear facilities have raised fears of a terrorist attack that could kill millions. ... US in new move to keep nuclear materials out of terrorist hands Channel News Asia - Singapore VIENNA : The United States unveiled a 450-million-dollar plan to try and prevent nuclear materials stored around the world from falling into the hands of ... See all stories on this topic: NUCLEAR Scientist Could Be Next Iraqi Premier The Scotsman - Edinburgh,Scotland,UK A Shiite Muslim nuclear scientist is among those being considered for Iraq’s prime minister, officials said today as UN and US envoys and Iraqi leaders ... See all stories on this topic: CHINA May Buy Brazil's Non - Enriched Uranium , Swap Nuclear - ... Bloomberg - USA May 26 (Bloomberg) -- Brazil may sell China non-enriched uranium and exchange nuclear-energy technology as the nations aim to enhance trade and political ties ... See all stories on this topic: VIETNAM'S nuclear ambitions laid on the table Independent Online - South Africa Hanoi - Vietnam's programme to build its first nuclear power plant by 2020 is gathering steam, with officials saying on Wednesday that a pre-feasibility study ... See all stories on this topic: CONSTRUCTION to begin on China-made nuclear reactors this year SpaceDaily - USA Construction on four 1,000 megawatt Chinese-designed nuclear reactors is set to begin this year as part of a 9.7 billion dollar plan to build eight new nuclear ... See all stories on this topic: TOP post for black nuclear professor Business Day, South Africa - Johannesburg,South Africa Professor Mike Sathekge, who heads the nuclear medicine section at Dr George Mukhari Hospital in Pretoria, has been appointed as the new advisor to the World ... NORTH Korea 'gave Libya material for nuclear arms' Financial Times - London,England,UK Evidence that North Korea supplied Libya with nuclear material in 2001 suggests the reclusive Pyongyang regime may be closer than Washington suspected to ... See all stories on this topic: NUCLEAR jet crash 'could kill millions' New Scientist - London,England,UK Fears that the UK's nuclear plants are vulnerable to a 9/11-style attack or accident are growing. Evidence is emerging that the ... 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/ ***************************************************************** 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: *****************************************************************