*****************************************************************
12/30/04 ****     RADIATION BULLETIN(RADBULL)       **** VOL 12.309
*****************************************************************
   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 Hi Pakistan: Huge waves may have damaged Indian nuclear power plant
2 Hi Pakistan: Pakistan, Iran call for debate on UN reforms
3 Mos News: Russia Joins Iran in Fighting UFO’s - 
4 INSIDE JoongAng Daily: South Korean held for atomic materials
5 UPI: North Korea mired in nuclear standoff - 
6 YWS: N.K. Vows to Counter U.S. 'Hostile Policy' With Nuclear Deterre
7 US: Guardian Unlimited Lobbyists Study Bush's Cabinet Nominees
8 US: KR: Neo-cons can't escape responsibility for their Iraq miscalcu
9 US: Washington Post: Possible Uranium Sources 
10 A Sun: Editorial: Nuke weapons research can't be forgotten
11 Guardian Unlimited: A state of chaos
12 Indo-Asian News Service: Rao's death opens India's nuclear cupboard 
13 Daily Times: Narasimah – the true father of India’s nuclear plan 
14 ITAR-TASS: There were several non-nuclear test explosions in Russia 
15 Washington Post: The Path to a Nuclear Weapon, Simple Bomb Designs
 
                         NUCLEAR REACTORS
 
16 US: [NukeNet] text of nrc's decision on oyster creek license
17 US: [NukeNet] NJ DEP says "Don't Restart Hope Creek"!
18 Tsunamis and Nuclear Power Plants
19 US: Statement by Russell Hoffman concerning tsunamis and nuclear
20 [NukeNet] Indian Nuke Power Plants Reportedly OK
21 US: First Chance To Affect Safety At Nuke Plants Across USA & Spent 
22 US: Attack On Nuke Plant Could Kill 3.6 Million, Even Greenpeace Unw
23 US: NRC: NRC to Discuss Results of Special Inspection at Hope Creek 
24 Taiwan News: Taiwan to boost coal use as nuke plants are phased out
25 US: SD UT: Water agencies are studying plan to tap seawater
26 Gansu News: The low temperature nuclear supply heat station will bee
27 US: NCT: Anti-nuclear activists dispute reactor safety during quake,
28 US: News Journal: Hope Creek problems to be aired
29 Persian Journal: Mullah: EU to build nuclear reactor in Iran - 
30 US: NRC: Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collecti
31 Xinhua: Shanxi pipes 25 bn kwh of electricity to north, east China  
32 US: NRC: Amergen Energy Company, LLC.; Notice of Consideration of
33 US: NBCSandiego.com: Activists Say San Onofre Nuclear Plant Not Tsun
34 US: CounterPunch: Russell D. Hoffman: Tsunamis and Nuclear Power Pla
35 IPS: ASIA: Tsunami a Reminder of Risks that Plague Coastal Nuke Plan
36 US: Newsday.com: Environmental chief: Nuclear plant repairs should p
37 US: WATE: Early refueling will let TVA fix steam leak at nuclear pla
38 US: NRC: Amergen Energy Company, LLC; Oyster Creek Nuclear Generatin
 
                          NUCLEAR SAFETY
 
39 [DU Information List] Iraq: silenced Majority,  Its time to
40 [du-list] research for future DU item on BBC
41 US: EPA: Radiation Source Removed From Greenwich, New York Site 
42 UPI:  Russia seizes radioactive 'devices' - 
43 Platts: Swiss distribution of potassium iodide to continue
44 US: CCDR: Health department: Cotter in violation of requirements 
45 US: Times-News: Idaho native wants disease rates related to nuclear 
 
                         NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE
 
46 US: The Australian: Hope for uranium ban end 
47 US: Bradenton Herald: Tallevast workers hard to find
48 US: NRC: NRC Renews License for Interim Spent Fuel Storage Installat
49 SD UT: Group plans to seek Nevada benefits for hosting Yucca Mountai
50 Las Vegas RJ: Coalitionsets sights on Yucca benefits 
51 NRC: NRC Restores Documents on LES, USEC and New Reactors to Public 
52 Las Vegas SUN: Marisol Montoya: Spirit of debate lives
53 Las Vegas SUN: Business group wants to deal over Yucca
54 US: heraldtribune.com: Tallevast shocked over denial of claim 
55 US: Salt Lake Tribune: Decision on Goshute waste plan is likely in
56 NRC: Notice of Public Scoping Meeting Regarding the Proposed USEC 
 
                         NUCLEAR WEAPONS
 
 
                        US DEPT. OF ENERGY
 
57 DOE: Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board, Oak Ridg
58 DOE: Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board, Hanford
59 Idaho Statesman: Army using INEEL airtight modules
60 KTVB.COM: INEEL to help dispose of chemical weapons 
61 DOE: Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board, Idaho 
 
                          OTHER NUCLEAR
 
62 [du-list] DU in the news - Dec.30th 2004
63 Physics Today: Cold Fusion Gets Chilly Encore - 
64 Public Citizen:  Public Citizen Asks Justice Department to Probe 
*****************************************************************
*****************************************************************
                         FULL NEWS STORIES
*****************************************************************
*****************************************************************
 1 Hi Pakistan: Huge waves may have damaged Indian nuclear power plant
 
December 31 2004     
 
NEW DELHI: Huge waves that battered the Indian coastline after an 
earthquake in Indonesia may have damaged a nuclear power plant in 
southern Tamil Nadu state, the government said on Monday.

The Press Trust of India said Indian Prime Minister Manmohan 
Singh had called a meeting on Tuesday to review any damage to the 
plant. Authorities on Sunday shut down the Indira Gandhi Atomic 
Energy Centre in Kalpakkam, 80 kilometres south of Tamil Nadu 
capital Chennai as a precaution.

Water seeped into the facility, which is located on the coast, 
after the tsunami hit following Sunday’s earthquake. "Information 
reaching here suggests that facilities at Kalpakkam nuclear 
station may have been affected by the tidal waves," said a 
spokesman from the prime minister’s office.

"The prime minister will chair a meeting with the Atomic Power 
Commission on Tuesday to review the damage, if any, caused to the 
nuclear power plant," he added. A senior scientist said Sunday 
one unit of the nuclear power plant had been "shut down safely 
and cooled down".

 					     							 				 				   				 				
      
Copyright 1996-2002 . Hi Pakistan. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
 2 Hi Pakistan: Pakistan, Iran call for debate on UN reforms
 
December 31 2004     
 
ISLAMABAD: Pakistan and Iran on Tuesday called for a
debate on proposed reforms of the United Nations and supported
the creation of eight new Security Council seats, a Foreign
Ministry statement said.

It said Foreign Minister Khurshid Mahmud Kasuri and his Iranian
counterpart Kamal Kharrazi, currently visiting Pakistan, held
talks on the UN reforms, economic cooperation and Iraq. "The two
foreign ministers showed their preference for ... creation of
eight non-permanent seats of the Security Council for four-year
renewable terms," the statement said.

Kasuri and Kharrazi discussed the situation in Iraq and threw
their weight behind efforts to set up a broad-based government
in the war-torn country, it said. The two ministers also
discussed economic cooperation as well as a proposed gas
pipeline between Iran and Pakistan, it said.

Iran's recent talks with European countries on nuclear issues
and its contact with the International Atomic Energy Agency also
came under discussion during the talks. Pakistan welcomed Iran's
agreement last month with Britain, France and Germany, acting
for the European Union, to suspend uranium enrichment in
exchange for trade, technology and security rewards. Kharrazi
later held talks with Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz and discussed
the plans for a proposed gas line from Iran to India via
Pakistan.

Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz said close ties between Iran and
Pakistan are a source of strength and peace in the region and
reiterated government's commitment to expand bilateral
relations, especially in trade and economy.

"These ties are deep and historic and cover broad areas,
including cultural, social, political and economic," he said. He
said establishment of joint investment companies and banks
between the two countries would further promote economic
relations. They discussed possibilities of enhancing economic
cooperation and more people-to-people contact between the two
countries.

The prime minister said Pakistan was exploring gas pipelines to
meet its growing energy needs. These options will be pursued on
bilateral basis. Transit to third country will be considered on
the basis of mutual advantage and agreement. They agreed to
enhance border trade to promote bilateral economic relations
between the two countries.

The Iranian minister appreciated Pakistan's efforts for peace in
the region. He stated that Iran was keen to further develop its
close ties with Pakistan especially in the areas of trade and
investment.

 					     							 				 				   				 				
      
Copyright 1996-2002 . Hi Pakistan. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
 3 Mos News: Russia Joins Iran in Fighting UFO’s - 

MOSNEWS.COM
 
Created: 30.12.2004 16:00 MSK (GMT +3), Updated: 16:07 MSK 

MosNews
 
Russia and Iran have agreed to a joint program studying the UFO
phenomenon after a series of sightings of unidentified flying
objects.

The two nations are stressing “expansion of bilateral
cooperation particularly in space research and construction of
satellites,” the Islamic Republic News Agency reports.

This comes in the wake of a skywatching mania that struck Iran
amid state-media reports of sightings of flying objects near
Iran’s nuclear installations. 

The Resalat news agency reported “shining objects” in the sky
near Natanz, where Iran’s uranium-enrichment plant is situated.
One of those objects is said to have exploded, prompting “panic
in the region”.

Tehran’s air force was ordered to shoot down any unknown or
suspicious flying objects in its airspace, amid security
concerns for its nuclear plants.

“Flights of unknown objects in the country’s airspace have
increased in recent weeks... [they] have been seen over Bushehr
and Isfahan provinces,” the Resalat daily reported. Nuclear
facilities are located in both provinces. 

The WorldNetDaily has reported UFO sightings in Iran in the past.
 
Copyright © 2004 MOSNEWS.COM
*****************************************************************
 4 INSIDE JoongAng Daily: South Korean held for atomic materials
 
December 31, 2004 KST 14:14 (GMT+9)

  December 31, 2004 ¤Ñ International news agencies have reported
that a South Korean businessman has been arrested by Russian
authorities on charges of smuggling highly radioactive materials
into the country. 

According to Russia's Novosti news agency, customs officials
seized 13 highly radioactive materials at a port on Sakhalin
Island in the northeast of the country on Dec. 20. The material,
which was not described, was hidden in freight containers that
were being received by a South Korean contractor who is building
a factory in a nearby city. Kim Jong-hon, president of South
Korea's All Nations Co., was arrested Wednesday. If convicted,
Mr. Kim faces a maximum seven years in prison.   

joongangdaily.joins.com




Copyright by Joins.com, Inc. Terms of Use |
*****************************************************************
 5 UPI: North Korea mired in nuclear standoff - 

(United Press International)
 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
  December 30, 2004 			   

By Jong-Heon Lee UPI Correspondent

Seoul, South Korea, Dec. 30 (UPI) -- It was not a good year for 
North Korea. Throughout 2004, North Korea was under strong 
international pressure to give up its nuclear ambitions, with 
military tension running high on the Korean peninsula. 

The repressive regime led by reclusive leader Kim Jong Il had to 
further tighten control over its hungry population for fear that 
increased threats from outside could spark internal revolt or 
opposition to the communist leadership.

 With no signs of a revival of the country's tattered economy, 
cracks were starting to show in the Kim family's control over 
North Korea. Leaflets and posters against Kim's rule have 
appeared in the watertight society.

 According to intelligence sources in Seoul, there was internal 
strife over who would be the next leader of the "hermit kingdom." 
The death of Kim's wife, Ko Yong Hi, in the summer fueled a power 
struggle among those backing Ko's son and others supporting Kim's 
other son with his former wife.

 In the wake of the internal struggle, Kim's brother-in-law and 
lifetime confidant, Jang Song Taek, was purged, an apparent bid 
by Kim to reinforce the country's dynastic rule and pave the way 
for another father-to-son power transfer.

 Kim is set to lose additional close aides. They include Jo Myong 
Rok, the No. 2 man in the country's powerful military only behind 
Kim, and Yon Hyong Muk, vice chairman of the almighty National 
Defense Commission, both suffering worsening heath conditions.

 The two "first-generation revolution" leaders in their 70s have 
led the military, the backbone of the country's totalitarian rule 
since its 1948 foundation.

 In April, two trains loaded with chemicals exploded in the 
border of Ryongchon, killing more than 160 people and injuring 
another 1,300.

 Kim barely escaped a catastrophe as his special train passed 
through Ryongchon station on his way back from Beijing just hours 
before the explosion, which triggered speculation that the 
accident may be linked to an assassination attempt or confusion 
surrounding his security.
z Outside the country, Kim witnessed the demise of Iraq's Saddam 
Hussein a year ago. With Hussein ousted, North Korea and Iran are 
the two remaining members of what U.S. President George W. Bush 
once dubbed the "axis of evil." North Korea is also on the U.S. 
list of countries that sponsor terrorism.

 Huh Moon-young, a North Korea expert at Seoul's government-run 
think tank, said the seizure of Saddam by U.S. forces was a 
reminder to Kim that he could be the next target of the U.S.-led 
"war against terror."

 When the U.S.-led battles started in Iraq, Kim vanished from 
public view for six weeks, sparking speculation he was hiding in 
a bunker for fear of attacks.

 In another blow to Kim -- who has been engaged in a yearlong 
nuclear standoff with the Bush administration -- Libyan leader 
Moammar Gadhafi admitted his country had weapons of mass 
destruction and vowed to renounce them. Iran also promised to 
allow international inspectors to check its nuclear facilities.

 Kim's hope of cutting a better deal with the Democratic 
administration in Washington was dashed as Bush was re-elected in 
November.

 Fears of a possible U.S. strike prompted North Korea to 
intensify its efforts for a diplomatic resolution to the nuclear 
standoff, while wooing support from China and Russia, which are 
involved in the six-party talks on North Korea's nuclear issue 
along with the United States, Japan and South Korea.

 The nations have held three rounds of the six-way talks since 
last year, but no significant progress has been made, raising 
suspicions that North Korea stalled international nuclear talks 
to buy time to develop atomic bombs.

 A fourth round of meetings planned for September did not happen, 
as North Korea refused to attend due to what it called the U.S. 
"hostile" policy against Pyongyang.

 During the three rounds of talks, the Bush administration 
demanded the "complete, verifiable, irreversible dismantlement," 
or CVID, of all of the North's nuclear programs, ruling out any 
rewards for "nuclear blackmail."

 North Korea, for its part, insisted that any dismantling of its 
nuclear program must come with simultaneous concessions, namely 
badly needed food and energy aid and security guarantees from the 
United States that it would not invade the isolated communist 
state.

 Softening its stance, the United States recently proposed a 
three-month "preparatory period" for North Korea to dismantle its 
nuclear programs and offered incentives, including a supply of 
fuel oil. But North Korea has reacted negatively to the U.S. 
proposal, saying it is "unscientific and unrealistic."

 In dealing with the U.S. anti-nuclear efforts, North Korea has 
maintained a "strategy of ambiguity," said Yoon Duk-min, a 
researcher at the Seoul-based Institute for Foreign Affairs and 
National Security.

 Pyongyang has asserted its right to have atomic weapons, but 
remained ambiguous about whether they exist, causing confusion 
among U.S.-led allies over how to deal with its nuclear 
ambitions, he said.

[UPI Perspectives]                                                                    
*****************************************************************
 6 YWS: N.K. Vows to Counter U.S. 'Hostile Policy' With Nuclear Deterrent 

YONHAPNEWS WORLD SERVICE::ENGLISH NEWS
 
  2004/12/30 22:56 KST   

SEOUL, Dec. 30 (Yonhap) -- North Korea's top envoy in Russia 
vowed Thursday that his country will further boost its nuclear 
deterrent force if the United States keeps its "hostile policy" 
toward it by cooking up nuclear and human rights issues.

 The North has routinely threatened to reinforce its nuclear 
deterrent capability to thwart a possible U.S. invasion.

 
				   

	 				 
  

		 			   


	   

*****************************************************************
 7 Guardian Unlimited Lobbyists Study Bush's Cabinet Nominees
 
From the Associated Press        

[UP] 

Thursday December 30, 2004 8:16 AM

AP Photo WX101 

By SHARON THEIMER 

Associated Press Writer 

WASHINGTON (AP) - Long before they start their new jobs,
President Bush's Cabinet picks are getting close attention from
lobbyists who follow the smallest moves from start to finish -
even urging senators to ask specific questions at confirmation
hearings. 

The most influential lobbyists get calls from the White House
discreetly seeking their views and background information on
those Bush considers for top jobs. 

While many lobbies do not hesitate to suggest names, they often
shy away from aggressive campaigning. Besides the risk of
dooming a Cabinet prospect by making him or her seem
self-promoting, there is also the danger a group's favorite
won't be chosen by Bush and the person who is will find out the
lobby really wanted someone else. 

``We tend to talk with the White House about the kind of person
that we would urge him to appoint and he selects the actual
individual,'' said Steve Bartlett, president of the Financial
Services Roundtable, whose members include banks and other
financial-services companies. 

Securities and Exchange Commission appointments are the lobby's
top priority for 2005, Bartlett said. ``Most of our member
companies believe the SEC has become quite heavy-handed,'' he
said, adding that they hope the next round of appointments leads
to a ``more balanced course.'' 

Some see the weeks between an official's nomination and Senate
confirmation hearing as a more important lobbying opportunity
than Bush's deliberations over whom to pick. 

Jim Albertine, a lobbyist and former head of the American League
of Lobbyists, will press senators on key committees to ask some
nominees specific questions about issues that both interest
lawmakers and affect his clients, including chiropractors,
superconductor companies and businesses involved in technology,
trade and national security. 

``Not only ask a question, but in fact maybe elicit some sort of
commitment from the nominee prior to their confirmation that
they would look into it,'' Albertine said. ``If you have a
senator in support and who believes also in a particular issue
and asks the nominee about it in any particular area, I think
it's very important because then he or she is on the record and
you can later point to that record when you're moving your issue
forward.'' 

That lobbying technique can backfire, Albertine added. ``You
have to be careful that you not only know what the question is -
you pretty much know what the answer is going to be,'' he said. 

Dan Danner, a lobbyist for the National Federation of
Independent Business, said the small-business lobby is most
interested in Bush's choices for top jobs at Treasury, Commerce,
Labor and the Small Business Administration. 

``Each of those, we do probably what others do and look for
opportunities to weigh in with friends and acquaintances at the
White House and then presidential personnel, et cetera, on
candidates,'' Danner said. 

After nominees are named, NFIB is typically among groups White
House officials will look to for help briefing them on key
issues before confirmation hearings begin. A proposal to allow
trade associations to provide health insurance for their
members' employees is one issue on which the group will likely
tutor Cabinet nominees, Danner said. 

High-priority positions for special interests often are obvious.
For the National Cattlemen's Beef Association, they include the
agriculture secretary, while the Nuclear Energy Institute is
most interested in Bush's picks to head the Energy Department
and Nuclear Regulatory Commission, for example. 

But for some, the interest in Bush's new hires goes two or three
levels below the secretary - or deeper. 

``Certainly Energy,'' said Luke Popovich, spokesman for the
National Mining Association. ``We have an interest, obviously,
in the fossil-fuels assistant secretary there because obviously
that is a position which should be an articulate and forceful
advocate for clean-coal utilization.'' 

Lobbying is needed even in an energy industry-friendly
administration like Bush's because there's always competition
among the various types of energy companies for federal dollars,
Popovich said. 

The American Farm Bureau Federation's interests go far beyond
the agriculture secretary to include the heads of the Interior
and Transportation departments, deputy secretaries,
undersecretaries, the heads of the Fish and Wildlife Service and
the Food and Drug Administration and various regional officials. 

``The administration will often ask us, and the last one did as
well, for a check: 'If this guy gets the job are you guys going
to go ballistic or are you going to stand up and cheer?'''
executive director Mark Maslyn said. ``They oftentimes don't
know these people and they want to know how it's going to be
received.'' 

Once a person is nominated, the federation typically sends an
endorsement letter to the Senate committee holding confirmation
hearings, Maslyn said. 

Popovich said that after four years with Bush as president,
effective lobbies shouldn't need to conduct a full-court press
to weigh in on nominations. 

``You should have established a relationship where it's
sufficient to say, 'You might want to consider so-and-so,''' he
said. 

      Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2004
 
*****************************************************************
 8 KR: Neo-cons can't escape responsibility for their Iraq miscalculations

KR Washington Bureau 

| 12/28/2004 | 

By Joseph L. Galloway

 Knight Ridder Newspapers

WASHINGTON - The most curious turn of the worm this season is the 
attack by the neo-conservatives on Defense Secretary Donald H. 
Rumsfeld for the failures in Iraq. 

It should be noted that until now Rumsfeld was the darling of 
that same bunch. He hired a batch of them as his most trusted 
aides and assistants in the Office of the Secretary of Defense. 
Paul Wolfowitz as his undersecretary. Douglas Feith as his chief 
of planning. He installed the dean of the pack, Richard Perle, as 
chairman of the Defense Policy Board for a time. 

The doyenne and room mother of the whole bunch, Midge Decter, 
wrote a fawning biography of Rumsfeld titled "Rumsfeld: A 
Personal Portrait." 

Now, suddenly, the voice of the neo-conservative movement, 
William Kristol, editor of The Standard, suggests that Rumsfeld 
has fouled up everything in Iraq and ought to be fired for his 
failures. Ditto, writes Tom Donnelly of the right-thinking 
American Enterprise Institute. 

Rumsfeld himself was never a neo-conservative. He just found them 
useful as he took over the Pentagon for the second time. Clearly 
the neo-cons found Rumsfeld useful as well as they pushed their 
ideas on transforming the Middle East. 

So what happened? Why is Rumsfeld being stabbed in the back by 
those he trusted the most to back his play? By the very people 
who have argued for years in favor of taking out Saddam Hussein, 
installing democracy and creating a bully pulpit, and the 
military bases, from which the Middle East would be weaned from 
dictatorship and an implacable hatred of Israel and the United 
States. 

Simple. They want someone else to be blamed besides them for 
fouling up their marvelous plans and schemes - someone who is a 
handy lightning rod and who is NOT a card-carrying 
neo-conservative. So who better than Rumsfeld? 

Now those folks who cheered Rumsfeld, and the Bush 
administration, the loudest of all nearly two years ago are 
marching behind such grumpy Republicans as Sen. John McCain of 
Arizona and Sen. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska in laying much of the 
blame at the feet of Rumsfeld. 

The sharpening attacks on the defense secretary as the old year 
fades and the new year approaches prompted the one man who has a 
vote on Rumsfeld's survival, President Bush, to step forward and 
praise him. That, in turn, prompted a semi-spirited defense of 
the secretary by Republican congressional leaders. 

Rumsfeld himself, who has basically no people skills at all, 
found it politic to spend the holidays with the soldiers and 
Marines in Iraq. He was even pictured wearing an apron and 
serving up turkey and dressing in an Army mess hall in the 
desert. How could anyone think, he asked, that he was not totally 
committed to providing those troops everything they need for 
survival in a bad place? 

We do not for a minute suggest that Rumsfeld be let off the hook, 
be absolved of responsibility for gross miscalculations and gross 
lack of planning in the Iraq war and, especially, the post-war 
period. But neither do we absolve the neo-conservatives for 
shooting the horse they've been riding the last four years. 

They were the loudest proponents of an attack on Iraq from the 
beginning. It was the neo-conservatives who wanted to unleash the 
dogs of war. It was they who championed Ahmad Chalabi and his 
Iraq National Congress and saw that their bogus defector tales of 
Saddam's nuclear weapons program and his stockpiles of chemical 
and biological weapons gained attention and traction. 

They believed Chalabi and the INC's predictions that American 
troops would be welcomed with showers of rose petals and there 
would be no need for an American occupation. Ergo, no need for 
anyone to actually plan to secure the country in the wake of 
victory or lay the groundwork for rebuilding a nation whose 
water, power and sewer services were falling apart before we 
bombed and shelled them. 

When Rumsfeld goes, so too should every neo-conservative who 
squirmed his way into a Pentagon sinecure. They must also bear 
responsibility for a war that so far has cost nearly $200 billion 
and the lives of more than 1,300 American troops and has damaged 
America's standing in the world. 

They cannot be allowed to load all the blame on Rumsfeld and 
scoot away to lick their wounds and dream again their large 
dreams of conquest and empire and pre-emptive strikes. 

ABOUT THE WRITER 

Joseph L. Galloway is the senior military correspondent for 
Knight Ridder Newspapers and co-author of the national 
best-seller "We Were Soldiers Once ... and Young." Readers may 
write to him at: Knight Ridder Washington Bureau, 700 12th St. 
N.W., Suite 1000, Washington, D.C. 20005-3994. 

*****************************************************************
 9 Washington Post: Possible Uranium Sources 

(washingtonpost.com)
 
 
Terrorists could obtain uranium for building a bomb from one of
more than 130 research reactors worldwide that use highly
enriched uranium as fuel. While a full list was unavailable, the
Energy Department has targeted 105 research reactors worldwide
for conversion to a type of fuel that would be difficult to use
in weapons. A third of them have been at least partly converted.
 

[Possible Uranium Sources] 
SOURCES: Nuclear Threat Initiative, Project on Managing the
Atom, General Accounting Office, How Stuff Works




 BY CRISTINA RIVERO AND LAURA STANTON  THE WASHINGTON POST 


© 2004 The Washington Post Company [ border=] 
*****************************************************************
 10 A Sun: Editorial: Nuke weapons research can't be forgotten

Dec 30, 2004
 
The old "duck and cover" days of the Cold War are thankfully long 
gone. Americans no longer live in fear of a nuclear missile 
attack from the Soviet Union, and in fact Russia is now 
considered a country that is friendly to the United States.
 
But it is dangerous to be complacent in matters of national 
security. There are reports that Russia is on the verge of 
fielding its first new nuclear weapons system since the end of 
the Soviet era — and it might be testing a maneuverable warhead 
designed to overcome anti-missile defenses.
 
We in America have tended to think of the nuclear threat as being 
from rogue nations like North Korea or from terror groups, but 
Russia's actions are a reminder that the nuclear arms race is not 
necessarily over, something that was confirmed by Russian 
President Vladimir Putin.
 
“We have not only conducted tests of the latest nuclear rocket 
systems, I am sure that in the coming years we will deploy them,” 
Putin recently said at a meeting of his top military officials. 
“Moreover, these will be things which do not exist and are 
unlikely to exist in other nuclear powers.” Putin also vowed that 
Russia “will continue to persistently develop our armed forces on 
the whole, including its nuclear arsenal potential.”
 
Some might dismiss such statements as mere bravado, meant to 
recover some of the country’s lost prestige. But Putin’s 
statement should shake Americans awake about the dormant status 
of U.S. nuclear programs, and spur debate about the wisdom of 
complying with a nuclear test ban treaty, never ratified, that 
limits our ability to modernize an aging nuclear stockpile. 

Without testing weapons in real world conditions, the United 
States must rely on computer simulations and other 
less-than-definitive means of monitoring their reliability and 
safety. The U.S. hasn’t fielded a new nuclear warhead since the 
late 1980s. It hasn’t conducted a nuclear test since 1992, in 
deference to the never-ratified treaty. There has also been 
opposition to development of a nuclear defense system, the 
so-call Star Wars program.
 
Many of the warheads and delivery systems in the U.S. stockpile 
are beyond their design life expectancy. And while a “stockpile 
stewardship” program strives to ensure that the essentially 
moth-balled arsenal remains a safe and credible deterrent, its 
success is far from assured. 

Yet many in Congress remain in denial about the need to maintain 
an active nuclear weapons program. The same week Putin was 
bragging about Russia’s next generation of nukes, Congress 
eliminated from the fiscal 2005 budget all funding for research 
into a new generation of U.S. nuclear weapons.
 
California Sen. Dianne Feinstein called the funding cut a 
“victory for those of us who believe the United States sends the 
wrong signal to the rest of the world by reopening the nuclear 
door.” But the “nuclear door” never really closed and a global 
arms race continues, whether or not Feinstein or others accept 
it.
 
America has never intended to use its nuclear program as an 
offensive weapon, but it is only prudent for defense purposes 
that it be maintained at a high technological level. That means 
there must be ongoing research and development even if, as we 
hope, it is never necessary for the weapons to be used. 
  
  Copyright, The Sun, a Freedom Newspapers of Southwestern
Arizona company. 
All rights reserved. | 2055 Arizona Ave. Yuma AZ 85364 
(928) 783-3333 FAX 343-1009 
Editorial Content: 
Design & Maintenance:   
*****************************************************************
 11 Guardian Unlimited: A state of chaos
 
George Bush has purged the last of his father's senior advisers, 
handing over control to his neocon allies             
 		
Sidney Blumenthal 
Thursday December 30, 2004
 		

The transition to President Bush's second term, filled with 
backstage betrayals, plots and pathologies, would make for an 
excellent chapter of I, Claudius. To begin with, Bush has 
unceremoniously and without public acknowledgement dumped Brent 
Scowcroft, his father's closest associate and friend, as chairman 
of the foreign intelligence advisory board. The elder Bush's 
national security adviser was the last remnant of traditional 
Republican realism permitted to exist within the administration. 

At the same time the vice president, Dick Cheney, has imposed his 
authority over secretary of state designate Condoleezza Rice, in 
order to blackball Arnold Kanter, former under secretary of state 
to James Baker and partner in the Scowcroft Group, as a candidate 
for deputy secretary of state. 

"Words like 'incoherent' come to mind," one top state department 
official told me about Rice's effort to organise her office. She 
is unable to assert herself against Cheney, her wobbliness a sign 
that the state department will mostly be sidelined as a power 
centre for the next four years. 

Rice may have wanted to appoint as a deputy her old friend Robert 
Blackwill, whom she had put in charge of Iraq at the NSC. But 
Blackwill, a mercurial personality, allegedly assaulted a female 
US foreign service officer in Kuwait, and was forced to resign in 
November. Secretary of state Colin Powell and his deputy, Richard 
Armitage, presented the evidence against Blackwill to Rice. 
"Condi only dismissed him after Powell and Armitage threatened to 
go public," a state department source said. 

Meanwhile, key senior state department professionals, such as 
Marc Grossman, assistant secretary of state for European affairs, 
have abruptly resigned. According to colleagues who have chosen 
to remain (at least for now), they foresee the damage that will 
be done as Rice is charged with whipping the state department 
into line with the White House and Pentagon neocons. Rice has 
pleaded with Armitage to stay on, but "he colourfully said he 
would not", a state department official told me. Rice's radio 
silence when her former mentor, Scowcroft, was defenestrated was 
taken by the state department professionals as a sign of things 
to come. 

Bush has long resented his father's alter ego. Scowcroft 
privately rebuked him for his Iraq follies more than a year ago - 
an incident that has not previously been reported. Bush "did not 
receive it well", said a friend of Scowcroft. 

In A World Transformed, the elder Bush's 1998 memoir, co-authored 
with Scowcroft, they explained why Baghdad was not seized in the 
first Gulf war: "Had we gone the invasion route, the US could 
conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile 
land." In the run-up to the Iraq war, Scowcroft again warned of 
the danger. Bush's conservative biographers Peter and Rachel 
Schweizer, quoted the president as responding: "Scowcroft has 
become a pain in the ass in his old age." And they wrote: 
"Although he never went public with them, the president's own 
father shared many of Scowcroft's concerns." 

The rejection of Kanter is a compound rejection of Scowcroft and 
of James Baker - the tough, results-oriented operator who as 
White House chief of staff saved the Reagan presidency from its 
ideologues, managed the elder Bush's campaign in 1988, and was 
summoned in 2000 to rescue Junior in Florida. In his 1995 memoir, 
Baker observed that the administration's "overriding strategic 
concern in the [first] Gulf war was to avoid what we often 
referred to as the Lebanonisation of Iraq, which we believed 
would create a geopolitical nightmare." 

In private, Baker is scathing about the current occupant of the 
White House. Now the one indispensable creator of the Bush family 
political fortunes is repudiated. 

Republican elders who warned of endless war are purged. Those who 
advised Bush that Saddam was building nuclear weapons, that with 
a light military force the operation would be a "cakewalk", and 
that capturing Baghdad was "mission accomplished", are rewarded. 

The outgoing secretary of state, fighting his last battle, is 
leaking stories to the Washington Post about how his advice went 
unheeded. Secretary of defence Donald Rumsfeld, whose heart beats 
with the compassion of a crocodile, clings to his job by staging 
Florence Nightingale-like tableaux of hand-holding of the wounded 
while declaiming into the desert wind about "victory". Since the 
election, 203 US soldiers have been killed and 1,674 wounded. 

· Sidney Blumenthal, a former senior adviser to President 
Clinton, is Washington bureau chief of salon.com 

[UP] 

Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2004
*****************************************************************
 12 Indo-Asian News Service: Rao's death opens India's nuclear cupboard 

India-Defence-Nuclear          -> 

New Delhi, Dec 30 (IANS) A week after his death, it is becoming 
increasingly clear that former prime minister P.V. Narasimha Rao 
was the man who took India's nuclear weaponisation to the 
threshold - before backing off. 

Sources privy to the preparations that preceded India's nuclear 
tests in 1998 that stunned the world corroborated former prime 
minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee's revelation that it is Rao, who 
died here Dec 23, who should get the credit for the tests.
 
Vajpayee said Rao told him about the near final preparations his 
government had made to conduct the tests but stopped at the 
threshold and urged him to go ahead and carry them out to the 
logical conclusion.
 
Vajpayee explained his silence over Rao's role saying that he had 
been requested by his predecessor not to say anything about it. 
Now that he was no more, he thought it was only fair to give 
credit where it was due.
 
Thus the reality of the Indian bomb is that the country's two 
main political parties, the Congress and the Bharatiya Janata 
Party (BJP), had played an equally important role in it.
 
India's first prime minister Jawaharlal Nehru, an internationally 
acclaimed pacifist and a proponent of peace and disarmament, did 
not give up the country's right to nuclear weapons.
 
When China conducted its first test in 1964, the ruling Congress, 
at its plenary session in Durgapur the next year, passed a 
resolution demanding that India develop its own bomb.
 
In 1974, then prime minister Indira Gandhi conducted what was 
called a "peaceful nuclear explosion," in the Pokhran desert in 
Rajasthan that was nicknamed Pokhran I. 

Rajiv Gandhi, who succeeded her, decided that India must become a 
nuclear power and the programme remained on track during the 
tenures of his successors - V.P. Singh, Chandra Shekhar, H.D. 
Deve Gowda and I.K. Gujral.
 
When Rao took over in 1991 as the Cold War era ended he was 
confronted with the same problem his predecessors faced on the 
nuclear question - how to proceed with the programme in the face 
of the relentless pressure from the US to cap it.
 
Despite the pressure Rao, according to the sources, told his then 
foreign secretary, J.N. Dixit, who is now national security 
advisor to Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, to buy time in the 
various protracted international negotiations on nuclear 
non-proliferation issues so that India could develop and test its 
bomb.
 
The two together bought valuable time for Indian scientists to 
prepare for a programme of credible nuclear tests, including the 
hydrogen bomb, without directly confronting the US.
 
The D-day was supposed to be in mid-December 1995. All 
preparations were complete and the nuclear devices were in place 
in the L-shaped hole in the desert. And New Delhi was all ready 
to face the international outcry that was sure to greet the 
tests.
 
US satellites captured the preparations for the tests and The New 
York Times reported it on Dec 15.
 
India vacillated for two days before declaring that it had no 
intention to test.
 
The sources would not however say why Rao did not still go ahead 
with the tests, particularly since he could have reaped a 
political windfall that would have surely brought him and his 
party another term in office and roughed out the international 
outrage, like Vajpayee did.
 
According to a senior official who was privy to some of the 
goings-on at the time, Rao became a victim of "moral reticence" 
and backed off. With elections also a year away, he did not want 
to be seen as going in for the tests as a "political gimmick" to 
win votes.
 
Moreover, sections of the government did not think it would be 
able to withstand the economic fallout from the sanctions that 
would inevitably follow such tests, giving the precarious balance 
of payments position obtaining at that time. 

According to the official, even I.K. Gujral, who was prime 
minister for a brief while in 1997-98, had toyed with the idea of 
capitalizing on the preparations to test a bomb and thereby 
earning valuable brownie points for his shaky government, but was 
dissuaded from doing so by his senior aides who felt his 
government was not strong enough to handle its political and 
diplomatic fallout. 

"There was no way the Vajpayee government could have gone ahead 
with the stunning tests if the preparations had not been 
completed by the previous Rao administration," said the official 
who spoke on condition of anonymity.
 
The scientists told Vajpayee that all they needed was two weeks 
and a murky sky to cloud the final preparations from prying 
satellites and that's how the first test was conducted on May 11, 
1998, two months after Vajpayee took over as prime minister for 
the second time. 

Indo-Asian News Service

For clarifications/queries, please contact IANS NEWS DESK at 
2616-5778/8546, 2617-3369 or mail us at support@eians.com  
*****************************************************************
 13 Daily Times: Narasimah – the true father of India’s nuclear plan 

Friday, December 31, 2004 
	   
By Iftikhar Gilani

NEW DELHI: India, it has been revealed, began developing its 
nuclear capability between 1991 and 1996 under the watchful eye 
of late prime minister PV Narasimha Rao, who initiated the 
cutting of the country’s defence budget to give priority to its 
“nuclear deterrent”. 

This hitherto unknown fact rests in the unpublished portion of 
the Kargil Committee Report and has been disclosed by its 
chairman and former national security advisor K Subrahmanyam.

The report also details former prime minister Atal Behari 
Vajpayee giving posthumous credit to Rao for securing India’s 
nuclear status, describing him as the “true father of the 
country’s nuclear programme”. 

Writing in the Chandigarh-based newspaper The Tribune, 
Subrahmanyam reveals the secret account of Rao’s role in making 
operational the country’s first nuclear weapon during his 
administration, a fact he himself disclosed to the committee. 
Subrahmanyam says that this claim has been “supported by the 
account of VP Singh (former PM) in the Kargil Report”.

As Subrahmanyam explains, the Kargil Committee had urged the 
government to release the entire report, including all annexures, 
since these “had already been screened by the committee to ensure 
that no material that would hurt the country’s interests had been 
included”. 

However, the annexures recording Rao’s role in evolving India’s 
nuclear policy had not been released by the government. 

Subrahmanyam says that it is not surprising that Vajpayee’s 
National Democratic Alliance (NDA) government did not support the 
publishing of the Kargil Report’s annexures “since the Rao 
account would have appropriated most of the credit for nuclear 
weapon development to the Congress”. 

He adds that any belated publication at this stage would play 
into the hands of the United Progressive Alliance (UPA). 

Subrahmanyam reveals that when the Kargil Committee wrote to Rao 
requesting a meeting, the late prime minister agreed only to a 
private meeting. When he asked about the nature of the talks, 
Subrahmanyam replied that Kashmir and the nuclear issue would be 
on the agenda. 

Rao was not ready to discuss the nuclear policy issue but agreed, 
nevertheless, to talk to Subrahmanyam in his individual capacity. 
When Subrahmanyam pressed Rao on his obligation to future 
generations to disclose his account of the country’s nuclear 
policy evolution during his prime ministership, Rao replied that 
he had an obligation to one person only, and that he had 
fulfilled the task. 

That person was Vajpayee, who, as his successor, Rao had felt 
duty-bound to debrief. The Kargil Committee secured a meeting 
with Rao after Subrahmanyam had indicated to his three colleagues 
- George Verghese, General Hazari and Satish Chandra - that they 
should not raise the nuclear question but remain focused on 
Kashmir. 

“At the end of the discussion George Verghese asked him why in 
view of the Kashmir situation he had outlined, was the defence 
budget cut during his time. Rao replied that was because the 
nuclear deterrent was under development and that had priority. 
Then he proceeded to tell us on his own, how the nuclear arsenal 
was operationalised only during his premiership,” writes 
Subrahmanyam.

Following the meeting, a transcript of the talks, including Rao’s 
disclosures on the status of the nuclear programme under his 
tenure, was duly sent to him. Subrahmanyam admits that he 
wondered whether Rao would cut out these portions, but confirms 
that he simply signed the document and returned it intact. 

Subrahmanyam goes on to say that during the period of Indira and 
Rajiv Gandhi, the two senior leaders of the Congress who were in 
on the nuclear picture were R Venkataraman (who later became 
president) and Rao himself. 

He says that the credit for issuing orders to assemble the 
nuclear bomb goes to Rajiv, adding that it was Indira Gndhi who 
restarted the weapon development programme after Morarji Desai 
halted it. Yet, he concluded, it was Rao who rendered it 
operational. 

Subrahmanyam points out that while Rao was updating Vajpayee on 
the progress of the country’s nuclear programme, he was under 
tremendous pressure from the United States to roll it back. 

“The evidence of this is that there was no, repeat no pressure 
from the BJP in parliament on the nuclear issue, though there was 
a widespread impression in the country that the programme had 
been slowed down under US pressure,” says the Kargil Committee 
chief. 

Daily Times - All Rights Reserved Site developed and hosted by 
WorldCALL Internet Solutions
*****************************************************************
 14 ITAR-TASS: There were several non-nuclear test explosions in Russia in 2004

29.12.2004, 16.35

MOSCOW, December 29 (Itar-Tass) - The Federal Agency for Atomic
Energy (Rosatom) had carried out a series of successful
non-nuclear experimental explosions in 2004 and had fully
implemented the State Defence Order, an Agency official told
Itar-Tass on Wednesday, summing up the results of the work done
in the outgoing year. 

Noting that the Rosatom nuclear armaments complex had “fully
coped with the output of the goods stipulated in the State
Defence Order”, the official did not specify, “for quite
understandable reasons”, the nomenclature of the manufactured
products and their volumes. 

However, “a regular series of non-nuclear experimental
explosions were triggered at Russia’s Central Testing Ground on
Novaya Zemlya” in accordance with the programme to guarantee the
dependability and safety of Russian nuclear weapons, the
official stated. “Control checks and laboratory tests had
confirmed the dependability and safety of Russia’s nuclear
arsenal”, he stressed. 

Touching on problems of the country’s ecology and radiation
safety in the course of his meeting with reporters last Friday,
Alexander Rumyantsev, the Rosatom head, also noted the
successful implementation of the 2004 programme to scrap
decommissioned nuclear-propelled submarines in the Northwestern
and Far Eastern parts of the country. 

“Reactor units of seventeen nuclear-propelled subs were
mothballed afloat, twelve trips of railway trains were carried
out to take spent nuclear fuel to the ‘Mayak’ plant, and two
nuclear technology maintenance ships were readied for temporary
storage afloat”. Moreover, he added, 

“Rosatom enterprises had processed 874 cubic metres of liquid
radioactive wastes and 1.588 thousand tons of solid radioactive
wastes to rehabilitate the coastal radiation-hazardous
installations in the Northwestern part of Russia”. 

All this work, Rumyantsev noted, “is being done by highly
skilled specialists with the observance of the strictest safety
precautions”. “Our duty to the country’s population and to the
international community is to prevent the slightest possibility
of any dangerous situations occurring in the nuclear industry,”
he stressed. 

© ITAR-TASS. All rights reserved. You undertake not to copy,
*****************************************************************
 15 Washington Post: The Path to a Nuclear Weapon, Simple Bomb Designs

                      (washingtonpost.com)
 
Terrorists would have to overcome enormous technical and 
logistical obstacles before they could set off a nuclear bomb in 
a U.S. city. Counterterrorism and nuclear experts say the danger 
is more distant than immediate.
 

[The Path to a Nuclear Weapon] 
Simple Bomb Designs
 
A gun-type fission device, such as the "Little Boy" bomb dropped
on Hiroshima, would be the most likely design used by a nuclear
terrorist. An implosion bomb, such as the "Fat Man" bomb dropped
on Nagasaki, would be more difficult to make.
 

[Simple Bomb Designs] 
SOURCES: Nuclear Threat Initiative, Project on Managing the
Atom, General Accounting Office, How Stuff Works | By Cristina
Rivero and Laura Stanton  The Washington Post 

© 2004 The Washington Post Company [ border=] 
*****************************************************************
 16 [NukeNet] text of nrc's decision on oyster creek license
 
Date: Wed, 29 Dec 2004 14:55:49 -0800

 
<x-flowed>
NukeNet Anti-Nuclear Network (nukenet@energyjustice.net)



[Federal Register: December 29, 2004 (Volume 69, Number 249)]
[Notices]
[Page 78054-78055]
 From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr29de04-140]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Docket No. 50-219]


Amergen Energy Company, LLC; Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating
Station; Exemption

1.0 Background

     AmerGen Energy Company, LLC (the licensee), is the holder of
Facility Operating License No. DPR-16, which authorizes operation of
the Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station (OCNGS), a boiling-water
reactor facility, located in Ocean County, New Jersey. The license
provides, among other things, that the facility is subject to all
rules, regulations, and orders of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (NRC, the Commission) now or hereafter in effect. The
current operating license for OCNGS expires on April 9, 2009.
     By letter dated August 10, 2004, AmerGen informed the Commission
that it had determined that it would seek renewal of its operating
license for OCNGS, but that it was unable until recently to decide to
seek license renewal for OCNGS because of events beyond its control.
AmerGen was jointly owned by Exelon and British Energy plc (BE), until
December 2003. The application stated that for several years, BE had
faced financial difficulties, and in December 2003, BE sold its share
of AmerGen to Exelon, thereby making AmerGen a wholly owned subsidiary
of Exelon Generation Company, LLC. The application stated that AmerGen
was not in a position to make a reasonable and sound business decision
to pursue license renewal at OCNGS due to facility ownership issues,
and BE's financial restraints. AmerGen stated that, in light of these
and other factors, it could not prepare and file a sufficient license
renewal application by April 9, 2004, in order to meet the 5-year time
period specified in Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10
CFR) Part 2, Section 109(b), ``Effect of timely renewal application.''

2.0 Request/Action

     Section 109(b) of 10 CFR Part 2 states: ``If the licensee of a
nuclear power plant licensed under 10 CFR 50.21(b) or 50.22 files a
sufficient application for renewal of an operating license at least 5
years prior to the expiration of the existing license, the existing
license will not be deemed to have expired until the application has
been finally determined.'' This requirement for license renewal
applications was established in December 1991 in conjunction with the
publication of the final license renewal rule, 10 CFR Part 54,
``Requirements for Renewal of Operating Licenses for Nuclear Power
Plants'' (56 FR 64943).
     AmerGen's application requested an exemption from the timing
requirements of 10 CFR 2.109(b), for submittal of the OCNGS license
renewal application. The exemption would allow the submittal of the
renewal application with less than 5 years remaining prior to
expiration of the operating license while maintaining the protection of
the timely renewal provision in 10 CFR 2.109(b). AmerGen further
requested that the exemption be issued at this time, subject to the
condition that it becomes effective only if, 6 months prior to
expiration of the existing facility operating license, the license
renewal proceeding is ongoing and a renewed operating license for OCNGS
has not been issued by the NRC and, only if by that time, the NRC staff
has issued both an OCNGS draft supplemental environmental impact
statement (SEIS) and an OCNGS safety evaluation report (SER) with open
items.

3.0 Discussion

     Pursuant to 10 CFR 54.15, exemptions from the requirements of Part
54 are governed by Section 50.12. Pursuant to the requirements of 10
CFR 50.12, the Commission may grant an exemption from the requirements
of Part 50 when the exemption is (1) authorized by law, will not
present an undue risk to the public health and safety, and is
consistent with the common defense and security, and (2) special
circumstances are present as defined in 10 CFR 50.12(a)(2). In its
application, AmerGen stated that OCNGS met two special circumstances:
10 CFR 50.12(a)(2)(ii), ``[a]pplication of the regulation in the
particular circumstances would not serve the underlying purpose of the
rule or is not necessary to achieve the underlying purpose of the
rule;'' and 10 CFR 50.12(a)(2)(iii), ``[c]ompliance would result in
undue hardship or other costs that are significantly in excess of those
contemplated when the regulation was adopted, or that are significantly
in excess of those incurred by others similarly situated.''
     The purpose of 10 CFR 2.109(b), as it is applied to nuclear power
reactors licensed by the NRC, is to implement the ``timely renewal''
doctrine of Section 9(b) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5
U.S.C. Sec.  558(c), which states:

     When the licensee has made timely and sufficient application for
a renewal or a new license in accordance with agency rules, a

[[Page 78055]]

license with reference to an activity of a continuing nature does
not expire until the application has been finally determined by the
agency.

     The underlying purpose of this ``timely renewal'' provision in the
APA is to protect a licensee who is engaged in an ongoing licensed
activity and who has complied with agency rules in applying for a
renewed or new license from facing license expiration as the result of
delays in the administrative process.
     On December 13, 1991, the NRC published the final license renewal
rule, 10 CFR Part 54, with associated changes to 10 CFR Parts 2, 50,
and 140 in the Federal Register (56 FR 64943). The statement of
considerations (SOC) discussed the basis for establishing the latest
date for filing license renewal applications and the timely renewal
doctrine (56 FR 64962). The SOC stated that:

     Because the review of a renewal application will involve a
review of many complex technical issues, the NRC estimates that the
technical review would take approximately 2 years. Any necessary
hearing could likely add an additional year or more. Therefore, in
the proposed rule, the Commission modified Sec.  2.109 to require
that nuclear power plant operating license renewal applications be
submitted at least 3 years prior to their expiration in order to
take advantage of the timely renewal doctrine.
     No specific comment was received concerning the proposal to add
a 3-year provision for the timely renewal provision for license
renewal. The current regulations require licensees to submit
decommissioning plans and related financial assurance information on
or about 5 years prior to the expiration of their operating
licenses. The Commission has concluded that, for consistency, the
deadline for submittal of a license renewal application should be 5
years prior to the expiration of the current operating license. The
timely renewal provisions of Sec.  2.109 now reflect the decision
that a 5-year time limit is more appropriate.

     AmerGen's application stated that the OCGNS license renewal
application would be submitted in July 2005, and that application of
the 5-year term in 10 CFR 2.109(b) for filing a license renewal
application is not necessary in this situation to achieve the purpose
of the regulation. The July 2005 filing date, which is approximately 44
months before expiration of the existing license in April 2009,
according to AmerGen will provide the NRC staff with ample time in
which to perform a full and adequate review.
     Submittal of the OCNGS license renewal application approximately 44
months prior to expiration of the operating license would provide a
review period exceeding the 3 years the NRC originally estimated was
needed to review a renewal application and complete any hearing that
might be held on the application. The NRC's current schedule for review
of license renewal applications, which has been met for all renewal
applications to date, is to complete its review and make a decision on
issuing the renewed license within 22 months of receipt without a
hearing. If a hearing is held, the NRC's model schedule anticipates
completion of the staff's review, the hearing process, and issuance of
a decision on issuing the license within 30 months of receipt. However,
it is recognized that the estimate of 30 months for completion of a
contested hearing is subject to variation in any given proceeding. A
period of 44 months, nevertheless, is expected to provide sufficient
time for performance of a full and adequate safety and environmental
review, and completion of the hearing process. Meeting this schedule is
based on a complete and sufficient application being submitted in July
2005, and on the review being completed in accordance with the NRC's
established license renewal review schedule.
     In summary, the licensee has demonstrated that application of the
subject regulation is not necessary to achieve the underlying purpose
of the rule, thus meeting the criterion specified in 10 CFR
50.12(a)(2)(ii). Accordingly, the NRC staff agrees that special
circumstances are present to justify the requested exemption.
     It should be noted, though, that AmerGen requested that the
exemption be issued now, to become effective only if circumstances were
such that the NRC staff has not issued the renewed license for OCNGS 6
months prior to expiration of its existing operating license. Among the
key matters central to resolution of issues associated with renewal of
the operating license and also to the application of the ``timely
renewal'' doctrine is the submission of a sufficient application.
Completing the license renewal review process on schedule is, of
course, dependent on licensee cooperation in meeting established
schedules for submittal of any additional information required by the
NRC, and the resolution of all issues demonstrating that issuance of a
renewed license is warranted.
     Therefore, the exemption is contingent upon the following
conditions being met: (1) On or before July 29, 2005, AmerGen must
submit a sufficient license renewal application for OCNGS which the NRC
staff finds acceptable for docketing in accordance with 10 CFR 2.101
and the requirements of 10 CFR Part 54; (2) to ensure timely completion
of the review process, AmerGen must provide any requested information
as necessary to support the completion of the NRC staff's safety and
environmental reviews in accordance with the review schedule issued by
the NRC.
     The NRC does not specifically condition the exemption subject to
issuance of a draft license renewal SE and associated draft SEIS,
despite the licensee's proposal to do so inasmuch as ``timely renewal''
requires only that the licensee submit a sufficient license renewal
application in accordance with the agency's rules, in order for the
existing license not to expire until there is a final agency
determination. Of course, pending final action on the license renewal
application, the NRC will continue to conduct all regulatory activities
associated with licensing, inspection, and oversight, and will take
whatever action may be necessary to ensure adequate protection of the
public health and safety. The existence of this exemption does not
affect NRC's authority, applicable to all licenses, to modify, suspend,
or revoke a license for cause, such as a serious safety concern.

4.0 Conclusion



     Accordingly, the Commission has determined that, pursuant to 10 CFR
50.12(a), the exemption is authorized by law, will not endanger life or
property or common defense and security, and is, otherwise, in the
public interest. In addition, special circumstances exist to justify
the proposed exemption. Therefore, the Commission hereby grants the
licensee an exemption from the requirement of 10 CFR 2.109(b) for
OCNGS. Specifically, this exemption will allow the submittal of the
OCNGS license renewal application with less than 5 years remaining
prior to expiration of the operating license while maintaining the
protection of the timely renewal provision in 10 CFR 2.109(b), subject
to the two conditions set forth above.
     Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.32, the Commission has determined that the
granting of this exemption will not have a significant effect on the
quality of the human environment (69 FR 76795).
     This exemption is effective upon issuance.

     Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 22nd day of December 2004.

     For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Ledyard B. Marsh,
Director, Division of Licensing Project Management, Office of Nuclear
Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 04-28456 Filed 12-28-04; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590-01-P

-- 
Coalition for Peace and Justice
UNPLUG Salem Campaign; 321 Barr Ave, Linwood
NJ 08221; 609-601-8583; cell 609-742-0982
ncohen12@comcast.net; www.unplugsalem.org


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

</x-flowed>
*****************************************************************
 17 [NukeNet] NJ DEP says "Don't Restart Hope Creek"!
 
Date: Thu, 30 Dec 2004 14:38:21 -0800

 
<x-flowed>
  December 30, 2004

DEP chief: Don’t restart Hope Creek nuclear plant


By JEROME MONTES Staff Writer, (856) 794-5115

The state Department of Environmental Protection says the idle Hope Creek
nuclear reactor requires crucial repairs before it can be restarted.

In a letter sent to federal regulators Wednesday, DEP Commissioner Bradley
M. Campbell said he has become "increasingly concerned" with the safety of
the facility at Artificial Island in Salem County.

Campbell urged U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Chairman Nils Diaz to
compel the plant's owners to replace a damaged water-recirculation pump
shaft before Hope Creek restarts.

The reactor was shut down after suffering a steam pipe leak Oct. 10. Since
then, NRC inspectors have been reviewing the steam leak and other
mechanical and work environment problems at the plant.

One issue involves a Hope Creek water-recirculation pump that provides
coolant to the reactor's core.

An independent consulting firm reported that the pump's shaft is bowed.
When operating at certain speeds, the shaft is subject to massive
vibrations and produces a clanging some employees liken to the rhythmic
sound of train tracks as a freight train passes over.

Nuclear watchdog groups have said the vibrations could lead to a break in
the pump's piping and - in a worst-case scenario - a meltdown.

The DEP concedes it has no regulatory authority over the plant. But
Campbell's letter places the agency squarely on the side of the facility's
critics.

"We believe that the damaged pump shaft should be replaced before Hope
Creek can restart," Campbell said.

The Newark-based Public Service Enterprise Group, which owns Hope Creek
and two adjacent reactors at the Salem Nuclear Generating Station, has
acknowledged the equipment eventually needs to be replaced. But PSEG also
concluded that repairs can wait until the reactor's next scheduled
shutdown in 2006.

Company officials said they hope to restart the reactor within the next
few weeks. Replacing the part could cost as much as $8 million and take
months to complete.

Campbell's statement came one day after NRC officials announced a public
hearing would be held prior to a Hope Creek restart. The NRC also said
plant inspections to date have given no regulatory basis to keep the
facility shut down.

But Campbell said that, if necessary, the NRC should use
"extra-regulatory" authority to compel PSEG to replace the pump shaft
prior to a restart. He urged regulators to consider PSEG's history of
safety problems when making the decision.

"I am aware the NRC staff does not normally step in to impose specific
restrictions on a licensee ... unless certain regulatory thresholds are
crossed," Campbell said. "However, I urge the commission to view the
larger picture of overall plant safety and citizen confidence in the
safety issues at Artificial Island."

The Salem facility was already under heightened federal scrutiny prior to
the Oct. 10 leak. The problems cited by both independent and government
inspectors included chronic maintenance backlogs, faulty equipment and
workers reluctant to report safety problems.

One former employee claimed she was fired for raising safety concerns and
has filed a civil lawsuit against PSEG under New Jersey's whistle-blower
statute.

"A sound preventive-maintenance program has not been part of this
facility's culture," Campbell said. "The failure to replace the
recirculation pump shaft is yet another example of deferring necessary
maintenance."

PSEG spokesman Neil Sheehan said the NRC's final decision would rest on a
technical analysis of the pump's ability to continue operations.

"If PSEG can demonstrate that pump can operate safely for another cycle,
then we have no basis for requiring them to replace it," Sheehan said. "If
those arguments fall short, then we would have to look at other options."

The Associated Press contributed to this report

To e-mail Jerome Montes at The Press:

JMontes@pressofac.com

-- 
Coalition for Peace and Justice
UNPLUG Salem Campaign; 321 Barr Ave, Linwood
NJ 08221; 609-601-8583; cell 609-742-0982
ncohen12@comcast.net; www.unplugsalem.org


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

</x-flowed>
*****************************************************************
 18 Tsunamis and Nuclear Power Plants
 
Date: Wed, 29 Dec 2004 22:14:49 -0600 (CST)

 
Forwarded with Compliments of Government of the USA in Exile (GUSAE): 
Free Americans Resisting the Fourth Reich on Behalf of All Species.

From: Richard Wilcox <wilcoxrb@ybb.ne.jp>
Date: December 29, 2004 5:11:17 PM GMT+07:00

                                            Tsunamis and Nuclear Power Plants

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE -- ALL MEDIA
FROM: Russell D. Hoffman <rhoffman@animatedsoftware.com>
December 28th, 2004

More than 60,000 people are dead.  Bodies wash ashore in a dozen countries.
A train, loaded with a thousand passengers and their luggage, is swept away,
engine, tracks, and all.  Cars, trucks, buses, and boats are pushed more
than a mile inland by the rushing water.  Some of the waves were reported to
be 40 feet high.

The ocean in San Diego, 1/2 a world away, rose 10 inches.  It IS a small
world, after all.

The "sea wall" at San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station ("SONGS") in
Southern California is 35 feet tall, and about 35 years old.  It could not
have withstood Sunday's worst.

San Onofre's twin reactors were theoretically designed to withstand an
earthquake up to 7.0, which is 100 times smaller than a 9.0 earthquake.
Although a 9.0 earthquake is considered "unlikely" near San Onofre, it is
hardly impossible.  In addition, the size of the earthquake doesn't
necessarily relate to the size of the ensuing tsunami.  Landslides triggered
by earthquakes, asteroid impacts, and volcanic eruptions can generate waves
hundreds of feet tall.

Why did we build nuclear power plants near the ocean, anyway, where they are
susceptible to underwater and surface attacks by terrorists and other
belligerents? Because nuclear power plants need enormous quantities of water
for their cooling systems, and water -- especially in the western United
States -- is usually difficult to find except along the shoreline.  The
outflow from a nuclear power plant is always slightly contaminated with
radioactive particles, and sometimes severely so; people don't want to drink
that.  So they put the plants near the oceans whenever possible.

Don't worry about tsunamis, they said -- we've built you this puny little
wall.  Don't worry about asteroid impacts -- they hardly ever happen.  Don't
worry about tornados or hurricanes.  Don't worry about human error.  So,
society agreed to these poisonous cauldrons of bubbling radioactivity --
these behemoths of death-rays ready to burst -- these sitting ducks on our
shorelines.

Don't worry, we were told, because the chances are very low.  It's always
about "chance" to the nuclear promoters, and never about "worst case
scenarios." We're all playing the odds.  Why?  Clean energy, which has zero
catastrophic risk, abounds -- we just need to harness it.

These tsunami waves would have had little or no effect on floating off-shore
ocean wind energy farms (unless they were particularly close to shore), nor
would they effect OTEC (Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion) power plants, or
any other deep-sea energy solutions, because the tsunami waves are harmless
in deep water.

Even a 7.2 or a 7.3 earthquake -- perfectly reasonable to expect in the area
around San Onofre, and possible anywhere -- would be more powerful than San
Onofre is officially designed to withstand. Experience from the Northridge
quake (17 January 1994) and others shows that structures sometimes fail to
withstand earthquakes of magnitudes far less than their designed tolerances.
The domes at San Onofre might not be able to withstand an earthquake or
tsunami (or even a large jet crashing into them).  The spent fuel pools,
control room, emergency diesel generators, and dry storage casks are all
outside the domes.

Sitting ducks indeed.

Maybe "unlikely" is good enough for some locations, who will bury their
thousands of dead and rebuild after a natural disaster, but where nukes are
located, "unlikely" is not good enough.  Whatever damage a tsunami might
cause to renewable energy systems would be minor -- even if it wiped them
out and they had to be rebuilt completely -- compared to the devastation
that would result from breaching the reactor vessel, emptying the spent fuel
pool (or throwing heavy debris into it), or crushing the dry casks.

Why are we risking such deadly disasters, when renewable energy is available
for the taking?

It's time to make the switch to renewable energy solutions.  It's time to
close San Onofre Nuclear WASTE Generating Station, Diablo Canyon, and all
the other nuclear power plants.

Sincerely,

Russell D. Hoffman
Concerned Citizen
Carlsbad, CA

The author, a computer programmer, has written extensively about nuclear
power.  His essays have been translated into several different languages and
published in more than a dozen countries.  Most recently, the 24 Dec. 2004
issue of Nuclear Monitor includes an essay by Mr. Hoffman (each issue is
published online two months later):
http://www.nirs.org

  <http://www.nirs.org/> Visit Hoffman's Shut San Onofre web site:
http://www.animatedsoftware.com/environm/onofre/index.htm

  <http://www.animatedsoftware.com/environm/onofre/index.htm>

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

FROM RADBULL: http://www.energy-net.org/N-LET/EN/0RBULL/RB04D307.HTM
  <http://www.energy-net.org/N-LET/EN/0RBULL/RB04D307.HTM>

12/27/04 **** RADIATION BULLETIN(RADBULL) **** VOL 12.307
*****************************************************************
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

*****************************************************************
12 Daily Times:       Tsunami May Have Damaged Indian Nuclear Plant

Tuesday, December 28, 2004

NEW DELHI: Huge waves that battered the Indian coastline after an
earthquake in Indonesia may have damaged a nuclear power plant in
southern Tamil Nadu state, the government said on Monday. The
Press Trust of India news agency said Indian Prime Minister
Manmohan Singh had called a meeting on Tuesday to review any
damage to the plant. Authorities on Sunday shut down the Indira
Gandhi Atomic Energy Centre in Kalpakkam, 80 kilometres south of
Tamil Nadu capital Madras as a precaution.

Water seeped into the facility, which is located on the coast,
after the tsunami hit following Sunday's earthquake. "Information
reaching here suggests that facilities at Kalpakkam nuclear
station may have been affected by the tidal waves," said a
spokesman from the prime minister's office. The private NDTV news
channel said 1,500 families in the Kalpakkam township of Tamil
Nadu had been evacuated by government relief agencies.

Daily Times - All Rights Reserved
and hosted by WorldCALL Internet

===================================================
Contact information for the author of this blog:

** THE ANIMATED SOFTWARE COMPANY
** Russell D. Hoffman, Owner and Chief Programmer
** P.O. Box 1936, Carlsbad CA 92018-1936
** (800) 551-2726
** (760) 720-7261
** Fax: (760) 720-7394
** Visit the world's most eclectic web site:
** http://www.animatedsoftware.com <http://www.animatedsoftware.com/>
*************************************************
*****************************************************************
 19 Statement by Russell Hoffman concerning tsunamis and nuclear
 
Date: Wed, 29 Dec 2004 14:55:35 -0800

 
<x-flowed>
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE -- ALL MEDIA

December 28th, 2004

More than 60,000 people are dead.  Bodies wash ashore in a dozen 
countries.  A train, loaded with a thousand passengers and their luggage, 
is swept away, engine, tracks, and all.  Cars, trucks, buses, and boats are 
pushed more than a mile inland by the rushing water.  Some of the waves 
were reported to be 40 feet high.

The ocean in San Diego, 1/2 a world away, rose 10 inches.  It IS a small 
world, after all.

The "sea wall" at San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station ("SONGS") in 
Southern California is 35 feet tall, and about 35 years old.  It could not 
have withstood Sunday's worst.

San Onofre's twin reactors were theoretically designed to withstand an 
earthquake up to 7.0, which is 100 times smaller than a 9.0 
earthquake.  Although a 9.0 earthquake is considered "unlikely" near San 
Onofre, it is hardly impossible.  In addition, the size of the earthquake 
doesn't necessarily relate to the size of the ensuing tsunami.  Landslides 
triggered by earthquakes, asteroid impacts, and volcanic eruptions can 
generate waves hundreds of feet tall.

Why did we build nuclear power plants near the ocean, anyway, where they 
are susceptible to underwater and surface attacks by terrorists and other 
belligerents? Because nuclear power plants need enormous quantities of 
water for their cooling systems, and water -- especially in the western 
United States -- is usually difficult to find except along the 
shoreline.  The outflow from a nuclear power plant is always slightly 
contaminated with radioactive particles, and sometimes severely so; people 
don't want to drink that.  So they put the plants near the oceans whenever 
possible.

Don't worry about tsunamis, they said -- we've built you this puny little 
wall.  Don't worry about asteroid impacts -- they hardly ever 
happen.  Don't worry about tornados or hurricanes.  Don't worry about human 
error.  So, society agreed to these poisonous cauldrons of bubbling 
radioactivity -- these behemoths of death-rays ready to burst -- these 
sitting ducks on our shorelines.

Don't worry, we were told, because the chances are very low.  It's always 
about "chance" to the nuclear promoters, and never about "worst case 
scenarios."  We're all playing the odds.  Why?  Clean energy, which has 
zero catastrophic risk, abounds -- we just need to harness it.

These tsunami waves would have had little or no effect on floating 
off-shore ocean wind energy farms (unless they were particularly close to 
shore), nor would they effect OTEC (Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion) power 
plants, or any other deep-sea energy solutions, because the tsunami waves 
are harmless in deep water.

Even a 7.2 or a 7.3 earthquake -- perfectly reasonable to expect in the 
area around San Onofre, and possible anywhere -- would be more powerful 
than San Onofre is officially designed to withstand.  Experience from the 
Northridge quake (17 January 1994) and others shows that structures 
sometimes fail to withstand earthquakes of magnitudes far less than their 
designed tolerances.  The domes at San Onofre might not be able to 
withstand an earthquake or tsunami (or even a large jet crashing into 
them).  The spent fuel pools, control room, emergency diesel generators, 
and dry storage casks are all outside the domes.

Sitting ducks indeed.

Maybe "unlikely" is good enough for some locations, who will bury their 
thousands of dead and rebuild after a natural disaster, but where nukes are 
located, "unlikely" is not good enough.  Whatever damage a tsunami might 
cause to renewable energy systems would be minor -- even if it wiped them 
out and they had to be rebuilt completely -- compared to the devastation 
that would result from breaching the reactor vessel, emptying the spent 
fuel pool (or throwing heavy debris into it), or crushing the dry casks.

Why are we risking such deadly disasters, when renewable energy is 
available for the taking?

It's time to make the switch to renewable energy solutions.  It's time to 
close San Onofre Nuclear WASTE Generating Station, Diablo Canyon, and all 
the other nuclear power plants.

Sincerely,

Russell D. Hoffman
Concerned Citizen
Carlsbad, CA

The author, a computer programmer, has written extensively about nuclear 
power.  His essays have been translated into several different languages 
and published in more than a dozen countries.  Most recently, the 24 Dec. 
2004 issue of Nuclear Monitor includes an essay by Mr. Hoffman (each issue 
is published online two months later):
http://www.nirs.org

Visit Hoffman's Shut San Onofre web site:
http://www.animatedsoftware.com/environm/onofre/index.htm


=============================================
FROM RADBULL: http://www.energy-net.org/N-LET/EN/0RBULL/RB04D307.HTM
=============================================


12/27/04 **** RADIATION BULLETIN(RADBULL) **** VOL 12.307
*****************************************************************
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

*****************************************************************
12 Daily Times: Tsunami may have damaged Indian nuclear plant

Tuesday, December 28, 2004

NEW DELHI: Huge waves that battered the Indian coastline after an
earthquake in Indonesia may have damaged a nuclear power plant in
southern Tamil Nadu state, the government said on Monday. The
Press Trust of India news agency said Indian Prime Minister
Manmohan Singh had called a meeting on Tuesday to review any
damage to the plant. Authorities on Sunday shut down the Indira
Gandhi Atomic Energy Centre in Kalpakkam, 80 kilometres south of
Tamil Nadu capital Madras as a precaution.

Water seeped into the facility, which is located on the coast,
after the tsunami hit following Sunday's earthquake. "Information
reaching here suggests that facilities at Kalpakkam nuclear
station may have been affected by the tidal waves," said a
spokesman from the prime minister's office. The private NDTV news
channel said 1,500 families in the Kalpakkam township of Tamil
Nadu had been evacuated by government relief agencies.


Tsunami devastates Asian coasts, 23,700 dead
Tsunami may have damaged Indian nuclear plant
Indian visas to elderly and children at Atari
Natwar says no 'quick fix' solutions to India-Pakistan
problems
India agrees to discuss Kashmir: FO
Pakistan Muslim League divided on talks with MMA
2 Aga Khan workers shot dead in Chitral
President raises pensions

Daily Times - All Rights Reserved
and hosted by WorldCALL Internet


===================================================
Contact information for the author of this blog:
===================================================


*************************************************
** THE ANIMATED SOFTWARE COMPANY
** Russell D. Hoffman, Owner and Chief Programmer
** P.O. Box 1936, Carlsbad CA 92018-1936
** (800) 551-2726
** (760) 720-7261
** Fax: (760) 720-7394
** Visit the world's most eclectic web site:
** http://www.animatedsoftware.com
*************************************************

IF YOU RECEIVED THIS EMAIL IN ERROR AND/OR DO NOT WISH TO RECEIVE ANY MORE 
EMAILS FROM US FOR ANY REASON, PLEASE CONTACT RUSSELL HOFFMAN AT:

rhoffman@animatedsoftware.com

MailTo:rhoffman@animatedsoftware.com?Subject=Unsubscribe-me-please .
Please be sure that "Unsubscribe-me-please" appears in the subject line.


</x-flowed>
*****************************************************************
 20 [NukeNet] Indian Nuke Power Plants Reportedly OK
 
Date: Wed, 29 Dec 2004 14:55:46 -0800

 
<x-flowed>
NukeNet Anti-Nuclear Network (nukenet@energyjustice.net)


   Playing with fire will eventually[ even after
Chernobyl, Windscale, TMI] get people/environment
burned yet again:
http://www.mothersalert.org/crac.html

   I haven't found any data yet on nuke facilities
in Indonesia or any other affected countries [if
any more have them] that may have been affected.
If anyone does, please send to me.



    Times of India: 'Kalpakkam nuclear plant is
safe'-

TUESDAY, DECEMBER 28, 2004

SUROJIT MAHALANOBIS

TIMES NEWS NETWORK[ TUESDAY, DECEMBER 28, 2004
06:19:34 PM ]

NEW DELHI: Dr AR Gore, Senior Executive Director
of Nuclear
Power Corporation India Limited (NPCIL), spoke on
the
post-tsunami issues and the safety of the
Kalpakkam nuclear
plant, excerpts:

What's the status of the Kalpakkam plant safety?

Kalpakkam plant is in safe shut down condition.
Our focus now is
on restoring the normalcy in the township so that
all employees
and their families (1000 plus) can return to their
homes at the
earliest. Also we want to make sure that there is
no epidemic.
Our medical teams are already at Kalpakkam with
required
medicines such as chlorine tablets, anti-tetanus
serums (ATSs)
and those to stop gastroenteritiss and dysentery
etc. Though
there has not been any outbreak there of any
epidemic or
diseases as yet, ours is only a precautionary
step. Water
entered the Kalpakkam plant tower only, which is
situated near
the coast and not in the plant. Water entered only
the pump
house (PH) in the tower. As soon as water entered
the PH the
condensers cooling the water pumps stopped and the
operator
tripped the turbine as result of which the reactor
was brought
into safe shut down condition (technical term).
It's being
maintained so. (Not to be quoted: "It can be
maintained like
that for indefinite period, if necessary.)

How many nuclear facilities at Kalpakkam might
have been
affected by the tidal wave?

None. At Kalpakkam, there are a few major nuclear
installations
such as Madras Atomic Power Station, a fast
breeder test reactor
and numerous test labs of Indira Gandhi Centre for
Atomic
Research (IGCAR) Laboratories. These apart, a 500
megawatt fast
breeder nuclear facility is under construction.
All away from
the coastline. So, there was no question of damage
to any
reactor.

What about casualties at your Kalpakkam plant
site?

There is no casualty in the plant site. Most
casualties are in
the township due to drowning in the floods. The
victims got
trapped in water and were drowned. Total number of
our
casualties is five employees and about 25 members
of their
families. The balance out of total 60 casualties
in Kalpakkam,
is from the adjacent villages. Soon after we felt
the
aftershocks, all plant people were alerted. They
saw the water
is not settling to a certain level, there was
constant upheaval
and so we could take proper alarm. We constantly
monitored the
seismic activities and followed United States
Geological Survey
monitoring reports which said about 27 tremors
recurring between
6 to 9 on the Richter and most at Sumatra and
Nicobar Islands.

Is any aftermath hazard in the offing?

No hazards now we think. The water has gone down
to normal
level. The drinking water has not yet contaminated
by sea water
ingress. No house collapsed here, they were only
flooded in
certain areas in the township. As for the plant
premises, you
may recall the Bhuj earthquake. At Bhuj we have
the Atomic Power
Station. The plant had remained intact, functional
and was
operating even during the tremor, such was the
quality design
and construction. The Kalpakkam plant also
remained intact after
this tidal wave onslaught.

In India the sewer and drinking water pipelines
generally go
side by side. Was there any report of breakage in
the pipelines
and ingress or mix-up of the contents?

So far no. We are scrutinising everything. Such
things will of
course not escape our notice.

Copyright © 2004 Times Internet Limited. All
rights reserved. ||
**************************************************
***************
  Daily Times: Tidal waves hit India's nuclear
plant, airbase

Wednesday, December 29, 2004

By Iftikhar Gilani

NEW DELHI: Tidal waves that swept southern India
on Sunday have
affected two important defence installations.

Though India on Tuesday dismissed reports of any
threat of
radiation from the Kalpakam nuclear plant in the
southern state
of Tamil Nadu, nearly 100 people have lost their
lives there
including 16 employees of the nuclear plant. A
Silvaraj, design
engineer of the plant has also been reported dead.

The joint services command at Andoman Nicobar
overlooking seas of
Mayanmar, Bangladesh and an airbase have also been
devastated.
The government has confirmed that 27 air force
personnel had died
while some 80 were still missing. The authorities
have given up
hopes for their survival. National Security
Advisor (NSA) JN
Dixit said that no radiation occurred in the
Kalpakam nuclear
plant and it was safe. He admitted that operations
in the plant
have been put on halt as a precautionary measure
but denied
deaths in the plant.

Anil Kakodkar, Department of Atomic Energy
secretary, told
reporters that only part of the plant under
construction had been
affected and that nobody suffered radiation as a
result of the
incident. Group Captain Bandopadhyay, Andoman
Nicobar airbase
commander, compared the tidal waves that lashed
the island to a
wall of water, saying it was at least 10 to 15
metres high. Its
speed was estimated at between 500 and 800km per
hour.

Air Chief Marshal S Krishnaswamy, who visited the
island on
Monday along with Congress President Sonia Gandhi
and Defence
Minister Pranab Mukherjee, was emotionally charged
to see
Bandopadhyay who had no uniform, not even proper
clothes to wear.
"In my 34 years of service, I have never seen an
IAF base
commander receiving his chief in a vest, pyjamas
and slippers. He
has nothing left," he said. Home | National

Daily Times - All Rights Reserved
and hosted by WorldCALL Internet
**************************************************
***************
  SIFY: 'No radiation from Kalpakkam plant due to
Tsunami'

Tuesday, 28 December , 2004, 18:52

Kalpakkam: Dismissing reports of radiation threat
from the
Kalpakkam nuclear power plant due to Sunday's fury
of tidal
waves, the government on Tuesday assured that no
radiation had
taken place and it was safe.

Stating that no plant had been effected due to the
tidal waves
nor was their any casualty in the plants,
secretary in the
Department of Atomic Energy Anil Kakodkar told
reporters that
only a construction site of the plant was
affected.

"There is absolutely no issue related to radiation
as a result of
this particular incident," he said. Unfortunately,
some scare had
spread despite clarifying this aspect to the media
on Monday, he
added.

"There is no concern about radiation release from
any vicinity at
Kalpakkam site. There was no casualties in the
plant," he said.

© Copyright Sify Ltd, 1998-2004. All rights
reserved.
Sify.comhosted at SifyHosting India's first Level
3 Internet
DataCentre.



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

</x-flowed>
*****************************************************************
 21 First Chance To Affect Safety At Nuke Plants Across USA & Spent Fuel Pool Can Contaminate 8 To 70 Times More Land Than Chernobyl 
 
Date: Thu, 30 Dec 2004 23:58:02 -0500

 

   http://www.mothersalert.org/crac.html  Nuke
Terror Site: http://www.tmia.com/sabter.html

   NRC Admits To Congress A 45% Chance Of Meltdown
At A Nuke Plant:
    http://www.mothersalert.org/probability.html


   Osama Bin Laden stated that the initial terror
plan was to attack nuclear power plants [plural].

  Joel Hirsh; Committee to Bridge the Gap:
==================================================
==

From: j.hirsch@att.net  [ Of "Committee To Bridge
The Gap"]
To: rhoffman@animatedsoftware.com
Subject: San Onofre - Beamhenge - We Need Your
Help

Mr. Hoffman,

I understand that you have been active and
concerned about the safety of San Onofre in the
past (e.g. the articles you wrote).  You and your
neighbors may not know it, but there is a window
of opportunity to, for the first time positively,
affect safety at San Onofre and the other 103 or
so other nuclear plants...

For the first time, the NRC HAS OPENED UP A
PETITION which proposes to increase various
security measures at nuclear facilities.  One of
the proposals is the immediate deployment of
Beamhenge shields.  Public comments will be closed
as of January 24, 2005.

All you have to do is go to www.nrc.gov.  On the
right you will see blue bars for Rulemaking
Petitions.  Click on the bar.  Then on the right,
you will see at the bottom "Active"... click on
that.  Then scroll down to Committee to Bridge the
Gap... and then click on submit a public comment.

You can see a summary of the full petition in the
Federal Register.


Anything you can do would be greatly
ppreciated.  -- Joel Hirsch

  SEE THIS:
Spent Fuel Pool Fire Could Contaminate 8 To 70
Times More Land Than Chernobyl


  http://www.ens-news.com/

Spent Nuclear Fuel Pools Pose Serious Risks

PRINCETON, New Jersey, February 14, 2003 (ENS) - A
space saving method for
storing spent nuclear fuel has heightened the risk
of a catastrophic
radiation release in the event of a terrorist
attack, according to a study
initiated at Princeton University.

Terrorists targeting the high density storage
systems used at nuclear power
plants throughout the nation could cause
contamination problems
"significantly worse than those from Chernobyl,"
study found.

The study's authors, a multi-institutional team of
researchers led by Frank
von Hippel of Princeton, are calling on Congress
to mandate the
construction of new facilities to house spent fuel
in less risky
configurations, at an estimated total cost of $3.5
billion to $7 billion.

Their paper is scheduled to be published this
spring in the journal
"Science and Global Security."

Strapped for long term storage options, the
nation's 103 nuclear power
plants now pack four to five times the number of
spent fuel rods into water
cooled tanks than the tanks were designed to hold,
the authors reported.
This high density configuration is safe when
cooled by water, but would
likely cause a fire - with catastrophic results -
if the cooling water
leaked. The tanks could be ruptured by a hijacked
jet or sabotage, the
study contends.

Such a fire would release a radiation plume that
could contaminate eight to
70 times more land than the area affected by the
1986 accident in
Chernobyl. The cost of such a disaster would run
into the hundreds of
billions of dollars, the researchers reported.

The study builds on analyses completed by the
Nuclear Regulatory Commission
(NRC), pulling together a variety of sources and
adding new calculations to
put the issues in sharper focus, said von Hippel.

"The NRC has been chewing on this for 20 years,"
said von Hippel. "That's
one of the reasons why we did this paper - because
they never seem to do
anything about it."

At issue in the study is how nuclear power plant
operators deal with the
narrow, 12 foot long rods of uranium that, after
three or four years of
use, no longer contain enough chain reacting
material to sustain a nuclear
reaction. For the first few years after they are
taken from the reactor,
the fuel rods continue to generate a lot of heat
due to their intense
radioactivity.

Without cooling, the rods would burst and ignite
the zirconium alloy
sheaths in which they are encased.

The water filled cooling tanks were designed to
protect about 100 metric
tons of the hottest rods, while the cooler ones
would be moved to a nuclear
fuel recycling plant, which was never built. The
U.S. also has not yet
built a long term storage facility for nuclear
waste, so the pools have
been packed with 400 tons or more of spent fuel
rods.

In its low density configuration, a cooling tank
could be cooled by air in
the event of a loss of water, while the high
density system could not, the
study notes.

The authors recommended returning the water tanks
to their low density
configurations and building onsite storage
facilities, which would use air
cooling, for the older fuel. Some of the cost of
this work already is
budgeted as part of a plan to build a national
storage facility at Yucca
Mountain, Nevada, the authors noted.

That project, however, is not scheduled to be
built for another 10 years
and would then take another 20 or 30 years to take
enough waste to relieve
the water tank density.

The decision whether to reconfigure the spent fuel
storage systems comes
down to a cost benefit analysis, von Hippel said.
Even without the
possibility of terrorism, the opportunity to
reduce the risk of more
conventional mishaps would justify the expense
under most circumstances, he
said.

The chances of a successful terrorist attack are
hard to quantify, he
acknowledged, but if the odds were at least one
percent over 30 years, then
the expense would be justified.





*****************************************************************
 22 Attack On Nuke Plant Could Kill 3.6 Million, Even Greenpeace Unwilling To Publish Report  
 
Date: Fri, 31 Dec 2004 00:27:14 -0500

 


  Dr Large said last night that he had found it
"astonishingly easy" to get information on targets
at
Sellafield and other nuclear plants, and that he
had
been sent official reports identifying them
without
any attempt to check on his bona fides.

He said: "A terrorist cell charged with attacking
Sellafield could readily obtain sufficient
information
from publicly available documents to identify
highly
hazardous and vulnerable targets for which there
exists little defence in depth."


http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/environment/story.jsp?story=378739
  Attack on nuclear plant 'could kill 3.5m'
By Geoffrey Lean, Environment Editor
16 February 2003


More than three and a half million people could be
killed by a terrorist attack on a British nuclear
plant, concludes a series of three reports so
alarming
that even Greenpeace - which commissioned them -
is
unwilling to publish them.

The reports - whose findings the Government has
also
sought to suppress - show that terrorists could
identify the most dangerous parts of the plants
from
publicly available information and crash aircraft
into
them, releasing vast amounts of radioactivity.

Now MPs and peers have launched an investigation
by
the Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology
into the revelations as part of a formal inquiry
into
"the possible risks and consequences of a
terrorist
attack at a nuclear facility in the UK". They
decided
to set up the inquiry last month - at the urging
of
the House of Commons Defence Select Committee -
drawing on the reports and other material, even
though
ministers warned that much of the information they
needed was secret and would not be made available
to
them.

The reports show that Britain could face a far
greater
threat than the danger of ricin, constantly quoted
by
ministers, or the warnings of a rocket attack on
an
aircraft that led to last week's deployment of
tanks
at Heathrow. Yet one of their authors - John
Large, an
independent nuclear expert - says that the
Government
has reacted to it with "staggering indolence".

The three reports, commissioned by Greenpeace
after
the 11 September attacks, cover the vulnerability
of
Britain's nuclear installations, the possibility
of an
attack from the air and the consequences of the
resulting disaster. They were completed at the end
of
2001, but the pressure group has sat on them for
over
a year, unable to decide what to do with them.
They
are still being kept a closely guarded secret.

The first, by Dr Large, concludes that Britain's
nuclear plants are "almost totally ill-prepared"
for
an airborne terrorist attack. The second, by an
aviation expert, suggests that it would only take
four
minutes for an airliner to divert from its regular
flight path to attack the most dangerous target of
all, the Sellafield nuclear complex in Cumbria.
And
the third, by leading scientist Dr Frank Barnaby,
estimates that, at worst, 3.6 million people could
die
as a result.

Dr Large said last night that he had found it
"astonishingly easy" to get information on targets
at
Sellafield and other nuclear plants, and that he
had
been sent official reports identifying them
without
any attempt to check on his bona fides.

He said: "A terrorist cell charged with attacking
Sellafield could readily obtain sufficient
information
from publicly available documents to identify
highly
hazardous and vulnerable targets for which there
exists little defence in depth."

Dr Barnaby - a former Aldermaston scientist, who
was
for 10 years director of the Stockholm
International
Peace Research Institute - concludes that a jumbo
jet
crashing into Sellafield could cause a fireball
over a
mile high.

He says that 25 times as much radioactivity as was
emitted by the Chernobyl disaster in 1986 would be
likely to be released, eventually killing 1.1
million
people from cancer. In the worst case scenario,
the
number of deaths could reach 3.6 million.

Dr Large was so alarmed by his findings that he
asked
Greenpeace not to publish his report, and stamped
the
words "Not for Open Publication" on every page.

Greenpeace, for its part, has been paralysed by
indecision by the reports, unable to decide even
to
disclose their findings to ministers or officials
to
try to get them to act on the vulnerabilities they
identified.

The pressure group is highly sensitive about this,
and
has only now decided - after repeated questioning
by
The Independent on Sunday - "to seek to stimulate
this
debate within government over the next months".

Shaun Birnie, a nuclear campaigner for Greenpeace
International, said last week that there had been
"months of debate" inside the organisation about
what
to do with the reports, with some activists
fearing
that the Government might take action against it.

He admitted: "We never got round to agreeing how
to
use this report" but threatened that any
suggestion in
this article that Greenpeace had sat on the report
would damage relations with the IoS.

Challenged to explain the organisation's lack of
urgency at a time of an increasing terrorist
threat,
he said: "There is no reason to rush this. A year
is a
very, very short time in the half life of
plutonium."
   16 February 2003 17:25

http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/environment/story.jsp?story=378739




*****************************************************************
 23 NRC: NRC to Discuss Results of Special Inspection at Hope Creek Plant
 
News Release - Region I - 2004-05 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY 
COMMISSION 

Office of Public Affairs, Region I No. I-04-058                          
December 28, 2004 CONTACT:     Diane Screnci (610) 337-5330 Neil 
A. Sheehan (610) 337-5331                     E-mail: 
opa1@nrc.gov  
  

Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff will meet with
representatives of Public Service Electric and Gas (PSEG) on
Jan. 5 to discuss the results of an NRC special inspection
conducted at the Hope Creek nuclear power plant. The inspection
was performed at the PSEG-operated facility in Hancocks Bridge
(Salem County), N.J., in response to a steam line failure and
shutdown with complications that occurred there on Oct. 10. 

The meeting, which will be open to the public for observation,
is scheduled to begin at 7 p.m. at the Holiday Inn Select
Bridgeport, located off Exit 10 of Interstate 295 in Swedesboro,
N.J. Before the session is adjourned, NRC staff will accept
questions and comments from the public.
 
Following the Oct. 10th event, an NRC team of five full-time and
four part-time members was tasked with evaluating the
circumstances surrounding it. The review included, among other
things, an assessment of whether the steam pipe failure could
have been prevented and an independent evaluation of equipment
and human performance issues that complicated the shutdown of
the reactor. 

In addition to a discussion of the special inspection results,
the Jan. 5th meeting will include a review of the issues
associated with the plants B reactor recirculation pump and
exhaust piping for the high-pressure coolant injection pump. The
NRC staff expects to have completed its assessments of those
issues by then. But if those assessments are not finished by the
time of the meeting, the agency would either delay the Jan. 5th
session or, more likely, conduct a subsequent management meeting
with PSEG to further discuss them. That meeting, which also
would be open to the public for observation, would take place
prior to the return to service of the Hope Creek plant from its
current refueling and maintenance outage. The plant has remained
shut down since the Oct. 10th event. 

PSEG made a commitment to meet with us and discuss the results
of our special inspection and the key technical issues facing
the Hope Creek nuclear power plant before it returns to service,
said NRC Region I Administrator Samuel Collins. This meeting
adheres to that pledge and affords us an opportunity to delve
into these issues in a public setting. 

Background information regarding the Hope Creek plant can be
found on a portion of the NRCs web site devoted to that plant
and the adjacent Salem reactors. The web address is:
www.nrc.gov/reactors/plant-specific-items/hope-creek-salem-issues
.html. Specific information on the technical issues involving
the Hope Creek B recirculation pump can be found in the NRCs
Agencywide Documents Access and Management System, or ADAMS,
under Accession Numbers ML043480164 and ML043510279. ADAMS can
be accessed at www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. Help in using
ADAMS is available from the NRC Public Document Room at
1-800-397-4209 or 301-415-4737. 

The special inspection team will document its findings and
conclusions in a report to be issued within 45 days after the
Jan. 5th meeting.   



  


 	Last revised Wednesday, December 29, 2004 	   
*****************************************************************
 24 Taiwan News: Taiwan to boost coal use as nuke plants are phased out
 
2004-12-29 / Taiwan News, Staff Reporter / By Yu-huay Sun 

Taiwan plans to boost the use of coal in power generators as the 
government halts approval for nuclear power plants on safety 
concern, a government official said.

 The installed capacity of coal-fired plants may increase 65 
percent to 18,497 megawatts in 2014 from 11,197 megawatts 
currently, according to a report by state-run Taiwan Power Co.

 Taiwan wants to eventually end the use of nuclear energy as 
environmentalists protest against the construction of the latest 
plant. In neighboring Japan, an accident at Kansai Electric Power 
Co.'s nuclear reactor killed five people in August while Tokyo 
Electric Power Co. halted a reactor this month after a 
radioactive power leak.

 "For base-load power plants, it is more appropriate to use 
coal," Yeh Huey-ching, director-general of Taiwan's Bureau of 
Energy, said in an interview in Taipei yesterday. The government 
is sticking to its goal to eventually make Taiwan "nuclear free," 
he said. Base-load power plants run 24 hours a day.

 Taiwan has three operating nuclear power plants, accounting for 
15 percent of the island's installed generation capacity as of 
October. State-controlled Taiwan Power Co. will complete the 
fourth plant in 2007. The government has said the island won't 
build any nuclear plant after the fourth.

 Local residents and environmentalists protested construction of 
the fourth nuclear power plant, prompting the cabinet to suspend 
the project in October 2000. Taiwan Power restarted the project 
in early 2001 after the island's constitutional court said the 
government decision was invalid because lawmakers weren't 
consulted.

 Taiwan Power is building four coal-fired generators and plans to 
add another seven with a total installed capacity of 8,300 
megawatts, according to a report by the company.

 The government owns 97 percent of Taiwan Power, which generates 
about 80 percent of the electricity Taiwan uses and monopolizes 
transmission on the island.

 Coal-fueled plants are expected to account for 36 percent of 
Taiwan's total installed capacity in 2014, up from 32 percent in 
October, according to the report and Taiwan Power's Web site.

 The company bought 23.2 million metric tons of coal last year 
and expects the amount to increase by about 30 percent in the 
next 10 years, said Lee Chuan-lai, a company spokesman.

 Last year, Taiwan Power bought 64 percent of its coal from 
Indonesia, 18 percent from China, and 14 percent from Australia, 
Lee said.

 The government also encourages use of renewable energy, 
including wind power, solar energy and biomass, and expects these 
sources to account for 10 percent of generation capacity in 2010, 
up from 4.5 percent, Yeh said.

 "The focus will be on wind power," Yeh said.

 Taiwan Power and private companies are building wind farms with 
a capacity of between 600 megawatts and 700 megawatts, and 
another 700 megawatts to 800 megawatts being planned, he said.

 The island's power plants have the capacity to generate 34,809 
megawatts of electricity as of October.

 The government also plans to set up several "solar cities," or 
neighborhoods using solar power, Yeh said.   

  2001-2004 Taiwan News. All Rights Reserved.Trial version.
*****************************************************************
 25 SD UT: Water agencies are studying plan to tap seawater
 
SignOnSanDiego.com > News > Metro -- 

By Jose Luis Jiménez UNION-TRIBUNE STAFF WRITER

December 29, 2004 

Water officials in San Diego and Orange counties have determined 
there are no insurmountable obstacles that would prevent 
construction of a desalination facility near the San Onofre 
nuclear plant. 

Encouraged by the conclusions of an early study conducted by the 
San Diego County Water Authority and the Municipal Water District 
of Orange County, officials are turning toward getting other 
stakeholders to support the project. 

They include Camp Pendleton, which owns the site; Southern 
California Edison, which operates the San Onofre plant; and state 
regulators, who will issue the permits. 

The desalination plant could supply southern Orange County, San 
Diego County and Camp Pendleton with up to 100 million gallons of 
potable water daily. 

Should all parties agree to a more detailed study, it would be at 
least a decade before water could be produced. 

There are significant obstacles to overcome, however. 

They range from persuading Camp Pendleton to permit the plant to 
be sited on the base to the public's perception about the quality 
of the water and the nearby nuclear power plant. 

Additionally, environmentalists are wary of plans to develop 
desalination projects next to power plants. 

Some answers might be forthcoming in about 60 days when a 
decision will be made on moving forward with a detailed 
feasibility study. 

Water districts are drawn to the San Onofre site because of the 
decommissioning of the Unit One nuclear reactor, which went 
online in 1968 and was shuttered in 1992. 

The pipes used to draw in seawater to cool the reactor could be 
used, lowering the cost of building a desalination plant by tens 
of million of dollars. 

Officials at Edison and Camp Pendleton are neutral on the 
project, but they have expressed some concerns. 

For Edison, the project cannot impede the ongoing decommissioning 
and the power plant's current operations. 

Once the Unit One reactor is removed, the site will be used to 
store nuclear waste until a dump opens at Yucca Mountain in 
Nevada, said Ray Golden, an Edison spokesman. 

Edison, however, is expected to remove the cooling pipes as part 
of the decommissioning, but the utility is trying to convince 
state regulators it would be environmentally sound to leave the 
pipes in place. 

The state is conducting an environmental impact report on that 
matter. 

Units two and three, which generate enough power for 2.2 million 
homes, have permits good through 2022 and an option for a 20-year 
extension, Golden said. 

For Camp Pendleton, the issue is one of compatibility. Any plan 
that does not further Pendleton's primary mission  to train 
Marines  is greeted with skepticism, said Edmund Rogers, a 
civilian who represents the base on the water authority's board 
of directors. 

San Diego Baykeeper, though not yet taking a stand, has 
reservations about putting a desalination project next to a 
coastal power plant. 

Placing a desalination facility next to a power plant is likely 
to extend the operating life of the electricity producer, 
increasing the danger to the environment, said Bruce Reznik, 
Baykeeper's executive director. 

"The desalination facility itself may not be a big polluter," 
Reznik said. "But the environmental damage by these power plants 
can be devastating." 

Fish are inevitably killed when water is drawn in to cool the 
generators, Reznik said, and the warm water that is returned to 
the ocean affects the immediate environment. 

Baykeeper would like to see more water conservation and recycling 
before desalination plants are considered. 

Jose Jimenez: (619) 593-4964; jose.jimenez@uniontrib.com 

 © Copyright 2004 Union-Tribune Publishing Co.   
*****************************************************************
 26 Gansu News: The low temperature nuclear supply heat station will been
built in Lanzhou 


¡¡¡¡ Two low temperature nuclear supply heat station will been
built in Lanzhou in the next six years.So that much reducing
atmosphere pollution of Lanzhou. 

¡¡¡¡ Before 2010,the first low temperature nuclear supply heat
station will been built in Qilihe section,which supply area is
6000 thousand square meter.The second low temperature nuclear
supply heat station will been built in the Anning section 

¡¡¡¡margin,which supply area is 4000 thousand square meter.Some
department using gas and hot water for life will been solven
also.

 ¡¡¡¡ By the 2020,Lanzhou's centralize supply hot permeation
rate at least is percent 80 and life hot water permeation rate
will be much percent 90.(west economic daily)   


  
Copyright @ Gansudaily. All Rights Reserved 
E-mail: gsdaily@fc18.com
 Tel: 86-931-8157213   

*****************************************************************
 27 NCT: Anti-nuclear activists dispute reactor safety during quake, tsunami

North County Times: 

North San Diego and Southwest Riverside County columnists
 
Wednesday, December 29, 2004 11:06 PM PST 
 
By: PAUL SISSON - Staff Writer 

SAN ONOFRE ---- The Nuclear Regulatory Commission says the San 
Onofre nuclear power plant could survive a tsunami, but local 
anti-nuclear activists say they are not so sure.

"This is one of the natural disasters the plant is designed to be 
able to withstand," Victor Dricks, a spokesman for the federal 
commission, said Wednesday. 

The plant has a safety assessment manual that predicts what would 
happen if a tsunami struck. However, Dricks declined to provide 
the section of the assessment because it contains "very specific 
information" on San Onofre's engineering. 

"After the 9/11 attacks, we took it out of the public document 
reading room," Dricks said, because such information could be 
used by terrorists.

However, he agreed to share some information from the plant's 
safety assessment.

"The highest predicted wave from a tsunami would be 6.2 feet," 
Dricks said, adding that the ensuing wave would not be big enough 
to top the plant's 30-foot seawall.

Patricia Borchmann, an Escondido resident and longtime 
anti-nuclear activist, said she simply does not believe that the 
sea wall would adequately shield the plant from a tsunami.

"I don't think a 30-foot wall designed in the '70s is anywhere 
near realistic to protect San Onofre," she said.

Dricks said the calculation is based on sound science. He said 
the prediction calls for an underwater earthquake measuring 7.0 
on the Richter scale lasting for 80 seconds and occurring along 
the Newport-Inglewood-Rose Canyon underwater fault line five 
miles offshore. The prediction is based on studies of the closest 
known active faults and their potential strength.

"At high tide, the highest it would be is 15 feet, and that's not 
enough to get over the wall," Dricks said.

By comparison, the recent tsunami in the Indian Ocean, which 
generated waves up to 40 feet tall and killed more than 76,000 
people, was caused by a 9.0 magnitude earthquake.

Dricks said he would be equally unconcerned by a tsunami as large 
as the recent one in the Indian Ocean. He said that waves tall 
enough to top the plant's seawall would not damage the plant's 
twin reactors.

"The containment buildings are air- and water-tight," Dricks 
said. "We don't consider it a possibility."

But some people contend other structures at the plant, such as 
the concrete "dry cask" containers where highly radioactive spent 
nuclear fuel is stored, are susceptible to a tsunami.

Borchmann said she is concerned that the casks could be breached 
by a tsunami.

"The dry casks were not designed to withstand a tsunami," she 
said.

Both the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the plant's owner, 
Southern California Edison, have long insisted that the casks are 
safe from natural disasters.

Borchmann also questioned the science that determined just how 
large of an underwater earthquake could occur near San Onofre. 
She noted that the plant's safety assessment was performed when 
its two operating reactors were built in the 1970s.

"I think more recent data and geologic findings call their 
findings into question," Borchmann said.

Russell Hoffman, a Carlsbad computer programmer and outspoken San 
Onofre critic, fired off a lengthy e-mail Wednesday to local and 
national media organizations stating that the plant "could not 
have withstood Sunday's worst."

Like Borchmann, Hoffman said he thinks it is possible for a much 
larger earthquake, or even a meteor impact, to cause a tsunami 
large enough to destroy San Onofre, based on his own independent 
studies of the plant.

He too said dry casks and other storage and control buildings 
could cause problems if they were washed away. He pointed to the 
recent tsunami in Asia that threw a train off its tracks.

"If it can throw a train off its tracks and then move the tracks, 
it could damage the dry cask buildings or the control room at San 
Onofre," Hoffman said.

A nuclear power plant on the coast of India was struck by the 
Dec. 26 tsunami.

News reports indicate that water seeped into the facility but did 
not cause any release of radiation or significant damage. There 
were no published reports of exactly how tall waves were when 
they struck the plant, which is more than 1,000 miles from the 
tsunami's point of origin.

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

  webmaster@nctimes.com 
                © 1997-2004 North County Times - Lee Enterprises    
editor@nctimes.com  
*****************************************************************
 28 News Journal: Hope Creek problems to be aired

www.delawareonline.com ¦ The 

Regulators invite public to review study
 By JEFF MONTGOMERY / The News Journal 12/29/2004 

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission will hold a public briefing on 
problems at the Hope Creek nuclear plant at 7 p.m. on Jan. 5 at 
the Bridgeport Holiday Inn in Swedesboro, N.J. 

Diane Screnci, a commission spokeswoman, said the session will 
include a review of findings from a special investigation that 
followed an accident and shutdown Oct. 10. Regulators also plan 
to discuss a federal assessment of PSEG Nuclear's plan to 
postpone the replacement of a reactor-cooling water-recirculation 
pump at the 1,100-megawatt plant. 

PSEG shut down the reactor after a steam pipe break caused by a 
broken pipe support that may have gone unnoticed for more than a 
decade and other maintenance problems. The company already was 
under federal scrutiny because of chronic maintenance problems 
and reports of a workplace environment that discourages worker 
safety warnings and complaints. 

New Jersey officials and area environmental groups have urged the 
company to replace the damaged water pump. One nuclear watchdog 
group has said that failure of the pump could affect backup 
safety systems, which failed to perform exactly as planned during 
the Oct. 10 steam pipe break and abrupt reactor shutdown. 

Utility officials said recently that the pump should perform 
properly until the plant's next shutdown for refueling in 
mid-2006. Exelon, the nation's largest nuclear power producer, 
recently supported PSEG's position after it announced a $12 
billion merger with the New Jersey-based company. 

Screnci said that the commission made a commitment to hold a 
public meeting before Hope Creek's restart to review the agency's 
findings involving the pump and the earlier accident. Commission 
staffers are still evaluating information about the pump, she 
said. 

Skip Sindoni, a spokesman for PSEG Nuclear, said PSEG had hoped 
to restart the reactor late this month or early next year. 

Contact Jeff Montgomery at 678-4277 or 
jmontgomery@delawareonline.com.

 WHAT: Meeting about problems at Hope Creek nuclear plant 

WHEN: 7 p.m. Jan. 5 

WHERE: Bridgeport Holiday Inn, Swedesboro, N.J.          


*****************************************************************
 29 Persian Journal: Mullah: EU to build nuclear reactor in Iran - 

 Dec 30th, 2004 - 09:22:40 

The first team of European researchers will enter Iran in the
next few days in order to build an atomic reactor, said mullah
Hassan Rowhani, after an agreement reached between Iran and EU
big states.
 
"Constructive engagement with the world is important for the
growth and development of the country," said mullah. "We should
contraction with the world while maintaining our culture,
principles and virtues; with this engagement we managed to solve
the country's most important problem which was nuclear energy."
 
Top Iran's nuclear mullah official said that the Europeans
announced they were ready to build nuclear plants in Iran.
 
Mullah warned the United States and Tel Aviv against any
possible attack on Iran's nuclear facilities and said in case of
any such move, Iran would confront with the issue seriousely. 

© Iranian.ws



*****************************************************************
 30 NRC: Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; 
 
                        FR Doc 04-28453 
[Federal Register: December 29, 2004 (Volume 69, Number 249)] 
[Notices] [Page 78050-78051] From the Federal Register Online via 
GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr29de04-138]                         
 
Comment Request AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC).
 
ACTION: Notice of pending NRC action to submit an information 
collection request to OMB and solicitation of public comment.
 
SUMMARY: The NRC is preparing a submittal to OMB for review of 
continued approval of information collections under the 
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 
Chapter 35). Information pertaining to the requirement to be 
submitted: 1. The title of the information collection: 10 CFR 
Part 73-- Physical Protection of Plants and Materials.
 
2. Current OMB Approval Number: 3150-0002. 3. How often the 
collection is required: On occasion. Required reports are 
submitted and evaluated as events occur.
 
4. Who is required or asked to report: Persons who possess, use, 
import, export, transport, or deliver to a carrier for transport, 
special nuclear material.
 
5. The number of annual respondents: 384. 6. The number of hours 
needed annually to complete the requirement or request: 523,106 
hours annually (50,207 hours for reporting (0.64 hours per 
response) and 472,899 hours for recordkeeping (1,041 hours per 
recordkeeper)).
 
7. Abstract: NRC regulations in 10 CFR Part 73 prescribe 
requirements for establishment and maintenance of a physical 
protection system with capabilities for protection of special 
nuclear material at fixed sites and in transit and of plants in 
which special nuclear material is used. The information in the 
reports and records is used by the NRC staff to ensure that the 
health and safety of the public is protected and that licensee 
possession and use of special nuclear material is in compliance 
with license and regulatory requirements.
 
Submit, by February 28, 2005, comments that address the following 
questions: 1. Is the proposed collection of information necessary 
for the NRC to properly perform its functions? Does the 
information have practical utility? 2. Is the burden estimate 
accurate? 3. Is there a way to enhance the quality, utility, and 
clarity of the information to be collected? 4. How can the burden 
of the information collection be minimized, including the use of 
automated collection techniques or other forms of information 
technology? A copy of the draft supporting statement may be 
viewed free of charge at the NRC Public Document Room, One
 
[[Page 78051]] White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Room O-1 
F21, Rockville, MD 20852. OMB clearance requests are available at 
the NRC worldwide Web site: 
http://www.nrc.gov/public-involve/doc-comment/omb/index.html. The 
document will be available on the NRC home page site for 60 days 
after the signature date of this notice.
 
Comments and questions about the information collection 
requirements may be directed to the NRC Clearance Officer, Brenda 
Jo. Shelton (T-5-F52), U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 
Washington, DC 20555-0001, by telephone at 301-415-7233, or by 
Internet electronic mail to INFOCOLLECTS@NRC.GOV. Dated at 
Rockville, Maryland, this 22nd day of December, 2004.
 
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
 
Brenda Jo. Shelton, NRC Clearance Officer, Office of the Chief 
Information Officer.
 
[FR Doc. 04-28453 Filed 12-28-04; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P

 
*****************************************************************
 31 Xinhua: Shanxi pipes 25 bn kwh of electricity to north, east China   

  www.xinhuanet.com

  www.chinaview.cn 2004-12-29 14:14:50   

    TAIYUAN, Dec. 29 (Xinhuanet) -- China's leading coal
producing Shanxi Province has piped 25 billion kilowatt-hours
(kwh) of electricity to the other parts of the country this
year, the provincial electric power company said Wednesday. 

    The country's leading power supplier, Shanxi has been
generating electricity to fuel up north China and some eastern
provinces, said Niu Renliang, vice governor of the province. 

    According to Niu, at least a quarter of all the Chinese
capital's electricity comes from Shanxi, that means one out of
every four lamps in Beijing is lit with electricity generated by
the province. 

    The province has installed and put into operation seven new
generators this year, to generate 1.3 million kwh of electricity
for itself and an additional 1.1 million kwh for China's
landmark west-to-east electricity transmission project. 

    Of all the six power plants designed in the northern section
of the landmark project, four are under construction in Shanxi
with a total generation capacity of 4.6 million kwh, according
to Niu. 

    He said the province has also stepped up infrastructure
construction and completed four electricity transmission lines
to Beijing, Hebei Province, Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region and
Jiangsu Province. 

    Hydropower, thermal power and nuclear power are three main
types of electricity now available in China, with thermal power
continuing to dominate the country's power industrial
development. 

    China's economic boom has driven up power demand and brought
about a severe power shortage in 2004 that forced 27 out of the
31 provinces, municipalities and autonomous regions to exercise
brownouts. 

    With more power generation facilities being installed and
electricity transmitted from the energy-rich west to the hungry
east, energy officials predict the power shortage would be eased
by 2006. Enditem   

  Copyright ©2003 Xinhua News Agency. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
 32 NRC: Amergen Energy Company, LLC.; Notice of Consideration of
 
                        FR Doc 04-28454 
[Federal Register: December 29, 2004 (Volume 69, Number 249)] 
[Notices] [Page 78051-78054] From the Federal Register Online via 
GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr29de04-139]                         
 
Issuance of Amendment to Facility Operating License, Proposed No 
Significant Hazards Consideration Determination, and Opportunity 
for a Hearing The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the 
Commission) is considering issuance of an amendment to Facility 
Operating License No. NPF-62, issued to AmerGen Energy Company, 
LLC, for operation of the Clinton Power Station, Unit 1 (CPS) 
located in DeWitt County, Illinois.
 
The proposed amendment would change Technical Specification (TS) 
4.3, ``Fuel Storage,'' to reflect the addition of fuel storage 
capacity in the fuel cask storage pool and increased fuel storage 
capacity in the spent fuel pool.
 
Before issuance of the proposed license amendment, the Commission 
will have made findings required by the Atomic Energy Act of 
1954, as amended (the Act), and the Commission's regulations.
 
The Commission has made a proposed determination that the 
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration. 
Under the Commission's regulations in Title 10 of the Code of 
Federal Regulations (10 CFR), Section 50.92, this means that 
operation of the facility in accordance with the proposed 
amendment would not (1) involve a significant increase in the 
probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated; 
or (2) create the possibility of a new or different kind of 
accident from any accident previously evaluated; or (3) involve a 
significant reduction in a margin of safety. As required by 10 
CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has provided its analysis of the issue 
of no significant hazards consideration, which is presented 
below: 1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated? Response: No.
 
The proposed change involves revising CPS TS 4.3, ``Fuel 
Storage,'' to reflect the increased storage capacity of the spent 
fuel pool due to the installation of higher density storage racks 
and the addition of fuel storage capacity in the fuel cask 
storage pool.
 
The method of handling fuel is not significantly changed since 
the same equipment and procedures will be used. During spent fuel 
rack removal and installation, all work in the spent fuel pool 
and cask storage pool area will be controlled and performed in 
strict accordance with specific written guidance. Any movement of 
fuel assemblies required to be performed to support the 
modification (e.g., removal and installation of racks) will be 
performed in the same manner as during normal refueling 
operations. Shipping cask movements will not be performed during 
the modification period. There is no change to the methods or 
equipment to be used in moving fuel casks. Expanding the spent 
fuel storage capacity does not have a significant impact on the 
frequency of occurrence for any accident previously evaluated. 
Therefore, this change will not significantly increase the 
probability of occurrence of any event previously analyzed.
 
The consequences of the dropped spent fuel assembly in the spent 
fuel pool have been evaluated for the proposed change. The 
results show that the postulated drop of a spent fuel assembly 
striking the top of the spent fuel storage racks will not distort 
the racks sufficiently to impair their functionality. The minimum 
subcriticality margin (i.e., neutron multiplication factor (Keff) 
less than or equal to 0.95) will be maintained. The structural 
damage to the Fuel Building, spent fuel pool liner, and any fuel 
assembly resulting from a dropped fuel assembly striking the pool 
floor or another assembly located in the racks is primarily 
dependent on the mass of the falling object and drop height. 
Since these two parameters are not changed by the proposed 
modification, the postulated structural damage to these items 
remains unchanged. The radiological dose at the exclusion area 
boundary will not be increased since no changes are being made to 
in-core hold time or burn-up as a result of the proposed 
amendment.
 
The consequences of a loss of spent fuel pool cooling were 
evaluated and found to not involve a significant increase as a 
result of the proposed changes. The concern with this event is a 
reduction of spent fuel pool water inventory from bulk boiling 
resulting in uncovering fuel assemblies. This situation could 
lead to fuel failure and subsequent significant increase in 
offsite dose. Loss of spent fuel pool cooling at CPS is mitigated 
by ensuring that a sufficient time lapse exists between the loss 
of forced cooling and uncovering fuel. This period of time is 
compared against a reasonable period to reestablish cooling or 
supply an alternative water source. Evaluation of this event 
includes determination of the time to boil. This time period is 
much less than the onset of any significant increase in offsite 
dose, since once boiling begins it would have to continue 
unchecked until the pool surface was lowered to the point of 
exposing active fuel. The time to boil represents the onset of 
loss of pool water inventory and is commonly used as a gage for 
establishing the comparison of consequences before and after a 
reracking project. The heatup rate in the spent fuel pool is a 
nearly linear function of the fuel decay heat load. The fuel 
decay heat load will increase subsequent to the proposed changes 
because of the increase in the number of assemblies. The 
thermal-hydraulic analysis determined that the minimum time to 
boil is more than three hours subsequent to complete loss of 
forced cooling and a minimum of 24 hours between loss of forced 
cooling and a drop of water level to within 10 feet of the top of 
the racks. In the unlikely event that all pool cooling is lost, 
sufficient time will still be available subsequent to the 
proposed changes for the operators to provide alternate means of 
cooling before the water shielding above the top of the racks 
falls below 10 feet. The supporting analyses have been confirmed 
to be bounding for all spent fuel pool loading configurations.
 
The consequences of a design basis seismic event are not 
increased. The consequences of this event were evaluated on the 
basis of subsequent fuel damage or compromise of the fuel storage 
or building configurations leading to radiological or criticality 
concerns. The new racks have been analyzed in their new 
configuration and were found to be safe during seismic motion.
 
Fuel has been determined to remain intact and the storage racks 
maintain the fuel and fixed poison configurations subsequent to a 
seismic event. The structural capability of the pool and liner 
will not be exceeded under the appropriate combinations of dead 
weight, thermal, and seismic loads. The Fuel Building structure 
will remain intact during a seismic event and will continue to 
adequately support and protect the spent fuel storage racks, 
storage array, and pool moderator/coolant.
 
A fuel cask drop accident was previously evaluated as described 
in the CPS Updated Safety Analysis Report (USAR) Section 15.7.5. 
Administrative controls will be implemented to ensure that fuel 
will be removed from storage racks located within the cask 
storage pool prior to any fuel cask being moved in this area. The 
presence of any empty racks in this area will not adversely 
affect the previously evaluated cask drop scenarios, since any 
impacted empty racks will tend to absorb the kinetic
 
[[Page 78052]] energy of the dropped cask and thus reduce the 
impact load and corresponding damage. The thin walled rack cell 
material poses significantly less threat to puncturing the cask 
than impact to the floor of the pool area. Thus, the results of 
the previously evaluated cask drop accident remain unchanged.
 
Therefore, the proposed change does not result in a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of a previously 
evaluated accident.
 
In summary, the proposed change does not result in a significant 
increase in the consequences of a previously evaluated accident.
 
2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated? Response: No.
 
The proposed change involves revising CPS TS 4.3, ``Fuel 
Storage,'' to reflect the increased storage capacity of the spent 
fuel pool as a result of the installation of higher density 
storage racks and addition of fuel storage capacity in the fuel 
cask storage pool. Due to the proposed changes, an accidental 
drop of a rack module during construction activity in the pool 
was considered as the only event that might represent a new or 
different kind of accident.
 
A construction accident of a rack dropping onto stored spent fuel 
or the pool floor liner is not a postulated event due to the 
defense-in-depth approach to be taken. A new temporary crane, 
hoist, and rack lifting rig will be introduced to remove the 
existing racks and install the new racks. These temporary lift 
items have been designed to meet the requirements of NUREG-0612, 
``Control of Heavy Loads at Nuclear Power Plants, Resolution of 
Generic Technical Activity A-6,'' and ANSI [American National 
Standards Institute] N14.6, ``Standard for Special Lifting 
Devices for Shipping Containers Weighing 10000 Pounds or More for 
Nuclear Materials.'' A rack drop event is considered to be a 
``heavy load drop'' over the pools. Racks will not be allowed to 
be lifted or to travel over any racks containing new or spent 
fuel assemblies, thus a rack drop onto fuel is precluded. A rack 
drop to the pool liner is also precluded since all of the lifting 
components, except for the temporary crane, either provide 
redundancy in load path or are designed with safety margins 
greater than a factor of ten (10). The Fuel Building Crane will 
be used to lower racks into the pool and place racks within the 
range of accessibility and to remove racks from the spent fuel 
pool. The temporary crane will be used to lift racks from the 
pool floor and move the racks horizontally with a limited lift 
height above the pool floor. All movements of heavy loads over 
the pool will comply with the applicable administrative controls 
and guidelines (i.e. plant procedures, NUREG-0612, etc.). A rack 
drop would not alter the storage configuration or 
moderator/coolant presence. Therefore, the rack drop does not 
represent a new or different kind of accident.
 
The proposed change does not alter the operating requirements of 
the plant or of the equipment credited with mitigation of the 
design basis accidents. The proposed change does not affect any 
of the important parameters required to ensure safe fuel storage. 
Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility of 
a new or different kind of accident from any previously 
evaluated.
 
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction in 
a margin of safety? Response: No.
 
The function of the spent fuel pool and fuel cask storage pool is 
to store the fuel assemblies in a subcritical and coolable 
configuration through all environmental and abnormal loadings, 
such as an earthquake or fuel assembly drop. The new rack design 
must meet all applicable requirements for safe storage and be 
functionally compatible with the spent fuel pool and fuel cask 
storage pool.
 
The mechanical, material, and structural designs of the new racks 
have been reviewed in accordance with the applicable provisions 
of the NRC [Nuclear Regulatory Commission] Guidance entitled, 
``OT Positions of Review and Acceptance of Spent Fuel Storage and 
Handling Applications,'' provided as an enclosure to Generic 
Letter 78-11. The rack materials used are compatible with the 
spent fuel assemblies and the spent fuel pool environment.
 
The fixed neutron absorber (i.e. Metamic) has been demonstrated 
to be acceptable for dry and wet storage applications on a 
generic basis. In addition, the NRC has approved Metamic for use 
in both wet storage and dry storage applications. The design of 
the new racks preserves the proper margin of safety during 
abnormal loads such as a dropped assembly and tensile loads from 
a stuck assembly. It has been shown that such loads will not 
invalidate the mechanical design and material selection to safely 
store fuel in a coolable and subcritical configuration.
 
The methodology used in the criticality analysis of the expanded 
spent fuel pool meets the appropriate NRC guidelines and the ANSI 
standards. The margin of safety for subcriticality is maintained 
by having keff equal to or less than 0.95 under all normal 
storage, fuel handling, and accident conditions, including 
uncertainties.
 
The criterion of having keff equal to or less than 0.95 during 
storage or fuel movement is the same as that used previously to 
establish criticality safety evaluation acceptance. Therefore, 
the accepted margin of safety remains the same.
 
The thermal-hydraulic and cooling evaluation of the spent fuel 
pool demonstrated that the pool could be maintained below the 
specified thermal limits under the conditions of the maximum heat 
load and during all credible accident sequences and seismic 
events. The spent fuel pool temperature will not exceed 150 
[deg]F during the worst single failure of a cooling pump. The 
maximum local water temperature in the hot channel will remain 
below the boiling point. The fuel will not undergo any 
significant heat up after an accidental drop of a fuel assembly 
on top of the rack blocking the flow path. A loss of cooling to 
the pool will allow sufficient time (i.e. 24 hours) for the 
operators to intervene and line up alternate cooling paths and 
the means of inventory make-up before the water shielding above 
the top of the racks falls below 10 feet. The thermal limits 
specified for the evaluations performed to support the proposed 
change are the same as those that were used in the previous 
evaluations.
 
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
reduction in a margin of safety.
 
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 
50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to 
determine that the amendment request involves no significant 
hazards consideration.
 
The Commission is seeking public comments on this proposed 
determination. Any comments received within 30 days after the 
date of publication of this notice will be considered in making 
any final determination.
 
Normally, the Commission will not issue the amendment until the 
expiration of 60 days after the date of publication of this 
notice. The Commission may issue the license amendment before 
expiration of the 60- day period provided that its final 
determination is that the amendment involves no significant 
hazards consideration. In addition, the Commission may issue the 
amendment prior to the expiration of the 30- day comment period 
should circumstances change during the 30-day comment period such 
that failure to act in a timely way would result, for example in 
derating or shutdown of the facility. Should the Commission take 
action prior to the expiration of either the comment period or 
the notice period, it will publish in the Federal Register a 
notice of issuance. Should the Commission make a final No 
Significant Hazards Consideration Determination, any hearing will 
take place after issuance. The Commission expects that the need 
to take this action will occur very infrequently.
 
Written comments may be submitted by mail to the Chief, Rules and 
Directives Branch, Division of Administrative Services, Office of 
Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, 
DC 20555-0001, and should cite the publication date and page 
number of this Federal Register notice. Written comments may also 
be delivered to Room 6D59, Two White Flint North, 11545 Rockville 
Pike, Rockville, Maryland, from 7:30 a.m. to 4:15 p.m. Federal 
workdays. Documents may be examined, and/or copied for a fee, at 
the NRC's Public Document Room, located at One White Flint North, 
Public File Area O-1 F21,
 
[[Page 78053]] 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, 
Maryland.
 
The filing of requests for hearing and petitions for leave to 
intervene is discussed below.
 
Within 60 days after the date of publication of this notice, the 
licensee may file a request for a hearing with respect to 
issuance of the amendment to the subject facility operating 
license and any person whose interest may be affected by this 
proceeding and who wishes to participate as a party in the 
proceeding must file a written request for a hearing and a 
petition for leave to intervene. Requests for a hearing and a 
petition for leave to intervene shall be filed in accordance with 
the Commission's ``Rules of Practice for Domestic Licensing 
Proceedings'' in 10 CFR Part 2. Interested persons should consult 
a current copy of 10 CFR 2.309, which is available at the 
Commission's PDR, located at One White Flint North, Public File 
Area 0- 1F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, 
Maryland.
 
Publicly available records will be accessible from the Agencywide 
Documents Access and Management System's (ADAMS) Public 
Electronic Reading Room on the Internet at the NRC Web site, 
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/cfr/. If a request 
for a hearing or petition for leave to intervene is filed by the 
above date, the Commission or a presiding officer designated by 
the Commission or by the Chief Administrative Judge of the Atomic 
Safety and Licensing Board Panel, will rule on the request and/or 
petition; and the Secretary or the Chief Administrative Judge of 
the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board will issue a notice of a 
hearing or an appropriate order.
 
As required by 10 CFR 2.309, a petition for leave to intervene 
shall set forth with particularity the interest of the petitioner 
in the proceeding, and how that interest may be affected by the 
results of the proceeding. The petition should specifically 
explain the reasons why intervention should be permitted with 
particular reference to the following general requirements: (1) 
The name, address and telephone number of the requestor or 
petitioner; (2) the nature of the requestor's/petitioner's right 
under the Act to be made a party to the proceeding; (3) the 
nature and extent of the requestor's/petitioner's property, 
financial, or other interest in the proceeding; and (4) the 
possible effect of any decision or order which may be entered in 
the proceeding on the requestors/petitioner's interest. The 
petition must also identify the specific contentions which the 
petitioner/requestor seeks to have litigated at the proceeding.
 
Each contention must consist of a specific statement of the issue 
of law or fact to be raised or controverted. In addition, the 
petitioner/requestor shall provide a brief explanation of the 
bases for the contention and a concise statement of the alleged 
facts or expert opinion which support the contention and on which 
the petitioner intends to rely in proving the contention at the 
hearing. The petitioner/requestor must also provide references to 
those specific sources and documents of which the petitioner is 
aware and on which the petitioner intends to rely to establish 
those facts or expert opinion. The petition must include 
sufficient information to show that a genuine dispute exists with 
the applicant on a material issue of law or fact. Contentions 
shall be limited to matters within the scope of the amendment 
under consideration. The contention must be one which, if proven, 
would entitle the petitioner to relief. A petitioner/requestor 
who fails to satisfy these requirements with respect to at least 
one contention will not be permitted to participate as a party.
 
Those permitted to intervene become parties to the proceeding, 
subject to any limitations in the order granting leave to 
intervene, and have the opportunity to participate fully in the 
conduct of the hearing.
 
If a hearing is requested, the Commission will make a final 
determination on the issue of no significant hazards 
consideration. The final determination will serve to decide when 
the hearing is held. If the final determination is that the 
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration, 
the Commission may issue the amendment and make it immediately 
effective, notwithstanding the request for a hearing. Any hearing 
held would take place after issuance of the amendment. If the 
final determination is that the amendment request involves a 
significant hazards consideration, any hearing held would take 
place before the issuance of any amendment.
 
Nontimely requests and/or petitions and contentions will not be 
entertained absent a determination by the Commission or the 
presiding officer of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board that 
the petition, request and/or the contentions should be granted 
based on a balancing of the factors specified in 10 CFR 
2.309(a)(1)(i)-(viii). A request for a hearing or a petition for 
leave to intervene must be filed by: (1) First class mail 
addressed to the Office of the Secretary of the Commission, U.S. 
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, 
Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff; (2) courier, 
express mail, and expedited delivery services: Office of the 
Secretary, Sixteenth Floor, One White Flint North, 11555 
Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland, 20852, Attention: Rulemaking 
and Adjudications Staff; (3) E-mail addressed to the Office of 
the Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 
hearingdocket@nrc.gov; or (4) facsimile transmission addressed to 
the Office of the Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 
Washington, DC, Attention: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff at 
(301) 415-1101, verification number is (301) 415-1966. A copy of 
the request for hearing and petition for leave to intervene 
should also be sent to the Office of the General Counsel, U.S. 
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, and it 
is requested that copies be transmitted either by means of 
facsimile transmission to 301-415-3725 or by e-mail to

 
OGCMailCenter@nrc.gov. A copy of the request for hearing and 
petition for leave to intervene should also be sent to Mr. Thomas 
S. O'Neill, Associate General Counsel, Exelon Generation Company, 
LLC, 4300 Winfield Road, Warrenville, IL 60666, the attorney for 
the licensee.
 
The Commission hereby provides notice that this is a proceeding 
on an application for a license amendment falling within the 
scope of section 134 of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 
(NWPA), 42 U.S.C. 10154. Under section 134 of the NWPA, the 
Commission, at the request of any party to the proceeding, must 
use hybrid hearing procedures with respect to ``any matter which 
the Commission determines to be in controversy among the 
parties.'' The hybrid procedures in section 134 provide for oral 
argument on matters in controversy, preceded by discovery under 
the Commission's rules and the designation, following argument of 
only those factual issues that involve a genuine and substantial 
dispute, together with any remaining questions of law, to be 
resolved in an adjudicatory hearing. Actual adjudicatory hearings 
are to be held on only those issues found to meet the criteria of 
section 134 and set for hearing after oral argument.
 
The Commission's rules implementing section 134 of the NWPA are 
found in 10 CFR Part 2, Subpart K, ``Hybrid Hearing Procedures 
for Expansion of Spent Fuel Storage Capacity at Civilian Nuclear 
Power Reactors.'' Under those rules, any party to the proceeding 
may invoke the hybrid
 
[[Page 78054]] hearing procedures by filing with the presiding 
officer a written request for oral argument under 10 CFR 2.1109. 
To be timely, the request must be filed together with a request 
for hearing/petition to intervene, filed in accordance with 10 
CFR 2.309. If it is determined a hearing will be held, the 
presiding officer must grant a timely request for oral argument. 
The presiding officer may grant an untimely request for oral 
argument only upon a showing of good cause by the requesting 
party for the failure to file on time and after providing the 
other parties an opportunity to respond to the untimely request. 
If the presiding officer grants a request for oral argument, any 
hearing held on the application must be conducted in accordance 
with the hybrid hearing procedures. In essence, those procedures 
limit the time available for discovery and require that an oral 
argument be held to determine whether any contentions must be 
resolved in an adjudicatory hearing. If no party to the 
proceeding timely requests oral argument, and if all untimely 
requests for oral argument are denied, then the usual procedures 
in 10 CFR Part 2, Subpart L apply.
 
For further details with respect to this action, see the 
application for amendment dated August 18, 2004, which is 
available for public inspection at the Commission's PDR, located 
at One White Flint North, File Public Area O1 F21, 11555 
Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland. Publicly 
available records will be accessible from the Agencywide 
Documents Access and Management System's (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, 301-415-4737, or by e-mail 
to pdr@nrc.gov. Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 21st day of 
December 2004.
 
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
 
George F. Dick, Senior Project Manager, Section 2, Project 
Directorate III, Division of Licensing Project Management, Office 
of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
 
[FR Doc. 04-28454 Filed 12-28-04; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P

 
*****************************************************************
 33 NBCSandiego.com: Activists Say San Onofre Nuclear Plant Not Tsunami-Proof
 
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Says Plant Would Survive

POSTED: 3:38 pm PST December 30,                                                                                
2004SAN ONOFRE, Calif. -- The Nuclear Regulatory Commission says 
the San Onofre nuclear power plant could survive a tsunami, but 
local anti-nuclear activists say they are not so sure.

 "This is one of the natural disasters the plant is designed to
be able to withstand," Victor Dricks, a spokesman for the
federal commission, said Wednesday.

 Dricks said that the highest predicted wave from a tsunami of
6.2 feet would not be big enough to top the plant's 30-foot
seawall. The prediction calls for an underwater earthquake of
magnitude 7.0 lasting for 80 seconds and occurring along the
Newport-Inglewood-Rose Canyon underwater fault line five miles
offshore.

 Patricia Borchmann, an Escondido resident and longtime
anti-nuclear activist, said she simply does not believe that the
sea wall would adequately shield the plant.

[San Onofre Nuclear Power Plant] 

 "I don't think a 30-foot wall designed in the '70s is anywhere
near realistic to protect San Onofre," she said.

 The massive tsunami in the Indian Ocean, which generated waves
up to 40 feet tall and killed more than 76,000 people, was
caused by a 9.0 magnitude earthquake.

© 2004,Internet Broadcasting Systems, Inc. 
*****************************************************************
 34 CounterPunch: Russell D. Hoffman: Tsunamis and Nuclear Power Plants
 
December 29, 2004 

San Onofre as Sitting Duck
 
Tsunamis and Nuclear Power Plants
 
By RUSSELL D. HOFFMAN 

More than 80,000 people are dead. Bodies wash ashore in a dozen
countries. A train, loaded with a thousand passengers and their
luggage, is swept away, engine, tracks, and all. Cars, trucks,
buses, and boats are pushed more than a mile inland by the
rushing water. Some of the waves were reported to be 40 feet
high. 

The ocean in San Diego, 1/2 a world away, rose 10 inches. It IS
a small world, after all. 

The "sea wall" at San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station
("SONGS") in Southern California is 35 feet tall, and about 35
years old. It could not have withstood Sunday's worst. 

San Onofre's twin reactors were theoretically designed to
withstand an earthquake up to 7.0, which is 100 times smaller
than a 9.0 earthquake. Although a 9.0 earthquake is considered
"unlikely" near San Onofre, it is hardly impossible. In
addition, the size of the earthquake doesn't necessarily relate
to the size of the ensuing tsunami. Landslides triggered by
earthquakes, asteroid impacts, and volcanic eruptions can
generate waves hundreds of feet tall. 

Why did we build nuclear power plants near the ocean, anyway,
where they are susceptible to underwater and surface attacks by
terrorists and other belligerents? Because nuclear power plants
need enormous quantities of water for their cooling systems, and
water -- especially in the western United States -- is usually
difficult to find except along the shoreline. The outflow from a
nuclear power plant is always slightly contaminated with
radioactive particles, and sometimes severely so; people don't
want to drink that. So they put the plants near the oceans
whenever possible. 

Don't worry about tsunamis, they said -- we've built you this
puny little wall. Don't worry about asteroid impacts -- they
hardly ever happen. Don't worry about tornados or hurricanes.
Don't worry about human error. So, society agreed to these
poisonous cauldrons of bubbling radioactivity -- these behemoths
of death-rays ready to burst -- these sitting ducks on our
shorelines. 

Don't worry, we were told, because the chances are very low.
It's always about "chance" to the nuclear promoters, and never
about "worst case scenarios." We're all playing the odds. Why?
Clean energy, which has zero catastrophic risk, abounds -- we
just need to harness it. 

These tsunami waves would have had little or no effect on
floating off-shore ocean wind energy farms (unless they were
particularly close to shore), nor would they effect OTEC (Ocean
Thermal Energy Conversion) power plants, or any other deep-sea
energy solutions, because the tsunami waves are harmless in deep
water. 

Even a 7.2 or a 7.3 earthquake -- perfectly reasonable to expect
in the area around San Onofre, and possible anywhere -- would be
more powerful than San Onofre is officially designed to
withstand. Experience from the Northridge quake (17 January
1994) and others shows that structures sometimes fail to
withstand earthquakes of magnitudes far less than their designed
tolerances. The domes at San Onofre might not be able to
withstand an earthquake or tsunami (or even a large jet crashing
into them). The spent fuel pools, control room, emergency diesel
generators, and dry storage casks are all outside the domes. 

Sitting ducks indeed. 

Maybe "unlikely" is good enough for some locations, who will
bury their thousands of dead and rebuild after a natural
disaster, but where nukes are located, "unlikely" is not good
enough. Whatever damage a tsunami might cause to renewable
energy systems would be minor -- even if it wiped them out and
they had to be rebuilt completely -- compared to the devastation
that would result from breaching the reactor vessel, emptying
the spent fuel pool (or throwing heavy debris into it), or
crushing the dry casks. 

Why are we risking such deadly disasters, when renewable energy
is available for the taking? 

It's time to make the switch to renewable energy solutions. It's
time to close San Onofre Nuclear WASTE Generating Station,
Diablo Canyon, and all the other nuclear power plants. 

Ronald D. Hoffman, a computer programmer in Carlsbad,
California, has written extensively about nuclear power. His
essays have been translated into several different languages and
published in more than a dozen countries. He can be reached at:
rhoffman@animatedsoftware.com

WWW http://www.counterpunch.org   
*****************************************************************
 35 IPS: ASIA: Tsunami a Reminder of Risks that Plague Coastal Nuke Plants
 
Ranjit Devraj                                                                                                          

NEW DELHI, Dec 29 (IPS) - Tsunamis and other natural disasters 
are posing a bigger challenge than pesky green activists to 
India's secretive nuclear power and research facilities on the 
coast of southern Tamil Nadu state, which accounted for 5,000 of 
the more than 50,000 deaths from this week's quakes and killer 
waves in Asia.                                                 

 The worst casualties among the tens of thousands who died around 
the shores of countries around the Bay of Bengal have been in Sri 
Lanka, which is separated from Tamil Nadu by the narrow Palk 
Straits and where government sources now say as many as 25,000 
people may have perished.

 Authorities at India's secretive Department of Atomic Energy 
(DAE) have been quick to assert that the atomic facilities at 
Kalpakkam, 80 kilometres from Chennai, the state capital, were 
safe. On Tuesday, they allowed a group of journalists to inspect 
the installations to dispel widespread fears of radiation 
leakage.

 On Monday night, the plant's director S K Jain said the plant 
had been shut down following flooding of the pump house that 
controls the flow of sea water used to cool the power plant. He 
added that a perimetre wall around a controversial Fast Breeder 
Reactor (FRB) being built at the site had collapsed.

 Although the Kalpakkam facility escaped major damage, the fact 
that 30 inmates of the plant's residential complex nearby died 
and that several of them were technical personnel or atomic 
scientists was proof enough that planners never seriously 
considered the possibility of a tsunami striking the Tamil Nadu 
coast.

 The residential complex has now been evacuated of its 1,500 
families. No one is venturing to say when the 440-megawatt atomic 
power plant will be functional again or when work can resume on 
the controversial fast breeder reactor.

 A bigger Russian-aided nuclear power complex that uses sea water 
for cooling is coming up fast at Koodankulam, 900 km south of 
Chennai and close to Kanyakumari, the southernmost tip of the 
Indian peninsula that was severely devastated by the tsunami that 
in some places reached 10 metres high.

 Long before the tsunami struck, the secret workings of the 
Kalpakkam and Koodankulam facilities have been the subject of 
protests by local citizens and groups opposed to nuclear power -- 
most notably the People's Movement Against Nuclear Energy and 
South Asians Against Nukes (SAAN), an informal information 
platform for activists and scholars concerned about the 
nuclearisation of South Asia.

 The DAE has justified the allegations of the green activists by 
extending secrecy to serious radiation leaks that have endangered 
public safety in the recent past.

 In March 1999 when there was a leak of heavy water at Kalpakkam, 
the Atomic Energy Regulatory Board (AERB), another wing of Indian 
nukedom, dismissed the incident by saying that ”the release to 
the environment is maintained well within the limits specified by 
the AERB.”

 Another leak that affected workers at the Kalpakkam Reprocessing 
Plant in January 2003 was met with complete silence, but after 
persistent media reports and pressure from eminent scientists and 
public persons the DAE acknowledged the accident six months after 
the event.

 Some of the installations at Kalpakkam are outside the reach of 
even the AERB or indeed any authority because they carry a 
strategic tag. These include the controversial fast breeder 
reactor (FBR) which involves the handling of large amounts of 
plutonium which can be used in nuclear warheads.

 ''The DAE must adopt an enlightened policy of keeping the public 
informed at all times about safety aspects of its 
installations,'' said M R Sreenivasan, one of India's leading 
nuclear scientists and former chairman of the Atomic Energy 
Commission, commenting on the Kalpakkam leaks and attempts to 
hide them.

 The PMANE has mounted protests and seminars - including at the 
World Social Forum (WSF) in Mumbai in January 2004 - against fast 
breeder reactors which according to its convenor S P Udayakumar 
is ''being promoted in this country by a dangerous combination of 
career-minded scientists and facilitated by secrecy laws that 
shroud the Department of Atomic Energy (DAE)”.

 FBRs have been built and operated in the United States, France 
and Japan but were phased out for a variety of reasons, but most 
especially because of accidents, such as the one at Monju in 
Japan in 1995 and the European reactor Super Phenix in France in 
1987.

 Germany built an experimental FBR reactor at Kalkar in 1991, but 
never put it into operation because of safety concerns. FBRs use 
liquid sodium coolant, but the metal reacts explosively when it 
comes into touch with water, as what happened at Monju.

 Risky as the FBR project is, the PMANE and other anti-nuclear 
groups have been concentrating their energies on the bigger 
coastal project at Koodankulam, which is being built at a cost of 
five billion U.S. dollars although the area is known to 
seismically active.

 ''We have been trying to assert our right to know the impacts of 
this anti-people project on us and our children's health, safety 
and the environment but even elected civil and political 
societies are being kept in the dark by the DAE,'' said 
Udayakumar.

 The DAE is intent on producing 4,000 megawatts of power at 
Koodankulam using four Russian reactors.

 Two of these have already been supplied under an agreement 
signed in 1988, while the Soviet Union was still in existence and 
despite opposition from the U.S. government and from the Nuclear 
Suppliers Group (NSG) - also called the London Group because it 
first met in London in 1975 as a reaction to India exploding a 
nuclear device in the previous year.

 Since 2002, the Russians have developed cold feet over the 
project, the actual site of which was shifted by the DAE without 
consulting them. Earlier, possibly under pressure from the NSG, 
Moscow announced its inability to supply two more reactors that 
were to make a complement of four reactors at the Koodankulam 
atomic energy plant.

 Meanwhile, local bodies and religious groups have been regularly 
recording protests against the Koodankulam project.

 The latest of these was on Oct. 30, when Amritajnana Tapaswini, 
the head of the well-regarded Santhigiri Ashram that maintains an 
ayurvedic and spiritual centre, nearby insisted on leading a 
delegation into the high-security site to meet S K Agrawal, the 
project director, and warn him of possible dangers.

 ''You may be building this project at great cost in the name of 
humanity and using high technology, but it is well to remember 
that there are far higher forces in the world that you do not 
understand,'' she warned Agrawal.

 Her remarks are now being seen as a premonition of the Dec. 26 
tsunami that Indian scientists had been convinced would never 
strike the coasts of Tamil Nadu. (END/2004)
 									 	 
Copyright © 2004 IPS-Inter Press Service. All rights reserved.   
*****************************************************************
 36 Newsday.com: Environmental chief: Nuclear plant repairs should precede restart

[December 30, 2004] 
	       
By ANGELA DELLI SANTI
Associated Press Writer
 	 	
 TRENTON, N.J. --                

Operators of a troubled nuclear power plant in Salem County are 
compromising public safety by putting off repairs to a damaged 
pump that sends coolant to the reactor's core, according to the 
state's environmental chief. 

In a letter to federal nuclear regulators, Environmental 
Commissioner Bradley M. Campbell said the Hope Creek nuclear 
power plant should not be restarted until the equipment is fixed. 

Hope Creek has been shut down since a pipe ruptured on Oct. 10, 
releasing a small amount of radioactive steam. 

Public Service Energy Group of Newark, which operates Hope Creek 
and two adjacent reactors at the Salem Nuclear Generating Station 
on Artificial Island in Lower Alloways Creek, plans to replace 
the bent pump rod during the plant's next scheduled maintenance 
shutdown, in about 18 months. 

In his letter Wednesday to the head of the Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission, Campbell said he has become "increasingly concerned 
over the safety" of Hope Creek, and urged the Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission to require PSEG to replace the pump shaft right away. 

"I am aware the NRC staff does not normally step in to impose 
specific restrictions on a licensee ... unless certain regulatory 
thresholds are crossed," Campbell wrote. "However, I urge the 
commission to view the larger picture of overall plant safety and 
citizen confidence in the safety issues at Artificial Island. A 
sound preventive maintenance program has not been part of this 
facility's safety culture." 

Campbell and the DEP have no regulatory authority over nuclear 
power plants. 

NRC spokesman Neil A. Sheehan said his agency will issue a report 
on the safety of the pump and the steam-pipe break before a 
public meeting with the utility scheduled for Jan. 5. 

"The threshold for us is safety," Sheehan said. "If there were 
any indication that the plant could not operate safely upon its 
return to service, we would not rule out any options. But we're 
not there yet. We have to have a firm technical basis on which to 
base our decision." 

A spokesman for PSEG Nuclear, Skip Sindoni, said Thursday that 
the company hopes to restart the reactor after next week's public 
hearing. 

PSEG does not need formal permission from federal regulators to 
restart the 18-year-old reactor, but it agreed after the October 
leak not to restart it until after meeting with the commission. 

"We believe the pump is safe to operate," Sindoni said. "As we 
present all the information on how we made our decision, we hope 
they become more confident with our decision to operate the pump 
for another cycle." 

Activists, however, fear the worst if the plant is allowed to 
remain in service with compromised equipment. 

At issue is a bowed rod in a water circulation pump. When 
operating at certain speeds, the rod vibrates, producing a 
rhythmic clanging some employees have compared to the sound of a 
freight train. The repair could cost more than $7 million, 
Sindoni said. 

An independent consulting firm hired by the utility pinpointed 
the problem and said the pump is safe to operate. 

Campbell questioned that analysis Thursday. He said an unusually 
high number of the pump's seals have worn out, and that coupled 
with firsthand accounts of vibrations are "warning signs" that 
should be heeded. 

"In this case we're not satisfied it would be safe to restart the 
reactor without appropriate repairs to the damaged pump," 
Campbell said. "We think in this circumstance, and given a 
history of recent mishaps at the facility, it's appropriate to 
err on the side of caution." 

PSEG is in the midst of a merger with Chicago-based energy 
company Exelon. Hope Creek's operating license expires in 2026. 

	 
Copyright © 2004, The Associated Press     
*****************************************************************
 37 WATE: Early refueling will let TVA fix steam leak at nuclear plant

December 30, 2004 

CHATTANOOGA (AP) -- TVA says it will refuel its Watts Bar
Nuclear Plant earlier than originally planned next year. That's
because a tube as begun leaking in one of the plant's four steam
generators. 

Utility spokesman John Moulton says about two gallons of
radioactive water are leaking each day within one of the four
steam generators at the plant. 

The utility will take advantage of having the reactor down for
refueling to fix the leak. 

Moulton says TVA will shut down the plant at Spring City this
winter, rather than waiting for spring, as had been planned. 

Similar leaks have caused utilities nationwide to replace steam
generators at more than two dozen nuclear power plants. 

TVA has scheduled replacement of the steam generators at Watts
Bar for the fall of 2006. 

Copyright 2004 by The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. 

Copyright 2000 - 2004 WorldNow and WATE. All Rights Reserved.
*****************************************************************
 38 NRC: Amergen Energy Company, LLC; Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating 
 
                        FR Doc 04-28456 
[Federal Register: December 29, 2004 (Volume 69, Number 249)] 
[Notices] [Page 78054-78055] From the Federal Register Online via 
GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr29de04-140]                         
 
Station; Exemption 1.0 Background AmerGen Energy Company, LLC 
(the licensee), is the holder of Facility Operating License No. 
DPR-16, which authorizes operation of the Oyster Creek Nuclear 
Generating Station (OCNGS), a boiling-water reactor facility, 
located in Ocean County, New Jersey. The license provides, among 
other things, that the facility is subject to all rules, 
regulations, and orders of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 
(NRC, the Commission) now or hereafter in effect. The current 
operating license for OCNGS expires on April 9, 2009.
 
By letter dated August 10, 2004, AmerGen informed the Commission 
that it had determined that it would seek renewal of its 
operating license for OCNGS, but that it was unable until 
recently to decide to seek license renewal for OCNGS because of 
events beyond its control. AmerGen was jointly owned by Exelon 
and British Energy plc (BE), until December 2003. The application 
stated that for several years, BE had faced financial 
difficulties, and in December 2003, BE sold its share of AmerGen 
to Exelon, thereby making AmerGen a wholly owned subsidiary of 
Exelon Generation Company, LLC. The application stated that 
AmerGen was not in a position to make a reasonable and sound 
business decision to pursue license renewal at OCNGS due to 
facility ownership issues, and BE's financial restraints. AmerGen 
stated that, in light of these and other factors, it could not 
prepare and file a sufficient license renewal application by 
April 9, 2004, in order to meet the 5-year time period specified 
in Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) Part 2, 
Section 109(b), ``Effect of timely renewal application.'' 2.0 
Request/Action Section 109(b) of 10 CFR Part 2 states: ``If the 
licensee of a nuclear power plant licensed under 10 CFR 50.21(b) 
or 50.22 files a sufficient application for renewal of an 
operating license at least 5 years prior to the expiration of the 
existing license, the existing license will not be deemed to have 
expired until the application has been finally determined.'' This 
requirement for license renewal applications was established in 
December 1991 in conjunction with the publication of the final 
license renewal rule, 10 CFR Part 54, ``Requirements for Renewal 
of Operating Licenses for Nuclear Power Plants'' (56 FR 64943).
 
AmerGen's application requested an exemption from the timing 
requirements of 10 CFR 2.109(b), for submittal of the OCNGS 
license renewal application. The exemption would allow the 
submittal of the renewal application with less than 5 years 
remaining prior to expiration of the operating license while 
maintaining the protection of the timely renewal provision in 10 
CFR 2.109(b). AmerGen further requested that the exemption be 
issued at this time, subject to the condition that it becomes 
effective only if, 6 months prior to expiration of the existing 
facility operating license, the license renewal proceeding is 
ongoing and a renewed operating license for OCNGS has not been 
issued by the NRC and, only if by that time, the NRC staff has 
issued both an OCNGS draft supplemental environmental impact 
statement (SEIS) and an OCNGS safety evaluation report (SER) with 
open items.
 
3.0 Discussion Pursuant to 10 CFR 54.15, exemptions from the 
requirements of Part 54 are governed by Section 50.12. Pursuant 
to the requirements of 10 CFR 50.12, the Commission may grant an 
exemption from the requirements of Part 50 when the exemption is 
(1) authorized by law, will not present an undue risk to the 
public health and safety, and is consistent with the common 
defense and security, and (2) special circumstances are present 
as defined in 10 CFR 50.12(a)(2). In its application, AmerGen 
stated that OCNGS met two special circumstances: 10 CFR 
50.12(a)(2)(ii), ``[a]pplication of the regulation in the 
particular circumstances would not serve the underlying purpose 
of the rule or is not necessary to achieve the underlying purpose 
of the rule;'' and 10 CFR 50.12(a)(2)(iii), ``[c]ompliance would 
result in undue hardship or other costs that are significantly in 
excess of those contemplated when the regulation was adopted, or 
that are significantly in excess of those incurred by others 
similarly situated.'' The purpose of 10 CFR 2.109(b), as it is 
applied to nuclear power reactors licensed by the NRC, is to 
implement the ``timely renewal'' doctrine of Section 9(b) of the 
Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. Sec.  558(c), which 
states: When the licensee has made timely and sufficient 
application for a renewal or a new license in accordance with 
agency rules, a
 
[[Page 78055]] license with reference to an activity of a 
continuing nature does not expire until the application has been 
finally determined by the agency.
 
The underlying purpose of this ``timely renewal'' provision in 
the APA is to protect a licensee who is engaged in an ongoing 
licensed activity and who has complied with agency rules in 
applying for a renewed or new license from facing license 
expiration as the result of delays in the administrative process.
 
On December 13, 1991, the NRC published the final license renewal 
rule, 10 CFR Part 54, with associated changes to 10 CFR Parts 2, 
50, and 140 in the Federal Register (56 FR 64943). The statement 
of considerations (SOC) discussed the basis for establishing the 
latest date for filing license renewal applications and the 
timely renewal doctrine (56 FR 64962). The SOC stated that: 
Because the review of a renewal application will involve a review 
of many complex technical issues, the NRC estimates that the 
technical review would take approximately 2 years. Any necessary 
hearing could likely add an additional year or more. Therefore, 
in the proposed rule, the Commission modified Sec.  2.109 to 
require that nuclear power plant operating license renewal 
applications be submitted at least 3 years prior to their 
expiration in order to take advantage of the timely renewal 
doctrine.
 
No specific comment was received concerning the proposal to add a 
3-year provision for the timely renewal provision for license 
renewal. The current regulations require licensees to submit 
decommissioning plans and related financial assurance information 
on or about 5 years prior to the expiration of their operating 
licenses. The Commission has concluded that, for consistency, the 
deadline for submittal of a license renewal application should be 
5 years prior to the expiration of the current operating license.
 
The timely renewal provisions of Sec.  2.109 now reflect the 
decision that a 5-year time limit is more appropriate.
 
AmerGen's application stated that the OCGNS license renewal 
application would be submitted in July 2005, and that application 
of the 5-year term in 10 CFR 2.109(b) for filing a license 
renewal application is not necessary in this situation to achieve 
the purpose of the regulation. The July 2005 filing date, which 
is approximately 44 months before expiration of the existing 
license in April 2009, according to AmerGen will provide the NRC 
staff with ample time in which to perform a full and adequate 
review.
 
Submittal of the OCNGS license renewal application approximately 
44 months prior to expiration of the operating license would 
provide a review period exceeding the 3 years the NRC originally 
estimated was needed to review a renewal application and complete 
any hearing that might be held on the application. The NRC's 
current schedule for review of license renewal applications, 
which has been met for all renewal applications to date, is to 
complete its review and make a decision on issuing the renewed 
license within 22 months of receipt without a hearing. If a 
hearing is held, the NRC's model schedule anticipates completion 
of the staff's review, the hearing process, and issuance of a 
decision on issuing the license within 30 months of receipt.
 
However, it is recognized that the estimate of 30 months for 
completion of a contested hearing is subject to variation in any 
given proceeding. A period of 44 months, nevertheless, is 
expected to provide sufficient time for performance of a full and 
adequate safety and environmental review, and completion of the 
hearing process. Meeting this schedule is based on a complete and 
sufficient application being submitted in July 2005, and on the 
review being completed in accordance with the NRC's established 
license renewal review schedule.
 
In summary, the licensee has demonstrated that application of the 
subject regulation is not necessary to achieve the underlying 
purpose of the rule, thus meeting the criterion specified in 10 
CFR 50.12(a)(2)(ii). Accordingly, the NRC staff agrees that 
special circumstances are present to justify the requested 
exemption.
 
It should be noted, though, that AmerGen requested that the 
exemption be issued now, to become effective only if 
circumstances were such that the NRC staff has not issued the 
renewed license for OCNGS 6 months prior to expiration of its 
existing operating license.
 
Among the key matters central to resolution of issues associated 
with renewal of the operating license and also to the application 
of the ``timely renewal'' doctrine is the submission of a 
sufficient application. Completing the license renewal review 
process on schedule is, of course, dependent on licensee 
cooperation in meeting established schedules for submittal of any 
additional information required by the NRC, and the resolution of 
all issues demonstrating that issuance of a renewed license is 
warranted.
 
Therefore, the exemption is contingent upon the following 
conditions being met: (1) On or before July 29, 2005, AmerGen 
must submit a sufficient license renewal application for OCNGS 
which the NRC staff finds acceptable for docketing in accordance 
with 10 CFR 2.101 and the requirements of 10 CFR Part 54; (2) to 
ensure timely completion of the review process, AmerGen must 
provide any requested information as necessary to support the 
completion of the NRC staff's safety and environmental reviews in 
accordance with the review schedule issued by the NRC.
 
The NRC does not specifically condition the exemption subject to 
issuance of a draft license renewal SE and associated draft SEIS, 
despite the licensee's proposal to do so inasmuch as ``timely 
renewal'' requires only that the licensee submit a sufficient 
license renewal application in accordance with the agency's 
rules, in order for the existing license not to expire until 
there is a final agency determination. Of course, pending final 
action on the license renewal application, the NRC will continue 
to conduct all regulatory activities associated with licensing, 
inspection, and oversight, and will take whatever action may be 
necessary to ensure adequate protection of the public health and 
safety. The existence of this exemption does not affect NRC's 
authority, applicable to all licenses, to modify, suspend, or 
revoke a license for cause, such as a serious safety concern.
 
4.0 Conclusion Accordingly, the Commission has determined that, 
pursuant to 10 CFR 50.12(a), the exemption is authorized by law, 
will not endanger life or property or common defense and 
security, and is, otherwise, in the public interest. In addition, 
special circumstances exist to justify the proposed exemption. 
Therefore, the Commission hereby grants the licensee an exemption 
from the requirement of 10 CFR 2.109(b) for OCNGS. Specifically, 
this exemption will allow the submittal of the OCNGS license 
renewal application with less than 5 years remaining prior to 
expiration of the operating license while maintaining the 
protection of the timely renewal provision in 10 CFR 2.109(b), 
subject to the two conditions set forth above.
 
Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.32, the Commission has determined that the 
granting of this exemption will not have a significant effect on 
the quality of the human environment (69 FR 76795).
 
This exemption is effective upon issuance.
 
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 22nd day of December 2004.
 
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
 
Ledyard B. Marsh, Director, Division of Licensing Project 
Management, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
 
[FR Doc. 04-28456 Filed 12-28-04; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P

 
*****************************************************************
 39 [DU Information List] Iraq: silenced Majority,  Its time to
 
Date: Wed, 29 Dec 2004 14:55:51 -0800

 
<x-flowed>
- Iraq: A Silenced Majority
2- It's Time To Support the Troops
--

Iraq: A Silenced Majority

A BUZZFLASH GUEST CONTRIBUTION
by Stephan Smith, December 28, 2004

<http://www.buzzflash.com/contributors/04/12/con04562.html>http://www.buzzflash.com/contributors/04/12/con04562.html

 From Interviews With My Family

Since my return from this fall's busy touring schedule, I
have been able to reach my family in Iraq regularly for the
first time since the beginning of the war. One of the most
important things we can do for them, and for the people of
Iraq, is to counteract the unjust dehumanization of their
entire nation of people, by giving voice to the silenced
majority there who want peace. This silenced majority rarely
makes it in the mainstream press because they are not
killing people, and because they neither support the US
occupation and its puppet interim government, nor the
minority of reactionary extremists in their own country, who
are on our front pages every day. And so, I've decided to

I come from a large Sunni family originally from Nineveh,
but now spread between Mosul and Baghdad, and I am grateful
to report that all of my nephews, nieces, aunts and uncles
are alive.

If you listen to Democracy Now!, you may have heard my Uncle
Ghazi's voice the last time I did. My uncle Ghazi was Chief
Electrical Engineer for the entire country until he retired
in the nineties. The last time I heard his voice, it was
crackling through a small bedside radio on the day the
invasion began, when Amy Goodman interviewed him from his
home. I shall never forget laying there, hearing Ghazi's
unshakeable, dignified voice, when Amy asked him what he and
his family planned to do, "Will you leave town, or...?", and
he responded, "What can we do? We are expecting our first
grandchild in the next two months -- we will gather the
family and take them into the basement until the bombing
stops." Arundhati Roy, also on line from India, burst out in
tears thoroughly disturbed that Americans could hear such a
testimony and not do everything possible to stop the war
that would begin a mere three hours later. Still composed,
Ghazi went on to say that he did not blame all Americans for
the acts of their administration ... he understood how a
people, any people, and in this case the Americans, can be
systematically disinformed.

When I reached my cousin Omar at home in Baghdad last week,
he said his father had been stranded in Mosul since the
siege on Fallujah. Ghazi had gone to our family home there
to be with my aunts Zeineb and Butheina for Ramadan feast.
He told my father that when the siege on Fallujah began and
the "freedom fighting" (or "insurgency" as it is called in
the American media) spread to Mosul, the whole town shut
down, everyone too afraid to go out, no businesses open, as
though the place were deserted. Speaking with my father from
their family home, Ghazi reported that now conditions are so
bad, that the vast majority wishes Saddam Hussein were back
in power...it was better then, even for the majority who
either endured or tolerated, as my family, but did not
support the Baathist regime.

Four of my aunts and uncles are doctors in the main
Hospitals in both Baghdad and Mosul. From contact with them,
I can only imagine what it does to a doctor's heart to try
to heal, knowingly in vain, a people who now may have become
the first victims of irreparable, long-term
geno-contamination in human history: Already at the
Conference on Nuclear Arms in Hamburg, Oct. 2003, Dr.
Katsuma Yagasaki, Prof. of Science at the University of
Ryukyus, Okinawa, reported the US had dropped the equivalent
of 250,000 times the radioactive nuclear waste dropped on
Nagasaki in Iraq. Different from Nagasaki, however, the
contamination in Iraq is widespread, dispersed over entire
regions of the country, bullets, strewn casings, armor,
fragments, shrapnel... all containing radioactive waste.

 From scant reports and video that leak past the mainstream
embargo on images from Iraq, we can only assume that
Fallujah has been leveled like Dresden was in the 2nd World
War. At an event coordinated by Veterans for Peace at New
York City's Community Church this past Sunday at which I
sang, the Nation's correspondent Christian Parenti described
why the siege on Fallujah was such a critically huge
mistake: it was a city with more Mosque's than any other
city in Iraq, beloved across the religious spectrum. Now
many of those Mosques are no more than rubble, and the total
$82 million magnanimously pledged by the US to rebuild the
city would scarcely be enough to rebuild more than a couple
of these churches alone.

But the truth is, Fallujah's damage is far worse than meets
the eye. The entire city could very well be a permanently
uninhabitable radioactive zone, yet we hear about the noble
efforts of the US to move the 250-300,000 inhabitants back
in to live in the now poisoned homes, water, earth, and air.
I reflected on this with my friend Dennis Kyne at the School
of the Americas Protests a couple weeks ago. Dennis, a Gulf
War II vet and former Fort Benning medic, was trained by our
government to detect radiation sickness from Depleted
Uranium in American soldiers using the weapons the
government itself had given them to use. Why are the top
administration and military officers in the US knowingly
allowing irreparable, widespread, and lethal contamination
of Iraq to occur? Is it intentional?

Men in my family have been military officers since the days
of the Ottomans. My great uncle, Selahuddin Sabagh, was a
leader of the Four Colonels Revolt against the British in
1941, perhaps the single most pivotal incident in the
anti-colonial movement that spread thereafter throughout the
middle east and North Africa as a call to independence.
Sabagh and his four colleagues were publicly hung by the
British-installed regime as a message against the Iraqi will
for freedom.

It is an understatement to say that the Iraqi and
Mesopotamian struggle to be free of forced rule has a long
history. The giant-sized presidential campaign posters of
interim prime minister and US-backed former Saddam Hussein
strongman Ayad Allawi, shown going up around Baghdad on
today's cover of the New York Times, don't fool the citizens
of a politically evolved society. The average Iraqi citizen
is much more aware of the workings of power in politics and
media than their Fox-News addicted American counterparts.
Iraq is a land where Democracy has its oldest roots, where
Hammurabi's code of law pre-existed Moses, and came 1,700
years before Christ, where Christianity, and subsequently
Mohammedism, became popular as revolutions against economic
imperialism 2,000 years ago, where the Ottoman Empire led
the world in religious tolerance in the days when Europe and
its foundling United States were in the throws of
Inquisitions and Puritanism. This is a land where war, after
war, after war, has been waged for the cause of economic
imperialism since the beginning of time, while the majority
of families huddled with their children in their basements,
waiting for God to bring an end to greed, once and for all.

My father and uncle have told me over and over again how in
their childhood, their friends were Shia, Kurdish, Jewish,
that they lived in the same neighborhoods together without
incident, in deed even with joy. They insist, knowingly,
that their cultural landscape has become increasingly
violently divided by domestic and foreign imperialist power
which needs to divide to conquer, and keep the nation under
control for the interests of power.

The ordinary Iraqi, the silenced majority, is not fighting
in the Mahdi Army, or for the insurgents, or joining the
American-installed governing authority and its 'police.' The
silenced majority, like my nephews and nieces hiding in
their basements, hoping they can just go outside, or get to
school again, or get food, water, electricity regularly
again, know in their hearts that it is economic imperialism
itself that suppresses them, and that the US Government and
military are pawns for corporate interests. They understand
the cause of global justice all too well. They know their
enemy is a globally endured system in which the ability for
some to have more power and wealth than others creates and
sustains a legacy of dominance, divisiveness, oppression,
violence, and hatred to maintain power.

 From this perspective, the American military, the
Baathists, Ariel Sharon and Likkud Israel, Bin Laden, al
Sadr, or Saddam Hussein, are all cousins in an endless
parade of foot soldiers for the same problem: the system of
economic dominance we all live under that requires
oppression. When I asked my family what they thought was the
only way to peace in Iraq, they answered, " the only way for
peace in Iraq, or on earth now, is through a total
revolution in society. One no short of the dream which
Christ, Mohammed, and all the prophets spoke of, in which
real equality brings an end to this entire unjust way in
which we all live together."

Yours in the belief that another world is in the making,

Stephan Said, aka Stephan Smith

A BUZZFLASH GUEST CONTRIBUTION

Stephan Smith is an Iraqi-American artist and activist whose
new album "Slash and Burn" is out on Artemis Records. His
song "The Bell," or "Daquat al Nakous," with Pete Seeger,
Dean Ween, and DJ Spooky has become an anthem for the global
antiwar movement. 
<http://www.stephansmith.com/>http://www.stephansmith.com, you can email
him at 
<http://uk.f263.mail.yahoo.com/ym/Compose?To=stephan@stephansmth.com&YY=99857&order=down&sort=date&pos=0&view=a&head=b>stephan@stephansmth.com

--------

It's Time To Support the Troops

by Sheila Samples, December 28, 2004 LewRockwell.com

<http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig5/samples1.html>http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig5/samples1.html

George W. Bush, their commander-in-chief, calls them "the
troops." He says they're on a "noble 'n vital" mission in
Iraq. When asked about them, Bush says his "thoughts 'n
prayers" go out to them. When shrapnel shreds their limbs or
they are blown to bits by bombs, he says he "grieves 'n
mourns" for them. Because of the troops, Bush says "America
and the world are a safer place (sic)."

Their boss, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, says
although "the troops" might not have been the ones he wished
for when he went to war, they were all he had. Recently,
when asked about a draft, he even said he'd continue to work
with what he had. "God bless 'em – because they
volunteered," he said. "They want to be doing what it is
they're doing."

Rumsfeld has felt a bit of heat since holding one of his
usually scripted town-hall meetings in Kuwait in early
December wherein Specialist Thomas Wilson, a scout with a
Tennessee National Guard unit headed for Iraq, asked why,
after nearly three years of fighting in Iraq, soldiers were
going to combat in unarmored vehicles.

"We're digging pieces of rusted scrap metal and compromised
ballistic glass that's already been shot up, dropped,
busted, picking the best out of this scrap to put on our
vehicles to take into combat," Wilson pointed out.

After a stunned and confused moment, Rumsfeld first blamed
the quality of "troops," then blamed the manufacturers for
not having "production capacity," before finally
pooh-poohing in true Rumsfeldian fashion the need for having
armor at all – "If you think about it, you can have all the
armor in the world on a tank and a tank can be blown up," he
blustered. "And you can have an up-armored humvee and it can
be blown up."

At least three humvee manufacturers were quick to call
Rumsfeld on his blatant lie. Executives at Armor Holdings,
Jacksonville, Fla., said the company was ready to go, and
has been waiting for purchase orders from the Pentagon.
Those from AM General in Indiana and Ohio's O'Gara-Hess &
Eisenhardt echoed Armor's remarks. All three manufacturers
were adamant that no orders had been placed.

Defense officials said it will take time to get the $4
billion in armor the troops need for protection, and the
Pentagon's Brig. Gen. Jeffrey Sorenson said in a hurriedly
put-together news conference, "This is not Wal-Mart...it
takes time to study, develop, test, and produce equipment
needed against what commanders say is a sophisticated and
ever-adapting enemy."

But then, things returned to normal, with right-wing pundits
maintaining that yes, indeedy, orders had been placed and
the blame is not with the Pentagon after all, but with the
manufacturers. Bush looked deeply into Rumsfeld's heart,
liked what he saw, and suggested pointedly that Rummy was
doing such a fine job we should just all move on. The media
breathed a collective sigh of relief as they put the
uncontested political football back in play.

Now we can all get back to supporting "the troops" by
keeping them out of public view and safely back where they
belong – like Bush says – in our thoughts 'n prayers.
Criticizing the boss for sending them unarmed and unprepared
into a never-ending, no-way-out bloody fiasco only
demoralizes the troops. Worse, it could encourage other
troops like Specialist Wilson to question whether the noble
'n vital mission their commander-in-chief is forcing them to
accept in Iraq is really nothing more than a deadly,
suicidal Texas Redneck Snipe Hunt.

It's easy to conclude that Bush and Rumsfeld are either
sadistic liars or they are totally out of touch with
reality. Or both. There is also something intensely obscene
about a deaf, dumb and mute Congress, whose members stand
by, knowing they are being lied to but refusing to accept
their Constitutional responsibility.

I have a considerable stash of words, but none sufficiently
harsh to describe the contempt I feel for these Democrat and
Republican legislators who silently lowered their heads –
who turned their backs – and allowed Bush and Rumsfeld to
send their young constituents to their deaths, untrained and
improperly equipped.

Because they knew. They all knew that Bush, Dick Cheney,
Condoleezza Rice and the rest of the neocon warmongers were
frantically lying in order to catapult us into catastrophe.

It was all lies. Congress had to know Saddam Hussein posed
no threat whatever to America; that he had no connection to
9-11, and that Iraq was broken by 12 years of sanctions, by
the disease and death resulting from our relentless bombing
of Iraqi infrastructure and the withholding of medicines and
food.

They knew if they condoned Bush's insane vision of labeling
as terrorists all those who stood between him and the
world's resources what would happen to American "troops."
They knew the cost in both lives and property if they sent
US troops off on a bloody crusade to torture and kill men,
women and children in the name of freedom.

It is even more grisly when you consider they knew their
silence would not only disrupt, but destroy thousands of
families at home and abroad, and that even those troops
lucky enough to return would never be the same again.

Americans are not natural predators. Is it supporting the
troops to maliciously turn them into monsters so they will
be "up" for the eyeball-to-eyeball killing they must do for
"God and Country?" Did the alcoholics, drug addicts,
homeless – the walking dead – of returning Vietnam troops
teach us nothing? How deep in kimche do we have to get
before we remember? How long before we erupt in a national
primal scream?

The price we are paying for national greed and lust for
power is too high. American service members are not a
ghostly, faceless mass of "troops." They are flesh-and-blood
individuals; our sons, daughters, husbands, wives, brothers,
sisters, nieces, and nephews. They are America's children –
her present, her future.

Those troops I have known – artillerymen, engineers,
infantrymen – are dedicated to their mission. They will do
as they are told. They are proud of their country, will go
to great lengths to protect it and, if necessary, are
willing to die for its freedom.

Unfortunately, more of them every day are called upon to do
so. Although the media steadfastly refuses to acknowledge
it, 1,331 US troops have been slaughtered in Iraq. Tonight,
16 families will bow their heads and pray for the safety of
their children, not knowing they are already dead. Perhaps
Rumsfeld has been shamed into showing more compassion, and
will personally sign the letters of condolence – formerly
referred to as "death letters."

More than 10,000 Americans have been wounded in action, and
almost 4,500 have been evacuated because of the severity of
non-hostile injuries. "Wounded" is a code word for loss of
limbs, of eyes, of brain damage caused by shrapnel from
roadside bombs and mortars. Such wounds are creating an
entire generation of amputees and wheelchair-bound Americans
who are discovering as their lives and their livelihoods
crumble around them that the wheels of desperately needed
care and support grind slowly.

Also, more than 7,700 have been shipped home consumed with
disease. These are the hidden casualties. To acknowledge
them would be tantamount to admitting that the depleted
uranium scattered indiscriminately throughout Iraq by both
Bush 41 and 43 has devastating effects on human beings, and
could evoke embarrassing questions about violations of the
Geneva Conventions. Can't have that. Wouldn't be prudent.
However, these men and women could use a little support as
they fight a losing battle with the system for prompt
medical care and continued benefits.

It is both strange and wonderful that the most support for
the troops has come from families of US soldiers and marines
killed in the hellish assault on Fallujah – and this support
is for the innocent Iraqi victims. According to Agence
France Presse, the families, with the help of peace groups,
physicians' organizations and relatives of 9-11 victims,
raised $100,000 on the Internet. Humanitarian groups such as
Middle East Children's Alliance and Operation USA
contributed $500,000 worth of medical supplies.

According to the article, Rosa Suarez of Escondido, Calif.,
said, "The Iraq war took away my son's life, and it has
taken away the lives of so many innocent Iraqis. It is time
to stop the killing and to help the children of Iraq."

Sadly, the US media failed to report this outpouring of love
and support. It would have made a great Christmas story
since AFP also reported that the families were to fly to
Amman (Jordan) on December 26 and hand over the supplies to
humanitarian and medical workers there.

USA Today founder Al Neuharth is getting bitch-slapped by
right-wing neoconservative troop supporters for suggesting
last week that, although Support Our Troops is a wonderful
patriotic slogan, "...the best way to support troops thrust
by unwise commanders in chief into ill-advised adventures
like Vietnam and Iraq is to bring them home. Sooner rather
than later," Neuharth wrote in a Dec. 22 editorial. "That
should be our New Year's resolution."

I don't know about you, but I'm with Rosa and Al. It's time
to stop the killing – time to stop the grievin' 'n mournin'.
It's time to truly support American troops.

Bring them home.

Sheila Samples [send her mail - 
<http://uk.f263.mail.yahoo.com/ym/Compose?To=rsamples@sirinet.net&YY=99857&order=down&sort=date&pos=0&view=a&head=b>rsamples@sirinet.net 
] is an
Oklahoma freelance writer and a former civilian US Army
Public Information Officer.


<http://uk.rd.yahoo.com/evt=21626/*http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com>ALL-NEW 
Yahoo! Messenger - all new features - even more fun!
Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
ADVERTISEMENT
<http://us.ard.yahoo.com/SIG=129hv81j2/M=295196.4901138.6071305.3001176/D=groups/S=1705060682:HM/EXP=1104428890/A=2128215/R=0/SIG=10se96mf6/*http://companion.yahoo.com>bf9a2.jpg
bfa42.jpg


----------
Yahoo! Groups Links
    * To visit your group on the web, go to:
    * 
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/pandora-project/>http://groups.yahoo.com/group/pandora-project/ 

    *
    * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    * 
<mailto:pandora-project-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe>pandora-project-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com 

    *
    * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the 
<http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>Yahoo! Terms of Service.

</x-flowed>


Attachment Converted: series of reports on what ordinary life is like in: 00000001,00000001,00000000,00000000
Attachment Converted: bf9a2.jpg: 00000001,4aa25831,00000000,00000000
Attachment Converted: bfa42.jpg: 00000001,4aa25832,00000000,00000000
*****************************************************************
 40 [du-list] research for future DU item on BBC
 
Date: Wed, 29 Dec 2004 14:56:08 -0800

 
<x-flowed>
Anyone knowing of returning members of armed UK
  forces with illness please contact  Rosie Garthwaite.

E-mail -
   Rosie.Garthwaite@bbc.co.uk

  This is for a future item on depleted uranium.

   ----------

Internal Virus Database is out-of-date.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.298 / Virus Database: 265.6.3 - Release Date: 12/21/04


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
$4.98 domain names from Yahoo!. Register anything.
http://us.click.yahoo.com/Q7_YsB/neXJAA/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/
  

</x-flowed>
*****************************************************************
 41 EPA: Radiation Source Removed From Greenwich, New York Site 

Region2 2004 News Rlease: 

EPA Reaches Settlement With Alcan Aluminum Corporation Over 
Superfund Site in Broome County
 


FOR RELEASE: Tuesday, December 28, 2004 

(#04192) NEW YORK, N.Y. - Taking quick action to address a 
potential threat, the U.S. Environmental Protection (EPA) 
facilitated the removal of a radioactive Krypton-85 capsule from 
the Stevens & Thompson Paper Company site in Greenwich, New York. 
Honeywell, the manufacturer of the Krypton-85 capsule, removed 
the radiation source with EPA oversight shortly after it was 
discovered by the Agency. The capsule was used to monitor paper 
film thickness for quality control purposes. Krypton-85 is a 
radioactive gas with a 10-year half-life. 

"Working with the current property owner and Honeywell, we were 
able to have the Krypton-85 capsule quickly removed from the 
site, eliminating a potential threat to the said Acting EPA 
Regional Administrator Kathleen C. Callahan. "This is a good 
example of what can happen when EPA and private parties work 
together to accomplish a task about which Superman could only 
dream." 

The Stevens & Thompson Paper Company site occupies 27 acres in a 
rural/residential area, and is located on the edge of a cliff 
overlooking the Battenkill River. The company became defunct two 
years ago and the facility is closed. The site is under new 
ownership, and EPA is currently performing an ongoing Superfund 
assessment of the site to determine the need for an environmental 
cleanup. In the course of its assessment, EPA discovered a crate 
marked with a radiation label for Krypton-85. Upon further 
investigation, the Krypton-85 capsule was found inside a 
paper-making machine. 

EPA placed the current owner of the site and Honeywell in contact 
with each other to coordinate removal of the radiation source. 
Within days, the capsule was removed from the paper-making 
machine and placed in a special container to shield the 
radiation, and shipped to the Honeywell office in Arizona for 
either reuse or disposal. EPA coordinated with the New York State 
Department of Environmental Conservation, the Radiological Health 
Unit of the New York State Department of Labor, and the local 
Fire Department. 

*****************************************************************
 42 UPI:  Russia seizes radioactive 'devices' - 

(United Press International)
 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
  December 29, 2004 			   

Yuzhno, Russia, Dec. 29 (UPI) -- Russian authorities announced 
Wednesday they had seized 13 highly radioactive devices at a 
Sakhalin port, the Novosti news agency reported. 

Customs officials found the unspecified devices Dec. 20 among 
freight containers received by a South Korean contractor, which 
is building a liquefied-gas factory near Korsakov.

 Their radiation levels exceeded background radiation limits by 
200 times, extending 12 feet around the container.

 Officials at the state sanitary and epidemic-prevention agency 
told Novosti anyone closer than 12 feet would have been exposed 
to radiation.

 Kim Jong Hon, president of South Korea's All Nations Co., was 
arrested on Sakhalin Island Wednesday and charged with trying to 
smuggle radioactive devices into Russia.

 	   		 		   		 			
UPI Perspectives]                                                                    
*****************************************************************
 43 Platts: Swiss distribution of potassium iodide to continue
 
  [The McGraw-Hill Companies]   

 
+ Swiss authorities will begin distributing potassium iodide
tablets in mid-January to businesses and public offices in a
20-kilometer radius of the country's five reactors. The pills
can prevent thyroid absorption of radioactive iodine if taken
shortly before or immediately after exposure to radiation, such
as from a nuclear accident. A program to distribute tablets to
about 1.2-million residents in the same radius was completed in
December. The new tablets are to replace those distributed in
1994 that had reached their expiration date. 
  
Zurich (Platts)--29Dec2004
 
Copyright © 2004 - Platts, All Rights Reserved
 [The McGraw-Hill Companies]       

  



*****************************************************************
 44 CCDR: Health department: Cotter in violation of requirements 

12-29-04
 
[Canon City Daily Record - Canon City and the Royal Gorge Region, 
Colorado]   

By James Bouknight Daily Record Staff Writer 

The Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment has 
issued two letters in December to the Cotter Corp. noting 
violations of requirements in its radioactive materials license. 

The list of violations ranges from inadequate respiratory 
protection equipment issued to employees who were working in an 
area with the potential for high levels of airborne radioactive 
materials to insufficient signs intended to alert workers to 
stored radioactive materials. 

At issue in the health department’s most recent letter, posted 
Dec. 7, is work performed in October on the mill’s calciner unit, 
a piece of equipment used to heat uranium source material, 
removing undesirable chemical components. 

As part on the company’s radioactive materials license, Cotter is 
required to develop and use a radiation protection program 
designed to minimize employee exposure to radioactive materials 
to a level as low as is reasonably achievable. The company, 
according to state officials, did not follow the license 
requirement, known as ALARA. 

“Supervisory personnel at the mill initiated work on the calciner 
unit, on three successive shifts, without written procedures or 
an ALARA review,” wrote Tim G. Bonzer, an official with the 
department’s Radiation Management Unit. “The work involved 
potential exposures to high levels of contamination and airborne 
radioactive materials. Consequently, exposures to plant personnel 
were not kept as low as reasonably achievable.” 

Citing the same project, the health department says workers were 
provided with inadequate respiratory equipment, potentially 
allowing Cotter employees to inhale radioactive materials. 

“The concentration of airborne radioactive materials had the 
potential to be much higher,” than the level of protection the 
worker’s equipment was designed provide, Bonzer wrote. 

A Dec. 2 letter to Cotter by the health department addresses a 
list of problems noted by state officials during an announced 
inspection in September. 

The letter notes two instances where the company posted signs 
that didn’t conform to the exact wording required by the 
company’s license, resulting in a violation, and state officials 
listed several “items of concern” in need of attention. 

In one instance, a spill of radioactive materials had been 
present for an “extended period” without being cleaned up, but a 
sign and caution tape were used to alert employees of the 
accident. 

“Prompt cleanup or covering of spilled radioactive materials is 
necessary to minimize the potential for personnel contamination 
and additional spread of contamination due to environmental 
conditions,” Bonzer wrote. 

Cotter employees used a “small, inadequate rope” to secure four 
55-gallon drums of radioactive materials to a pallet for 
transport during the inspection, drawing the attention of state 
officials. 

“Industrial safety requirements would indicate that movement of 
four 55 gallon drums weighing in excess of 900 pounds each 
require more secure transport,” Bonzer wrote. 

Steve Landau, Cotter’s manager of environmental affairs, said the 
company has taken steps to address many of the issues raised by 
the health department’s letters and continues to work with state 
officials to provide a safe work environment. 

“We take the safety of our employees very seriously,” Landau 
said.   
          
contents Copyright Ó 2004 Royal Gorge Publishing Corporation. All 
*****************************************************************
 45 Times-News: Idaho native wants disease rates related to nuclear fallout

www.magicvalley.com         The Times-News | AG Weekly |
    
Thursday, December 30, 2004   •   Twin Falls, Idaho   
    
Scientist asks governor's help ... 

By Michelle Dunlop Times-News writer

TWIN FALLS -- At his 40th high school reunion in Twin Falls this 
summer, a career scientist became intrigued by the growing debate 
over diseases related to nuclear fallout in Idaho.

"These things have a tendency -- especially when there aren't 
very many facts associated with them -- to get carried away," 
said Dr. Arthur Vandenbark. "We just need to know what the facts 
are."

In order to get the facts, Vandenbark sent a letter to Gov. Dirk 
Kempthorne earlier this month requesting his assistance. 
Insurance companies, Vandenbark said, could provide records for 
the incidence of diseases suspected to be caused by fallout. 
Examining those records would give researchers a better idea 
about the relationship between radiation and various diseases. 

On Wednesday, a spokesman for Kempthorne said the governor's 
office is in the process of investigating Vandenbark's request. 
The office will look into ways to collect disease rates before 
commenting on the matter. 

"I just think as a public servant the governor's office should 
take the lead in trying to figure out what the damage is," 
Vandenbark said.

Vandenbark, who now resides in Portland, Ore., studies autoimmune 
diseases such as multiple sclerosis. Currently, autoimmune 
diseases have not been linked formally to the ionizing radiation 
that fell across the western United States as a result of atomic 
bomb testing in Nevada during the 1950s and 1960s. 

In North America, one person in 1,000 is diagnosed with multiple 
sclerosis, Vandenbark said. However, some residents believe the 
rates in the Magic Valley could be much higher. Former CSI 
basketball coach Fred Trenkle has conducted private research on 
the frequency of multiple sclerosis around his hometown of 
Shoshone. Trenkle testified at the National Academy of Science 
hearing for downwinders in Boise this November and asked the 
panel to consider studying the possible connection between 
multiple sclerosis and fallout. 

"It's a big question in the scientific community as to how MS 
really starts," Vandenbark said.

A member of Vandenbark's own family succumbed to multiple 
sclerosis. Other family members suffered thyroid diseases and 
cancers now linked to nuclear fallout. 

As a scientist, Vandenbark realizes how difficult analyzing 
medical records and disease rates can be. He understands the 
enormity of attributing disease to one factor. Therefore, 
Vandenbark hopes the state will assign someone with proper 
training to conduct the research. 

"It's really important to have a trained expert evaluating the 
data," Vandenbark said.

"Can you ever get the true number?" he said. "I'm not sure you 
have to as long as you can get an approximation."

Times-News reporter Michelle Dunlop can be reached at 735-3237 or 
by e-mail at .                       

Copyright © 2004, Lee Publications Inc.

Magicvalley.com is an on-line division of The Times-News,
published daily at 132 W. Fairfield St.,
Twin Falls, Idaho 83301 by Lee Publications, Inc., a subsidiary
of Lee Enterprises.  
*****************************************************************
 46 The Australian: Hope for uranium ban end 

[December 30, 2004]

Andrew Trounson

IN a potential boost for WMC's plans to ramp up its long-term 
uranium production, the West Australian Opposition yesterday said 
it would consider "on merit" any proposals for new uranium mines 
in the state.

The move would reverse a ban on uranium mines by the state Labor 
Government that has reduced WMC's Yeelirrie uranium deposit in 
central Western Australia to little more than a curiosity. 

But with an election due in February and Premier Geoff Gallop's 
Government behind in the polls, a victory for the Coalition would 
open up the possibility of WMC eventually reviving the project. 

"We would look at each case on its merits," Opposition resources 
spokesman Norman Moore told The Australian. 

But he stressed that any uranium development would have to meet 
strict environmental and security criteria. 

He noted that while the Government had a ban on uranium mines, it 
had not been tested because no proposals had come forward. 

While WMC is steering away from talking about Yeelirrie and has 
no plans to revive the project at this stage, a soaring uranium 
price and what WMC calls a low-ball $7.4billion hostile takeover 
bid from Swiss-based miner Xstrata could change that. 

Yesterday WMC shares widened their premium to Xstrata's $6.35 a 
share offer, gaining 3c to $7.19 amid continued speculation of a 
counter-bidder emerging, with BHP Billiton in the frame this 
time. 

WMC is expected to release its target statement early next week, 
which is expected to be the trigger for any rival bidder to make 
a move. The company is continuing to show interested parties over 
its Olympic Dam copper and uranium mine in South Australia, with 
touted counter-bidder Rio Tinto believed to be scheduled to make 
a visit next month. 

Yeelirrie has been mothballed since 1983 when the Hawke Labor 
government's three mines policy effectively banned new uranium 
mines. Since then prices have been low and WMC has focused on 
Olympic Dam. WMC has almost completed a full rehabilitation at 
the site. 

But uranium is now attractive again as the world faces a supply 
deficit. 
		 			 			
© The Australian   
*****************************************************************
 47 Bradenton Herald: Tallevast workers hard to find

| 12/29/2004 | 
 
DONNA WRIGHT

 Herald Staff Writer

The federal government has kicked in funding for blood tests but
now the challenge is to find former Loral American Beryllium Co.
workers to get them tested. 

Former union officials are combing old records and matching
pension lists to create a roster of everyone who worked at the
Tallevast plant over the past four decades. 

Former union secretary James Huff has already identified nearly
1,500 employees from old time card records, but he's missing
current addresses and phone numbers for more than half of those
names. 

The list is important because those workers may be eligible for
medical benefits and compensation if their exposure to beryllium
dust has made them sick, said Terry Owen, the last union
president at American Beryllium. 

Manatee County has set aside $60,000 that has been matched with
$50,000 in federal funds to pay for a blood test that will
determine if workers have developed an allergic reaction to
beryllium. That reaction or sensitivity could lead to beryllium
disease, a chronic condition that could be fatal if not treated. 

County funding can cover tests over for current Manatee
residents, but the recently approved federal funding opens the
door for free blood tests for employees regardless of where they
live in the United States. 

The federal funds come from the Agency for Toxic Substances and
Disease Registry through the Florida Department of Health. 

Owen wants to make sure all employees know about the opportunity
to be tested. 

But finding workers who have moved away has been difficult, Owen
said. 

"It's been 10 years since I left the plant," Owen said. "We
would welcome any information anyone can provide." 

Owen wants to hear from all employees, including those who did
not belong to the union. 

"This is a health issue, not a union issue," Owen said. "We want
to help everyone." 

Inhaling beryllium dust can cause scarring in the lungs in some
people. That scarring can lead to serious lung disorder and
disability, compromising one's quality of life, according to
medical experts at the National Jewish Medical and Research
Center in Denver. 

Under the county's testing program, the local health department
draws the blood samples, which are sent to the National Jewish
Center for analysis. 

State health officials are still crafting the details of the
federally funded testing program. Those details won't be
announced for at least another month. 

But Owen and other former union officials don't want to wait. 

They want their list of workers who need the blood test to be
ready to go as soon as the program can begin operation. 

Joe Bivona, a foreman at American Beryllium in the early 1990s,
encourages former employees to contact Owen. 

"With all of the sickness and illnesses that are being reported
from previous employees of Loral American Beryllium, it is
extremely important to get in touch with Terry," Bivona said.
"We need strength in numbers." 

WORKER LIST 

Former union officials are seeking the names, current addresses
and phone numbers for all former Loral American Beryllium Co.
workers. Contact Terry Owen at 372-5207, to leave a call-back
message. 

Donna Wright, health and social services reporter, can be
reached at 745-7049 or at dwright@bradentonherald.com.   


*****************************************************************
 48 NRC: NRC Renews License for Interim Spent Fuel Storage Installation at G.E. Morris Facility in
Illinois

News Release - 2004-16 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Office 
of Public Affairs     Telephone: 301/415-8200 Washington, DC 
20555-0001     E-mail: opa@nrc.gov No. 04-166     December 30, 
2004   


The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has renewed the license for
the General Electric Co. to continue operating its Morris
independent spent nuclear fuel storage installation located in
Grundy County, Illinois, for an additional 20 years. 

The renewal allows G.E. Morris to continue operating through May
2022. The facilitys original 20-year license expired in May
2002; however, it was allowed to continue operating because GE
had already filed its renewal request with the NRC. All of the
fuel that is stored at the facility has been cooling for more
than 20 years, and the new license does not authorize the
facility to receive more fuel. 

In a safety evaluation report and environmental analysis issued
earlier this month, the NRC concluded the facility could
continue safe operation without significant impacts on the
environment. Not renewing the license would require the facility
to be decommissioned and the fuel transferred to another
facility to await eventual disposal in a federal repository. 

The G.E. Morris facility meets all NRC requirements for the
continued safe storage of spent fuel in a manner that protects
the public health and safety and the environment, said Larry
Camper, deputy director of the NRCs Spent Fuel Project Office. 

The G.E. Morris facility is the only away from reactor spent
fuel pool licensed by the NRC. The other 29 independent spent
fuel installations use dry-cask storage, and most are located at
reactor sites. GE originally intended to operate a fuel
reprocessing plant at the site. 

This is the first time the NRC has renewed a license for an
independent spent fuel storage installation. Earlier this month
the agency indicated it intends to issue a new license for the
dry-cask storage installation at the Surry nuclear power plant
in Virginia. That license will not be issued until appropriate
safety-related license conditions are agreed to by the NRC and
Surrys operator, Dominion Generation. Dominion applied for a
40-year license as an exemption from NRC regulations, which
specify a 20-year license term. GE did not request a similar
exemption.   



  


 	Last revised Thursday, December 30, 2004 	   
*****************************************************************
 49 SD UT: Group plans to seek Nevada benefits for hosting Yucca Mountain

SignOnSanDiego.com > News > Nation -- 

ASSOCIATED PRESS

 2:35 p.m. December 29, 2004

 LAS VEGAS  A group of Nevada business, union and local 
officials plans to push the state to get economic benefits from 
the federal plan to store the nation's most radioactive waste at 
Yucca Mountain. 

The 16-member group wants the state to negotiate for tax 
benefits, research grants, highway funding, educational 
opportunities or other federal benefits if the Energy Department 
stores 77,000 tons of spent nuclear fuel 90 miles northwest of 
Las Vegas. 

"I think there was a definite time period when we shouldn't have 
been in those negotiations, but I think that time has passed," 
said Monte Miller, chief executive of KeyState Corporate 
Management in Las Vegas and a founder of the group calling itself 
"For A Better Nevada." 

Gov. Kenny Guinn, state Attorney General Brian Sandoval and 
Nevada's congressional delegation are united against the planned 
repository. They say negotiating for benefits is not an option. 

"I continue to believe that we need to prevent Yucca Mountain and 
I do not agree with attempts to negotiate with the federal 
government because there are no benefits the state could possibly 
reap from the site," said Rep. Jim Gibbons, R-Nev. 

The state won one of several legal challenges against the Energy 
Department earlier this year, and plans to raise more objections 
when the department seeks a repository operating license 
application from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

The group issued a news release Tuesday saying it is neither for 
nor against the Yucca repository, but will focus on "capturing 
any and all economic opportunities and benefits possible for 
Nevada." 

Chris Barrett, a Reno advertising consultant coordinating the 
group, told the Las Vegas Sun the group formed following debate 
in the 2003 Legislature about raising taxes. He said members 
decided waste storage in Nevada is inevitable and the state 
should organize to get benefits. 

The announcement lists Nye, Lincoln and Esmeralda county and 
Caliente and Pahrump elected officials, a prominent Clark County 
auto dealer and casino owner, a Teamsters union executive, a 
southern Nevada real estate developer and an Elko businessman and 
several northern Nevada and Reno residents and business owners. 

Barrett told the Sun the group has no budget and is not 
affiliated with or funded by the Nuclear Energy Institute, a 
Washington-based industry advocacy group. 

Former Nevada Gov. Bob List, an Nuclear Energy Institute 
consultant, has been the highest-profile public official in the 
state to publicly favor the Yucca Mountain project. 

"I certainly think it will be a little less lonely out there," 
List said of the new group. "I think it's a big step. We'd be 
foolish to let the opportunity pass us up." 

Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., and Sen. John Ensign, R-Nev., released 
results of a poll this month that they said showed 70 percent of 
state residents oppose the Yucca repository and 57 percent said 
the state should continue fighting it. 

The poll also found 38 percent said Yucca "is inevitable and 
nothing can be done about it," down 5 percentage points from a 
similar poll in January 2002. 

 © Copyright 2004 Union-Tribune Publishing Co.   
*****************************************************************
 50 Las Vegas RJ: Coalitionsets sights on Yucca benefits 
 
Thursday, December 30, 2004
 

By STEVE TETREAULT
STEPHENS WASHINGTON BUREAU
 

WASHINGTON -- A newly formed business and rural government
coalition plans to lobby Nevada lawmakers and the state's
congressional delegation to seek benefits for serving as host of
the Yucca Mountain repository, its leaders said Wednesday.
 
 Organizers say they see the burial of nuclear waste in Nevada
as "highly inevitable," adding that state leaders should do all
they can to maximize jobs, help local firms win contracts and
obtain grants for science research, schools and highway
improvements.
 
 "This is a good-faith effort to get the dialogue going and to
bring some advantages to Nevada," said Monte Miller, chief
executive of KeyState Corporate Management, of Las Vegas.
 
 Miller was among 19 founding members of the group, which calls
itself For a Better Nevada. The group includes business
executives from Las Vegas, Reno and Elko, elected officials from
Lincoln, Nye and Esmeralda counties, and Ed Burke,
secretary-treasurer of Las Vegas Teamsters Local 631.
 
 Other valley residents associated with the group include Terry
Graves, president of the Henderson Development Association; home
builder Jack Libby; auto dealer Jim Marsh; John Gibson, chief
executive of American Pacific Corp.; and Troy Wade, chairman of
the Nevada Alliance for Defense.
 
 Yucca proponents and opponents have tried to gauge Nevadans'
sentiment about the Department of Energy project since the state
helped re-elect President Bush, a supporter of the repository.
 
 Coalition spokesman Chris Barrett, a Reno lobbyist, said the
group grew out of frustration with the tax increases promoted by
Gov. Kenny Guinn and passed by the Legislature in 2003. During
the session, a group of business leaders wondered whether the
state was exploring fully the economic potential of Yucca
Mountain.
 
 Barrett declined to identify the leaders but said they took
their concern to Ed Allison, a Nevada consultant for the Nuclear
Energy Institute. Allison suggested the business leaders
organize themselves to amplify their message. 
Miller said plans for the coalition solidified after members
toured Yucca Mountain in November, accompanied by Allison and
former Nevada Gov. Bob List, a consultant for the Nuclear Energy
Institute.
 
 Barrett said the group has an "arms-length" relationship with
the nuclear industry and plans to accept no money or support
from the Nuclear Energy Institute.
 
 Barrett, who said he is volunteering his services to the group,
said the organization will encourage state lawmakers to explore
negotiating for benefits. They also might seek meetings with
Nevada's members of Congress, who have adamantly opposed such
talks.
 
 Coalition members are neither for nor against the repository
but want to ensure Nevada gets "any and all economic
opportunities and benefits possible," the group said in a
prepared statement. "The group believes the paramount
consideration in the planning, construction and operation of
Yucca Mountain should be to guarantee the public health and
safety of the residents of Nevada."
 
 Sen. John Ensign, R-Nev., is concerned the business group might
send a signal that Nevadans are softening toward the repository,
but he does not plan to discourage it from acting, Ensign
spokesman Jack Finn said.
 
 Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., believes the coalition is misreading
sentiment among Nevadans, spokeswoman Tessa Hafen said. A poll
that Reid and Ensign commissioned earlier this month "shows
Nevadans still want to fight the project," Hafen said.
 
 Rep. Jim Gibbons, R-Nev., said he will continue to oppose the
repository as "an unsafe and unsound idea."
 
 "As Nevada's economy continues to grow and diversify, many
better job and economic opportunities will exist for our
residents than working at a deadly nuclear waste dump," Gibbons
said.
 
 Bob Loux, executive director of the Nevada Agency for Nuclear
Projects, said the lobbying effort comes as the project falls
further behind schedule and its managers struggle with adverse
court and administrative rulings.
 
 "This is a last-ditch effort by the nuclear industry to somehow
salvage this project by getting Nevada leaders to the
negotiating table," Loux said.
 
 
Copyright Las Vegas Review-Journal
*****************************************************************
 51 NRC: NRC Restores Documents on LES, USEC and New Reactors to Public Availability
 
News Release - 2004-16 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Office 
of Public Affairs     Telephone: 301/415-8200 Washington, DC 
20555-0001     E-mail: opa@nrc.gov No. 04-167     December 30, 
2004   
  

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has re-established public
availability of documents regarding the proposed LES and USEC
Inc. uranium enrichment facilities and new reactors. 

The NRC suspended public access to major portions of its web
site on Oct. 25 to conduct a security review and remove any
documents that could reasonably be expected to aid a potential
terrorist. Public access to the NRCs on-line document library,
ADAMS, was also suspended. The agency has been restoring access
to appropriate documents, after reviewing them for security
sensitivity. 

LES and USEC Inc. documents deemed non-sensitive have been
restored to ADAMS. Portions of other LES and USEC, Inc.
documents that were found to be sensitive have now been excised,
or redacted, and the remaining portions of the documents
restored to ADAMS. 

The new reactors category of restored documents relates to early
site permits, standard design certifications and combined
licenses for nuclear power plants. 

Members of the public may obtain these documents from ADAMS by
using the CITRIX access to the NRC electronic reading room site,
available at http: //www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. Help in
using ADAMS through CITRIX is available by contacting the NRC
Public Document Room by phone at 800-397-4209 or 301-415-4737,
or by e-mail to PDR@nrc.gov.   



  


 	Last revised Thursday, December 30, 2004 	   
*****************************************************************
 52 Las Vegas SUN: Marisol Montoya: Spirit of debate lives
 
Editor's note: More than 1,000 students from high schools
throughout Southern Nevada participated in the 49th annual Sun
Youth Forum on Nov. 23. The students were divided into groups to
discuss a variety of topics. A spokesperson was chosen from each
group to write a column about the students' findings. Today's
columnist is Cimarron-Memorial High School student Marisol
Montoya, who writes about the discussion in her group, "Home in
Nevada."

 By Marisol Montoya 

In recent years America has experienced a decline in
bipartisanship and cooperation in politics. This was highlighted
in this election and has been seen in the bitter divides over
social issues and legislation.

 With the Sun Youth Forum occurring as the election wounds were
still open, one might assume that these divides would be more
prevalent than usual. As expected, there were divisions and they
were deeply drawn by personal beliefs.

 However, what I experienced at the Youth Forum was a stark
difference to the lack of political cooperation shown in recent
months. My peers listened to each other and were respectful of
each other. A strong example of this was demonstrated when the
issue of the death penalty was discussed.

 The room was deeply divided -- 17 supported the death penalty
while 15 were opposed to it. Specifically, on the issue of the
death penalty for minors, those in favor believed that if you
kill someone you should pay the price with your own life. It was
also stated that the funding to keep someone in jail for life
was too much of a financial burden on taxpayers.

 But that argument was countered with a strong rebuttal, that
the price of executing someone is actually more expensive than
keeping someone in jail for life. Many people, including myself,
also had a problem with the fact that America is the only
western democracy that uses the death penalty. For opponents of
the death penalty, the risk of executing an innocent person was
also far too great to sway anyone's opinion to the other side.

 The divide in our room over the death penalty was very similar
to the one in the political arena, but when it came to an even
more divisive issue, such as gay marriage, there was much
agreement.

 Only six people in the 30-plus group opposed gay marriage.
Everyone in our room came to the agreement, however, that as
much as marriage may be about love, this particular issue is
about the rights that come with marriage or a civil union, such
as the rights of inheritance, taxes, real estate, hospital
visitation, medical and legal decisions.

 While some students were uncomfortable with the word marriage,
all seemed uncomfortable at denying rights based on sexuality.
Almost all believed that someone's religious beliefs should not
determine human rights. Some even felt that the government
should not be involved in marriage, period, and that the
government should just honor civil unions for all and that a
church or religious sect could choose to recognize it as a
marriage.

 All I wanted from the discussion was an answer to my question:
If homosexuals can fight and die for our country, why can't they
have the same rights all others are entitled to? However, the
best response I received was that the military has a "Don't ask,
don't tell" policy, which I already knew.

 While we were still contemplating the rights for homosexuals
via marriage, another debatable right was addressed. Should you
have the right to use marijuana? Contrary to popular belief, an
overwhelming majority of the students did not support
legalization.

 Seventeen supported legalization while 14 opposed -- a
difference of only three people. (One student had no opinion on
the issue.) To me, it seems ridiculous for someone to possibly
lose their right to vote if they're convicted of using a
non-addictive drug.

 Common ground was reached, though, on a medicinal purpose for
marijuana. This is because marijuana, for many patients, is the
only drug that can effectively cut the nauseating edge of
chemotherapy. It also gives you an appetite.

 Not even THC pills give the same effect as smoked marijuana.
Ultimately, we agreed that if marijuana was ever to be legalized
in any form, regulations and taxes would have to be imposed. An
issue also tied with regulations and money, because taxes
ultimately mean money, was Yucca Mountain. While an overwhelming
majority were opposed to Yucca Mountain, nearly everyone felt it
was inevitable. Most of the group said they would support it as
long as the security and storage were strictly regulated.

 However, the sarcasm in accepting it was shown when everyone
said they would gladly take the waste dump if Nevada's schools
were given as much money to spend per pupil as is spent on
education by those states ranking in the top five in the
country. While the looming threat of nuclear waste shadowed many
students' perceptions, including my own, some believed that
there was hope in stalling the waste dump from being used
anytime soon. So strong was this belief that some students came
together to help form Youth Against Yucca Mountain.

 The Sun Youth Forum gave more hope for the re-emergence of
bipartisanship that seems to have been lost in recent years.
These youths, representing the future of our country, were
working and listening. It wasn't a shouting match of "my ideas
are better and are not to be compromised." I was proud to see
that cooperation in politics is not an extinct concept. Perhaps
more of this will take place in politics in the near future. 


 
*****************************************************************
 53 Las Vegas SUN: Business group wants to deal over Yucca

December 29, 2004 

Benefits to state sought for accepting nuclear waste

 By Suzanne Struglinski <suzanne@lasvegassun.com> SUN WASHINGTON 
BUREAU 

WASHINGTON -- A new coalition of Nevada business, union and
local government leaders plans to pushing for Nevadans to
capitalize on the government's plan to store highly radioactive
waste at Yucca Mountain.

 The 16-member group wants the state to start negotiating
options for tax benefits, research grants, new highways,
educational opportunities or other benefits as long as the
Energy Department still plans to store 77,000 tons of spent
nuclear fuel 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas.

 "I think there was a definite time period when we shouldn't
have been in those negotiations, but I think that time has
passed," said Monte Miller, chief executive of KeyState
Corporate Management in Las Vegas and a co-founder of the group,
which calls itself "For A Better Nevada."

 Gov. Kenny Guinn, Attorney General Brian Sandoval and Nevada's
congressional delegation have a united opposition to the planned
repository and have said negotiating for benefits is not an
option.

 The state won one of several legal challenges against the
department earlier this year and plans on raising more
objections if the Nuclear Regulatory Commission ever reviews a
license application.

 Members of the new group say the coalition is neither for or
against the proposed nuclear waste repository at Yucca. They say
the group is simply "focused on capturing any and all economic
opportunities and benefits possible for Nevada," according to a
press release issued Tuesday announcing the group's creation.

 Other Las Vegas members of the group include: auto dealer and
casino owner Jim Marsh; Ed Burke, secretary and treasurer of
Teamsters Local 631; John Gibson, chief executive of American
Pacific Corp.; Terry Graves, president of the Henderson
Development Association, real estate developer Jack Libby and
Troy Wade, chairman of Nevada Alliance for Defense.

 Other Southern Nevadans on the group's founding committee are
Candice Trummell, chairwoman of the Nye County Commission and
Spencer Hafen, chairman of the Lincoln County Commission,
according to Tuesday's announcement. Vaughn Higbee, former
Superintendent of schools in Lincoln County is also
participating in the coalition.

 Northern Nevada members of the group include several Reno
residents -- Margaret Cavin, owner of J &J Mechnancial, Rod
Cooper, regional manager of Granite Construction Company, Norman
Dianda, president of Q Construction, and businessmen T.J. Day
and Ranson Webster.

 Caliente Mayor Kevin Phillips, Bill Nisbet of Chilton
Engineering in Elko, Ben Viljoen, chairman of the Esmeralda
County Commission and Paul Willis of the Pahrump Town Board are
also listed as members of the group.

 The idea for a group focused on the economics benefits of Yucca
started in 2003 during the Legislature's debates on increasing
taxes, said Chris Barrett, a casinos and concrete company
lobbyist with IW Strategies in Reno. Barrett is coordinating the
group.

 Barrett said that as he watched the Legislature create new
taxes he thought there should be some benefit to the state for
having the proposed repository to lessen the tax burdens on
Nevadans. But, he said, he was soon surprised to learn, mainly
from the nuclear industry lobbyists, that no one has ever asked
for benefits and there is nothing even on the table.

 "Look at what they do in Alaska," Barrett said. "Residents get
a stipend for oil, why can't we get something like that. Let's
look at some alternatives here."

 After tour of the Yucca site in November, members of the group
decided the waste storage in Nevada is inevitable and wanted to
organize their efforts.

 "They're not just going to walk away from this," Barrett said,
referring to the Energy Department and all the work and money
spent so far on the site.

 Barrett said the group wants to maximize jobs for residents,
get contracts in Nevada to provide goods and services, get
payments equal to taxes to local government, more public land
transfers, assistance in getting water and develop research
opportunities in the state, among a list of other ideas.

 "Who else can better take care of Nevada than Nevadans
themselves?," Barrett asked.

 The group does not have a budget and is mainly relying on
members to volunteer their time and make phone calls to other
leaders in the state, Barrett said. The group has not taken any
money from the Nuclear Energy Institute and would not accept
any, he said.

 Mitch Singer, an NEI spokesman, said the new group is an
independent organization. Trying to get economic benefits is not
a new idea, but this is the first gtime a roup has formed to
advocate for it.

 Former Gov. Bob List, who works with the Nuclear Energy
Institute, the industry's advocacy group that strongly supports
the Yucca project, has called for economic benefits in the past
and will continue to do so. He said he was aware the group was
forming, and although he is not working with them specifically,
it will help having people supporting he same cause.

 "I certainly think it will be a little less lonely out there,"
List said. "I think it's a big step. We'd be foolish to let the
opportunity pass us up."

 But Nevada lawmakers say there is nothing to negotiate. "The
law does not provide for any payment to the state and the
federal government has no incentive to provide any in the
future," said Rep. Jim Gibbons, R-Nev.

 "I believe that as Nevada's economy continues to grow and
diversify, many better job and economic opportunities will exist
for our residents than working at a deadly nuclear waste dump."
Lawmakers and state officials have said deals made with the
Energy Department could get broken in the future, similar to the
budget cuts of a watchdog group for the Waste Isolation Pilot
Plant in New Mexico.

 The state had a deal with the department to fund the group but
budget cuts forced it to close this year.

 "I continue to believe that we need to prevent Yucca Mountain
and I do not agree with attempts to negotiate with the federal
government because there are no benefits the state could
possibly reap from the site," Gibbons said.

 David Cherry, the spokesman for Rep. Shelley Berkley, D-Nev.,
said her position on Yucca and the new group is simple.

 "This is not the first group to try and sell people in Las
Vegas and other Nevada communities on the idea that Yucca
Mountain is good for business, and it probably will not be the
last," Cherry said.

 "What they all fail to mention, however, is that there are no
financial benefits to be had and that the cost of a major
disaster involving nuclear waste would be catastrophic."

 Rep. Jon Porter, R-Nev., said he appreciates business leaders
looking out for the state's interest, but he will oppose any
effort to open the proposed nuclear waste repository at Yucca
Mountain, said spokesman Adam Mayberry.

 "The storage and transportation of 77,000 tons of the most
deadly substance known to man in southern Nevada will endanger
the health and safety of many citizens far outweighing any
economic benefit," he said.

 Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., and Sen. John Ensign, R-Nev., released
results from a poll earlier this month that showed 70 percent of
the state opposes the proposed high-level nuclear waste
repository and that 57 percent said Nevada officials should
continue fighting it.

 The poll also found 38 percent said Yucca "is inevitable and
nothing can be done about it" -- down 5 percentage points from a
January 2002 poll.

 But Reid said on a November episode of the "Face to Face With
Jon Ralston" cable television show that there are limits as to
what can be done legislatively. He said he could slow it down
but not stop it; it would be up to the courts to do so.

 Reid's comments convinced Miller it was time to do something.
"When Reid gets on television and says there is nothing else
Congress can do, I think it is time to get in the trenches with
these guys," Miller said.

 Miller said he plans to talk to elected officials he knows to
start talking about a negotiation option.

 
 
*****************************************************************
 54 heraldtribune.com: Tallevast shocked over denial of claim 

A former beryllium worker could die without help with bills. 

By DEBI SPRINGER

December 30th 2004

debi.springer@heraldtribune.com

MANATEE COUNTY -- When Tim Brady opened the letter, he hoped it 
would save his life. Instead, it may turn out to be a death 
sentence.

The 10-page letter Brady received Dec. 14 contained the news that 
a federal office in Jacksonville had denied his claim for medical 
help to treat a lung illness that has left him disabled and 
facing more than $60,000 in annual medical bills.

"I felt sick," said Brady's wife, Flor. There were tears, she 
said, and a feeling of hopelessness. Tim Brady was so devastated 
he went on a religious retreat in Tennessee to forget for a 
while.

Brady has 60 days to appeal the denial to another Labor 
Department office in Jacksonville.

But the ramifications of the letter go much further than the 
heartbreak in the Brady household.

News of his denial has reverberated among Tallevast residents and 
former employees of American Beryllium Co. who are or fear they 
may be sick from the contamination from the plant. Though 
neighbors of the plant don't qualify for the specific kind of 
help Brady sought, they are watching to see how former employees 
are treated to gauge whether they are likely to get government 
help.

Brady is known as perhaps the sickest of all those exposed to 
beryllium dust.

The denial of his case, which has required numerous visits to 
doctors, has disheartened many residents and workers.

Larry Paquin worked at American Beryllium for five years in the 
1980s and knew about Tim Brady's illnesses.

"Brady has so many problems, man, I tell you what, that's going 
to set a precedent right there," Paquin said. "People are going 
to see that and that's going to turn everybody off from making a 
claim."

Beryllium is a toxic, lightweight metal that workers at American 
Beryllium cut to produce components for nuclear weapons for the 
U.S. military.

Workers breathed in the fine black beryllium dust, which can 
cause an incurable fatal lung disease. The plant ran 24 hours a 
day from 1961 to 1996, employing about 200 people at any one 
time.

Wanda Washington, vice president of FOCUS, a local community 
action group, said legislation surrounding the Energy Employees 
Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act needs improvement. 
She said it should be easier for people to prove they were made 
sick by the plant and its pollution.

"What do you need, a stick of beryllium inside your body that 
says 'ABC' on the side?" Washington asked.

The burden of proof should be on the government to prove 
beryllium dust did not cause any illnesses, she said. Instead, 
the workers and residents must prove -- through expensive testing 
and extensive documentation -- that their health was affected.

Now, some people say they may not even undergo the testing, 
though the federal government has provided $50,000 and Manatee 
County has kicked in $60,000 to provide initial health screening 
for beryllium disease.

Paquin, who lives in DeSoto County, said he has lost hope of 
getting help. He hasn't had his beryllium sensitivity test done, 
and after hearing about Brady's predicament, he doesn't think he 
will.

"Why should I bother having a test? Look what they're doing to 
Tim; you'd have to be dead almost," Paquin said.

Each time Brady sent in a round of medical records to 
substantiate his claim, the Department of Labor wrote back 
saying, "No medical evidence was received that could adequately 
substantiate CBD as required under the EEOICPA." CBD is chronic 
beryllium disease.

The program can provide a lump sum payment of up to $150,000 and 
medical benefits to employees whose claims are accepted. Current 
and former employees of contractors, subcontractors and eligible 
survivors of former employees of American Beryllium Co. can 
receive assistance filing claims under EEOICPA.

The Bradys intend to appeal the denial and have hired a lawyer.

Without government compensation, Brady fears his HMO eventually 
might cease paying for the monthly hemoglobin infusions that 
boost his immune system and keep him alive.

Flor Brady usually speaks softly -- almost on the verge of tears 
-- when she discusses her husband and his health. But since 
receiving the letter, she speaks angrily. She is fighting now to 
keep her husband alive.

"What he has matches with the symptoms of chronic beryllium 
disease," she said.

Dwight Nichols, 63, worked for American Beryllium for 23 years. 
Nichols knew Brady and said he doesn't doubt that Brady's 
illnesses are related to beryllium dust. But Nichols has lost 
faith in the government.

"They're not going to give us anything," Nichols said. 
*****************************************************************
 55 Salt Lake Tribune: Decision on Goshute waste plan is likely in
February 

Article Last Updated: 12/30/2004 01:00:16 AM 

			 			 			 			 			 			 			 			 			 			 					A few weeks late: 
The safety board is expected to finish work within 60 days 

By Patty Henetz The Salt Lake Tribune 

A federal decision on whether to allow a consortium of private 
utilities to build an interim storage facility for spent nuclear 
fuel on the Skull Valley Goshute reservation is likely to come 
in February, a few weeks later than expected. 

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission's licensing panel, the 
Atomic Safety Licensing Board, last week determined that unless 
Utah and Private Fuel Storage (PFS) wish to file further 
motions, the information-gathering phase of the license 
procedures has ended. 

The Atomic Safety Licensing Board is made up of independent 
judges who make legal decisions and present findings to NRC 
regulators. The board is expected to finish its work within 60 
days. The three NRC commissioners then will decide whether to 
order regulators to grant PFS its license, PFS attorney Jay 
Silberg said Wednesday. 

Denise Chancellor, an assistant Utah attorney general, said 
Tuesday that the state has no further plans to file motions 
before the board. Nor does PFS, Silberg said. 

The Atomic Safety Licensing Board is considering two final 
matters. 

One is an appeal of its earlier ruling that the possibility 
of an F-16 crash on the PFS storage casks presents an 
unacceptable risk. In the other, the state claims PFS and 
nuclear regulators did not properly consider federal Energy 
Department requirements for acceptance of spent nuclear fuel 
before issuing a final environmental impact study. 

The second matter stems from an Energy Department official's 
disclosure in October that the type of welded canisters PFS would
use to store the spent fuel wouldn't meet contract requirements 
for permanent storage at Yucca Mountain, Nev. The state claims 
that undermines PFS assurances that its storage facility is only 
temporary. 

Before that contention was filed last month, state and PFS 
officials expected the licensing panel to issue its decision by 
Jan. 21. Chancellor said she now expects the decision to be 
delayed as much as a month. 

PFS, a limited liability consortium of eight utilities, is 
seeking a 20-year license, renewable for another 20 years, to 
store 44,000 tons of nuclear waste in 4,000 concrete and steel 
canisters that would sit on open-air concrete pads covering 
about 100 acres 45 miles southwest of Salt Lake City. If it is 
licensed, PFS could begin accepting shipments of spent fuel rods 
by 2007. 

Federal law required a permanent nuclear waste repository to 
open by 1998. But multiple problems with the Yucca Mountain 
project, including lawsuits, intractable opposition from the 
state of Nevada and a lack of funding, has made the new 2010 
opening deadline unlikely. 

PFS officials say nuclear plants are running out of on-site 
storage for the spent fuel and need someplace to store the 
waste until Yucca opens. 

Utah has no nuclear power plants. 

© Copyright 2004, The Salt Lake Tribune. 
*****************************************************************
 56 NRC: Notice of Public Scoping Meeting Regarding the Proposed USEC 
 
                        FR Doc 04-28455 
[Federal Register: December 29, 2004 (Volume 69, Number 249)] 
[Notices] [Page 78058-78059] From the Federal Register Online via 
GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr29de04-142]                         
 
American Centrifuge Plant AGENCY: United States Nuclear 
Regulatory Commission (NRC).
 
ACTION: Meeting notice.
 
SUMMARY: USEC Incorporated (USEC) submitted a license application 
to the NRC on August 23, 2004, proposing the construction, 
operation and future decommissioning of the American Centrifuge 
Plant (ACP) gas centrifuge uranium enrichment facility near 
Piketon, OH. The NRC previously announced its intent to prepare 
an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) on October 15, 2004, (69 
FR 61268). This notice is to notify the public and interested 
parties of a public meeting to discuss to the NRC's environmental 
review of the proposed ACP.
 
 
DATES: The public scoping process required by the National 
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) will continue until February 1, 
2005. Written comments submitted by mail should be postmarked by 
that date to ensure full consideration. Comments mailed after 
that date will be considered to the extent possible.
 
The NRC will conduct a public scoping meeting to assist in 
defining the appropriate scope of the EIS, including the 
significant environmental issues to be addressed. The meeting 
date, times and location are listed below: Meeting Date: January 
18, 2005.
 
Meeting Location: Zahns Corner Middle School, 2379 Schuster Road, 
Piketon, Ohio 45661.
 
Scoping Meeting: 7 p.m. to 9:45 p.m. Members of the NRC staff 
will be available for informal discussions with members of the 
public from 6 p.m. to 7 p.m. The formal meeting and associated 
NRC presentation begins at 7 p.m. For planning purposes, those 
who wish to present oral comments at the meeting are encouraged 
to pre-register by contacting Ron Linton of the NRC by telephone 
at 1- 800-368-5642, Extension 7777, or by e-mail to rcl1@nrc.gov 
no later than January 6, 2005. Interested persons may also 
register to speak at the meeting.
 
 
ADDRESSES: Members of the public and interested parties are 
invited and encouraged to submit comments to the Chief, Rules 
Review and Directives Branch, Mail Stop T6-D59, U.S. Nuclear 
Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001. The NRC 
encourages comments to be submitted electronically to 
nrcrep@nrc.gov. Please refer to Docket No. 70-7004 when 
submitting comments.
 
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For general or technical 
information associated with the license review of the USEC 
application, please contact: Yawar Faraz at (301) 415-8113. For 
general information on the NRC NEPA process, or the environmental 
review process related to the USEC application, please contact: 
Matthew Blevins at (301) 415-7684.
 
 
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 1.0 Background USEC submitted a 
license application for a gas centrifuge uranium enrichment 
facility, known as the American Centrifuge Plant (ACP), to the 
NRC on August 23, 2004. The NRC environmental review will 
evaluate the potential environmental impacts associated with the 
proposed ACP in parallel with the NRC safety review of the 
license application.
 
The environmental review will be documented in draft and final 
Environmental Impact Statements in accordance with NEPA and NRC 
NEPA implementing regulations at 10 CFR Part 51.
 
2.0 USEC Enrichment Facility If licensed, the proposed ACP would 
enrich uranium for use in manufacturing commercial nuclear fuel 
for use in power reactors.
 
Feed material would be natural (not enriched) uranium in the form 
of uranium hexafluoride (UF6). USEC proposes to use gas 
centrifuge technology to enrich isotope uranium-235 in the 
uranium hexafluoride up to 10 percent. The centrifuge would 
operate at below atomospheric pressure. The enriched UF6 would be 
transported to a fuel fabrication facility. The depleted UF6 
would be stored on site until a disposition strategy (either 
re-use or disposal) is carried out by USEC.
 
Initially, the licensed capacity of the plant would be up to 3.5 
million separative work units (SWU) [SWU relates to a measure of 
the work used to enrich uranium]. USEC has requested that the NRC 
environmental review examine the impacts of an enrichment
 
[[Page 78059]] plant with a 7 million SWU capacity to bound 
potential future expansions. Future expansion beyond 3.5 million 
SWU would still have to be approved by the NRC via a separate 
license amendment.
 
3.0 Alternatives To Be Evaluated No action--The no-action 
alternative would be to not build the proposed ACP. Under this 
alternative the NRC would not approve the license application. 
This serves as a baseline for comparison. Proposed action--The 
proposed action is the construction and operation of a gas 
centrifuge uranium enrichment facility located near Piketon, OH. 
Implementation of the proposed action would require the issuance 
of an NRC license under the provisions of 10 CFR Parts 30, 40 and 
70.
 
Other alternatives not listed here may be identified through the 
scoping process.
 
4.0 Environmental Impact Areas To Be Analyzed The following 
resource areas have been tentatively identified for analysis in 
the EIS: --Public and Occupational Health: potential public and 
occupational consequences from construction, routine operation, 
transportation, and credible accident scenarios (including 
natural events); --Waste Management: types of wastes expected to 
be generated, handled, and stored; --Land Use: plans, policies 
and controls; --Transportation: transportation modes, routes, 
quantities, and risk estimates; --Geology and Soils: physical 
geography, topography, geology and soil characteristics; --Water 
Resources: surface and groundwater hydrology, water use and 
quality, and the potential for degradation; --Ecology: wetlands, 
aquatic, terrestrial, economically and recreationally important 
species, and threatened and endangered species; --Air Quality: 
meteorological conditions, ambient background, pollutant sources, 
and the potential for degradation; --Noise: ambient, sources, and 
sensitive receptors; --Historical and Cultural Resources: 
historical, archaeological, and traditional cultural resources 
--Visual and Scenic Resources: landscape characteristics, manmade 
features and viewshed; --Socioeconomics: demography, economic 
base, labor pool, housing, transportation, utilities, public 
services/facilities, education, recreation, and cultural 
resources; --Environmental Justice: potential disproportionately 
high and adverse impacts to minority and low-income populations; 
and --Cumulative Effects: impacts from past, present and 
reasonably foreseeable actions at and near the site.
 
The examples under each resource area are not intended to be all 
inclusive, nor is this list an indication that environmental 
impacts will occur. The list is presented to facilitate comments 
on the scope of the EIS. Additions to, or deletions from, this 
list may occur as a result of the public scoping process.
 
5.0 Scoping Meetings This notice is to encourage public 
involvement in the EIS process and to solicit public comments on 
the proposed scope and content of the EIS. The NRC will hold a 
public scoping meeting in Piketon, OH on January 18, 2005 to 
solicit both oral and written comments from interested parties.
 
Scoping is an early and open process designed to determine the 
range of actions, alternatives, and potential impacts to be 
considered in the EIS, and to identify the significant issues 
related to the proposed action. Scoping is intended to solicit 
input from the public and other agencies so that the analysis can 
be more clearly focused on issues of genuine concern. The 
principal goals of the scoping process are to: --Identify public 
concerns; --Ensure that concerns are identified early and are 
properly studied; --Identify alternatives that will be examined; 
--Identify significant issues that need to be analyzed; and 
--Eliminate unimportant issues.
 
The scoping meetings will begin with NRC staff providing a 
description of NRC's role and mission followed by a brief 
overview of NRC's environmental review process and goals of the 
scoping meeting. The bulk of the meeting will be allotted for 
attendees to make oral comments.
 
6.0 Scoping Comments Written comments should be mailed to the 
address listed above in the ADDRESSES section.
 
7.0 The NEPA Process The EIS for the proposed ACP will be 
prepared according to NEPA and NRC NEPA implementing regulations 
at 10 CFR Part 51.
 
After the scoping process is complete, the NRC will prepare a 
draft EIS. The draft EIS is scheduled to be published in July 
2005. A 45-day comment period on the draft EIS is planned, and 
public meetings to receive comments will be held approximately 
three weeks after distribution of the draft EIS. Availability of 
the draft EIS, the dates of the public comment period, and 
information about the public meetings will be announced in the 
Federal Register, on NRC's USEC web page, and in the local news 
media when the draft EIS is published. The final EIS is expected 
to be published in March 2006 that will incorporate public 
comments received on the draft EIS.
 
Dated at Rockville, MD, this 21st day of December, 2004.
 
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
 
B. Jennifer Davis, Chief, Environmental and Low-Level Waste 
Section, Division of Waste Management and Environmental 
Protection, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards.
 
[FR Doc. 04-28455 Filed 12-28-04; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P

 
*****************************************************************
 57 DOE: Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board, Oak Ridge 
 
                        FR Doc 04-28534 
[Federal Register: December 29, 2004 (Volume 69, Number 249)] 
[Notices] [Page 78002] From the Federal Register Online via GPO 
Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr29de04-63]                         
 
Reservation AGENCY: Department of Energy.
 
ACTION: Notice of open meeting.
 
SUMMARY: This notice announces a meeting of the Environmental 
Management Site-Specific Advisory Board (EMSSAB), Oak Ridge 
Reservation. The Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 
86 Stat. 770) requires that public notice of this meeting be 
announced in the Federal Register.
 
 
DATES: Wednesday, January 12, 2005; 6 p.m.
 
ADDRESSES: DOE Information Center, 475 Oak Ridge Turnpike, Oak 
Ridge, Tennessee.
 
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Pat Halsey, Federal Coordinator, 
Department of Energy Oak Ridge Operations Office, P.O. Box 2001, 
EM-90, Oak Ridge, TN 37831. Phone (865) 576-4025; Fax (865) 
576-5333 or e- mail: halseypj@oro.doe.gov or check the Web site 
at http://www.oakridge.doe.gov/em/ssab.
 
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Purpose of the Board: The purpose of 
the Board is to make recommendations to DOE in the areas of 
environmental restoration, waste management, and related 
activities.
 
Tentative Agenda: Overview of the 2003 Annual Site Environmental 
Report.
 
Public Participation: The meeting is open to the public.
 
Written statements may be filed with the Board either before or 
after the meeting. Individuals who wish to make oral statements 
pertaining to the agenda item should contact Pat Halsey at the 
address or telephone number listed above. Requests must be 
received five days prior to the meeting and reasonable provision 
will be made to include the presentation in the agenda. The 
Deputy Designated Federal Officer is empowered to conduct the 
meeting in a fashion that will facilitate the orderly conduct of 
business. Individuals wishing to make public comment will be 
provided a maximum of five minutes to present their comments.
 
Minutes: Minutes of this meeting will be available for public 
review and copying at the Department of Energy's Information 
Center at 475 Oak Ridge Turnpike, Oak Ridge, TN between 8 a.m. 
and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, or by writing to Pat Halsey, 
Department of Energy Oak Ridge Operations Office, P.O. Box 2001, 
EM-90, Oak Ridge, TN 37831, or by calling her at (865) 576-4025.
 
Issued at Washington, DC, on December 23, 2004.
 
Rachel M. Samuel, Deputy Advisory Committee Management Officer.
 
[FR Doc. 04-28534 Filed 12-28-04; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450-01-P

 
*****************************************************************
 58 DOE: Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board, Hanford
 
                        FR Doc 04-28535 
[Federal Register: December 29, 2004 (Volume 69, Number 249)] 
[Notices] [Page 78003] From the Federal Register Online via GPO 
Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr29de04-65]                         
 
AGENCY: Department of Energy.
 
ACTION: Notice of open meeting.
 
SUMMARY: This notice announces a meeting of the Environmental 
Management Site-Specific Advisory Board (EMSSAB), Hanford. The 
Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 86 Stat. 770) 
requires that public notice of this meeting be announced in the 
Federal Register.
 
 
DATES: Thursday, January 27, 2005; 9 a.m.-5 p.m.; Friday, January 
28, 2005; 8:30 a.m.-4 p.m.
 
ADDRESSES: Red Lion Hotel Columbia Center, 1101 North Columbia 
Center Boulevard, Kennewick, Washington, Phone: (509) 946-7611, 
Fax: (509) 943-8564.
 
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Yvonne Sherman, Public 
Involvement Program Manager, Department of Energy Richland 
Operations Office, 825 Jadwin, MSIN A7-75, Richland, WA, 99352; 
Phone: (509) 376-6216; Fax: (509) 376-1563.
 
 
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Purpose of the Board: The purpose of 
the Board is to make recommendations to DOE in the areas of 
environmental restoration, waste management, and related 
activities.
 
Tentative Agenda: Thursday, January 27, 2005 1. Central Plateau 
Values Piece, began in November 2. Capping Workshop 3. U-221 
Proposed Plan 4. Briefing on Washington's Cleanup Priority Act 
(I-297) 5. Information on Models and Assumptions in the Composite 
Analysis Friday, January 28, 2005 1. Tank Waste Fact Sheet from 
Public Involvement Committee 2. Discussion of Outreach for Yakima 
Meeting in April 3. End States Vision update Public 
Participation: The meeting is open to the public.
 
Written statements may be filed with the Board either before or 
after the meeting. Individuals who wish to make oral statements 
pertaining to agenda items should contact Yvonne Sherman's office 
at the address or telephone number listed above. Requests must be 
received five days prior to the meeting and reasonable provision 
will be made to include the presentation in the agenda. The 
Deputy Designated Federal Officer is empowered to conduct the 
meeting in a fashion that will facilitate the orderly conduct of 
business. Individuals wishing to make public comments will be 
provided a maximum of five minutes to present their comments.
 
Minutes: The minutes of this meeting will be available for public 
review and copying at the Freedom of Information Public Reading 
Room, 1E-190, Forrestal Building, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., 
Washington, DC 20585 between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday-Friday, 
except Federal holidays. Minutes will also be available by 
writing to Yvonne Sherman, Department of Energy Richland 
Operation Office, 825 Jadwin, MSIN A7-75, Richland, WA 99352, or 
by calling her at (509) 376-1563.
 
Issued at Washington, DC, on December 23, 2004.
 
Rachel M. Samuel, Deputy Advisory Committee Management Officer.
 
[FR Doc. 04-28535 Filed 12-28-04; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450-01-P

 
*****************************************************************
 59 Idaho Statesman: Army using INEEL airtight modules

Statesman staff
 
Edition Date: 12-30-2004

Airtight containers developed by Idaho's national nuclear 
laboratory are being used by the U.S. Army to help dispose of old 
weapons, including poison gas. Workers at the Idaho National 
Engineering and Environmental Laboratory made the stainless steel 
modules so that technicians can climb inside through an airlock 
in protective clothing and examine drums containing glass ampules 
filled with chemical weapons agents.

Identifying the agents is important, because hazardous byproducts 
could be formed if some chemicals were to be combined during 
incineration.   








*****************************************************************
 60 KTVB.COM: INEEL to help dispose of chemical weapons 
 
06:26 AM MST on Wednesday, December 29, 2004 

Associated Press 

IDAHO FALLS - New airtight containers developed by Idaho's 
nuclear lab are helping military workers identify chemical 
weapons. 

The stainless steel containers made by the Idaho National Energy 
and Environmental Laboratory let workers inside. Once there, they 
can examine old drums of gases -- some dating back to World War 
One. 

Identifying the poisons is important, because some chemical 
combinations can be lethal if they're incinerated. 

So far, the system has been used at chemical weapons depots in 
Arkansas and at Colorado's Rocky Mountain Arsenal. 

Workers climbing inside must wear thick gloves and protective 
suits. As a result, the containers have to be easy to operate for 
technicians wearing unwieldy attire. 

*****************************************************************
 61 DOE: Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board, Idaho 
 
                        FR Doc 04-28533 
[Federal Register: December 29, 2004 (Volume 69, Number 249)] 
[Notices] [Page 78002-78003] From the Federal Register Online via 
GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr29de04-64]                         
 
National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory AGENCY: 
Department of Energy.
 
ACTION: Notice of open meeting.
 
SUMMARY: This notice announces a meeting of the Environmental 
Management Site-Specific Advisory Board (EMSSAB), Idaho National 
Engineering and Environmental Laboratory. The Federal Advisory 
Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 86 Stat. 770) requires that public 
notice of this meeting be announced in the Federal Register.
 
DATES: Tuesday, January 18, 2005; 8 a.m.-6 p.m.; Wednesday, 
January 19, 2005; 8 a.m.-5 p.m. Opportunities for public 
participation will be held Tuesday, January 18, from 12:15 to 
12:30 p.m. and 5:45 to 6:00 p.m.; and on Wednesday, January 19, 
from 11:45 a.m. to 12 noon and 4:00 to 4:15 p.m. Additional time 
may be made available for public comment during the 
presentations.
 
 
[[Page 78003]] These times are subject to change, please check 
with the meeting facilitator to confirm these times.
 
 
ADDRESSES: Red Lion Hotel on the Falls, 475 River Parkway, Idaho 
Falls, ID 83402.
 
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Peggy Hinman, INEEL Board 
Administrator, North Wind, Inc., P.O. Box 51174, Idaho Falls, ID 
83405, Phone (208) 557-7885, or visit the Board's Internet home 
page at .
 
 
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Purpose of the Board: The purpose of 
the Board is to make recommendations to DOE in the areas of 
environmental restoration, waste management, and related 
activities.
 
Tentative Topics (agenda topics may change up to the day of the 
meeting; please contact Peggy Hinman for the most current agenda 
or visit the CAB's Internet site at ): Alternatives to 
Incineration Project Plan Presentation from new Idaho National 
Laboratory contractor, Battelle Energy Alliance, regarding 
transition Role of the public in implementing the new legislation 
for reclassification of high-level waste Rebound Study 
Information, WAG 1, Operable Unit 1-07B, New Pump and Treat 
Facility (NPTF) Prepare a Board recommendation regarding the 
Proposed Consolidation of Nuclear Operations Related to 
Production of Radioisotope Power Systems Environmental Impact 
Statement (Consolidation EIS) Public Participation: The meeting 
is open to the public.
 
Written statements may be filed with the Board administrator 
either before or after the meeting. Individuals who wish to make 
oral presentations pertaining to agenda items should contact the 
Board Chair at the address or telephone number listed above. The 
request must be received five days prior to the meeting and 
reasonable provision will be made to include the presentation in 
the agenda. The Deputy Designated Federal Officer, Richard 
Provencher, Assistant Manager for Environmental Management, Idaho 
Operations Office, U.S. Department of Energy, is empowered to 
conduct the meeting in a fashion that will facilitate the orderly 
conduct of business. Individuals wishing to make public comment 
will be provided equal time to present their comments.
 
Minutes: The minutes of this meeting will be available for public 
review and copying at the Department of Energy's Freedom of 
Information Public Reading Room, 1E-190, Forrestal Building, 1000 
Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585 between 9 a.m. and 
4 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Minutes 
will also be available by writing to Ms. Peggy Hinman, INEEL 
Board Administrator, at the address and phone number listed 
above.
 
Issued at Washington, DC, on December 23, 2004.
 
Rachel Samuel, Deputy Advisory Committee Management Officer.
 
[FR Doc. 04-28533 Filed 12-28-04; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450-01-P

 
*****************************************************************
 62 [du-list] DU in the news - Dec.30th 2004
 
Date: Wed, 29 Dec 2004 14:56:11 -0800

 
<x-flowed>
Wednesday, December 29, 2004 11:22 AM PST
Your Keyword News Alert for [depleted uranium]
matched the following stories:



Philadelphia Tribune, Wed, 29 Dec 2004 4:20 AM PST
Ducking all responsibility ruled in 2004 
http://www.phila-tribune.com/122804-5-P1.htm
By Linn Washington Jr. Despite verbal flatulence about moral values driving 
President Bushâ?Ts reelection, one moral imperative solely lacking in Bush 
and his backers is accepting personal responsibility.

See more news stories that match your keyword at:
http://search.news.yahoo.com/search/news/?c=&p=depleted+uranium

   ----------

Internal Virus Database is out-of-date.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.298 / Virus Database: 265.6.3 - Release Date: 12/21/04


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
$4.98 domain names from Yahoo!. Register anything.
http://us.click.yahoo.com/Q7_YsB/neXJAA/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/
  

</x-flowed>
*****************************************************************
 63 Physics Today: Cold Fusion Gets Chilly Encore - 

January 2005
 
Claims of cold fusion are no more convincing today than they were 
15 years ago. That's the conclusion of the Department of Energy's 
fresh look at advances in extracting energy from low-energy 
nuclear reactions. A report released on 1 December 2004 echoes 
DOE's 1989 study that followed the headline-making claims of cold 
fusion by Stanley Pons and Martin Fleischmann. 

Since Pons and Fleischmann's claims, cold fusion has fallen into 
disrepute among scientists, with only a few soldiering on under 
professional adversity. Most are funded by industry or various 
governments. 

DOE revisited the topic at the behest of cold fusion researchers 
(see Physics Today, April 2004, page 27). The researchers 
submitted a 30-page document, "New Physical Effects in Metal 
Deuterides," which DOE had peer-reviewed by 18 scientists, 9 of 
whom also attended a day of oral presentations by 6 cold fusion 
research groups. 

Reviewers were split on whether the experimental evidence for 
excess power production is compelling. But, the report says, most 
reviewers, even those who accepted the evidence for excess power 
production, "stated that the effects are not repeatable, the 
magnitude of the effect has not increased in over a decade of 
work, and that many of the reported experiments were not well 
documented." 

Cold fusion researchers put a rosier spin on the report. "The 
greatest vindication for the cold fusion community was that, 
instead of being treated like cripples, lepers, and idiots, we 
were treated like normal scientists in the handling of this 
review," says Michael McKubre, an electrochemist at SRI 
International in Menlo Park, California. "Just the fact of the 
review has heightened the level of discussion. There's been a 
huge upswing in interest in funding cold fusion research." Adds 
MIT theorist Peter Hagelstein, "A door has been opened by the 
reviewers. Whether anybody actually manages to go through it 
remains to be seen." 

The DOE report does not recommend setting aside government money 
for research into cold fusion. Rather, it identifies areas of 
research that "could be helpful in resolving some of the 
controversies in the field"specifically, characterization of 
deuterated metals and the search for fusion in thin deuterated 
filmsand recommends that agencies consider funding individual 
proposals in those areas. Considering individual proposals is 
nothing new, says Jim Decker, principal deputy director of DOE's 
Office of Science. "We have always been receptive to research 
proposals. We make decisions on funding research proposals on the 
basis of peer review and relevance." 

DOE's summary of the reviews can be downloaded from the Web at
http://www.science.doe.gov/Sub/Newsroom/ 
           
Copyright© 2004 by the American Institute of Physics
*****************************************************************
 64 Public Citizen:  Public Citizen Asks Justice Department to Probe 
House Majority Leader Tom DeLay and Energy Firm Officials for 
Possible Bribery
 
December 29, 2004 

Public Citizen Asks Justice Department to Probe House Majority 
Leader Tom DeLay and Energy Firm Officials for Possible Bribery 
Watchdog Group Says New Documents May Link DeLay and Two Other 
Congressmen and Company Execs in Scheme to Buy Political Access 

WASHINGTON, D.C. - Public Citizen today asked the U.S. Department 
of Justice to conduct a formal investigation of possible 
violations of federal anti-bribery statutes by House Majority 
Leader Tom DeLay (R-Texas), Rep. Joe Barton (R-Texas) and former 
Rep. W.J. "Billy" Tauzin (R-La.), as well as executives and 
lobbyists for the Kansas-based Westar Energy, Inc. 

In a letter to Noel Hillman, chief of the Justice Department's 
criminal division, Public Citizen wrote that substantial 
evidence, especially newly-released documents from a House ethics 
committee investigation, suggests a possible scheme using 
campaign contributions to buy political favors worth millions of 
dollars to Westar Energy and its executives. 

Besides the Westar executives, Public Citizen alleged that DeLay, 
Barton, who is the current chairman of the House Energy and 
Commerce Committee, and Tauzin, who was the former chairman of 
the committee but now is head of the drug industry's trade 
association, possibly provided legislative favors in exchange for 
campaign contributions in violation of the federal "Bribery of 
Public Officials and Witnesses" statute. 

According to Public Citizen, after making strategic campaign 
contributions, Westar appears to have been rewarded with a 
provision inserted into energy legislation in 2002 to exempt the 
company from Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) oversight 
if the Public Utility Holding Company Act (PUHCA) were repealed. 
PUHCA was slated for repeal in the House-passed energy bill in 
2002, and the special exemption for Westar was later quietly 
inserted by the House Republican leaders into the final bill 
being negotiated in a House-Senate conference committee. The 
exemption was later dropped after it became known that Westar was 
under investigation for securities fraud, and the energy bill 
later died. 

Public Citizen originally sought an investigation of the apparent 
money-for-political-favors arrangement by the Justice Department 
in June 2003. Today's letter, and the earlier complaint filed by 
Public Citizen, are available online at: 

The watchdog group said newly-released information significantly 
bolsters its concern about possible criminal violations and 
strengthens its request for a formal investigation. 

"In light of the new evidence that money may have been exchanged 
for preferential legislative treatment for Westar, we request 
that the Department of Justice conduct a formal investigation 
into possible violations of federal anti-bribery statutes," said 
Public Citizen President Joan Claybrook. 

Public Citizen cited documents, released as part of a recent
ethics investigation of DeLay by the House Committee on
Standards of Official Conduct, including: 

  + An April 2002 memorandum from Westar lobbyist Richard
Bornemann to Westar Vice President Doug Lawrence, recommending
that Westar pursue a "Platinum Package" of campaign
contributions, including a $25,000 soft money contribution to
DeLay's Texans for a Republican Majority (TRMPAC) leadership
PAC, and $31,500 in additional "hard" money contributions to a
list of candidates associated with Reps. Barton and Tauzin for
the purpose of gaining a "place at the table" during the House
conference committee. Most of the contributions were made by
Westar, including $25,000 given to TRMPAC. 

  + A May 2002 e-mail from Bornemann to Lawrence, stating that
"I absolutely detest asking you for money. We all prefer to
think that our powerful personalities and strategic brilliance
transcend such grubbiness. Anyway, let's sum up the needs
discussed in our conversation today. They keep to the boundaries
of the platinum' budget as approved." 

  + A May 2002 memo from Lawrence to Westar executives,
detailing their responsibilities to contribute money to
campaigns associated with Barton and Tauzin in exchange for
passage of a company-specific exemption from federal government
oversight. 

  + A May 2002 e-mail from former DeLay energy staffer Drew
Maloney to DeLay's TRMPAC staffer Chris Perkins explaining
Westar's desired special exemption ("a unique problem that was
addressed in the House bill") in the energy bill. Westar
executives presented their exemption request to the House
majority whip at a DeLay golf outing; their invitation to the
golf outing, and the opportunity to talk one-on-one with DeLay
and his staff members, was viewed as a reward for the company's
$25,000 soft money contribution to TRMPAC. 

  + The Westar provision was slipped into the House conference
language being negotiated with the Senate in early September
2002. On September 19, Barton (and, by proxy, DeLay, and Tauzin
and five other House Republican conferees) opposed a Democratic
move to delete it from a House-Senate compromise version of the
energy legislation. 

"It's hard to find a more offensive example of trading
legislative favors for campaign contributions," said Claybrook.
"The Justice Department needs to get to the bottom of this." 
 
    
*****************************************************************

NOTE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107 this 
material is distributed without profit or payment to those who 
have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for 
non-profit research and educational purposes only. For more 
information go to: 
<http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml> 
    
*****************************************************************