***************************************************************** 01/10/05 **** RADIATION BULLETIN(RADBULL) **** VOL 13.6 ***************************************************************** 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 UPI: U.S. urges Iran to dispel concerns - 2 UPI: Politics & Policies: The Iran dossier - 3 Guardian Unlimited: Iran Won't Allow Military Gear Inspection 4 Persian Journal: IAEA chief promises close checks on Iran - 5 Mehr News: Iran’s membership in nuclear fuel cycle group important 6 US: Washington Times: Forward thinking on nuclear policy 7 US: ArriveNet: Growing Costs of Nuclear Power Makes Renewable Energy 8 Greenpeace USA: Challenging the Greatest Force on Earth: Nuclear Wea 9 US: Journal of Turkish Weekly: Rice Drops Bolton Who Scorned Britain 10 Update+Action: Support Reconfirmation of ElBaradei 11 Guardian Unlimited: Arab Nuclear Ambitions Spurred by Israel 12 Bellona: Russia needs uranium from former Soviet republics 13 Financial Express: 33 projects in N-energy, oil, telecom on schedule NUCLEAR REACTORS 14 US: Risks of nuclear-plant radiation is well documented 15 US: [NukeNet] Group presses Taft on FirstEnergy 16 US: [CMEP] Comment on NRC Environmental Review of Nuke Plant 17 Jerusalem Post/Al-Osboa: Tsunami triggered by Indian nuke 18 new link: Egyptian paper: Israel-India nuke test caused tsunami 19 US: [NukeNet] PSEG's CEO stays on; workers get pink slips 20 US: NRC: NRC Releases Two Letters Regarding Hope Creek Nuclear Plant 21 US: NRC: NRC Revokes License of a Missouri Company and Prohibits its 22 US: NRC: NRC Begins In-Depth, Three-Part Inspection at Perry Nuclear 23 US: NRC: NRC Begins Implementing the New National Response Plan 24 US: NRC: NRC Revises Procedure for Inspection of Electrical Circuits 25 US: NRC: NRC Realigns Office of Executive Director for Operations 26 US: NRC: South Carolina Electric & Gas Company; Virgil C. Summer Nuc 27 US: San Luis Obispo Tribune: Diablo plant will likely be featured on 28 US: City Journal: Why the U.S. Needs More Nuclear Power 29 US: Burlington Free Press: Vermont Yankee's future up for grabs 30 UPI: Troubled Czech nuclear reactor restarted - 31 US: Times Argus: Vermont Yankee wants change in state law to continu 32 US: News Tribune: Regulators say South Jersey nuclear plant is safe 33 US: PRN: PSEG Nuclear Responds to Nuclear Regulatory Commission 34 US: NRC: NRC Begins Special Inspection of Pump Issues at Perry Nucle 35 US: NRC: NRC Staff Seeks Input on Environmental Review for USEC's Pr NUCLEAR SAFETY 36 US: [du-list] Judge Reverses Ruling 37 US: [du-list] WAMC interview with David Rose (Vanity Fair), 38 US: NRDC: Chemical Attacks Thyroid, Poses Significant Threat to Infa 39 US: heraldtribune.com: Disease costs ailing ex-worker his doctor 40 US: heraldtribune.com: Not ready to slip away yet 41 Scotsman.com: Fears Raised over Nuclear Submarine Refits 42 US: KATC: Proposed factory critics say government should disclose ri NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE 43 [NYTr] Brits to Bury Int'l Rad Waste for Money 44 US: [NukeNet] Feds deny N.J. aid to check radiation 45 US: NRC: NRC Withdraws Proposed Rule on Dual-Purpose Casks for Spent 46 US: Buffalo News: Local firm makes its mark with close-tolerance nuc 47 Guardian Unlimited: Health Standard for Perchlorate to High 48 US: Courier Journal: Judge reverses ruling in Lockheed Martin lawsui 49 US: AS: enviro-rocket-fuel 50 Thunder Bay's Source: Editorials Nuclear Waste 51 US: The Australian: Demand to drive uranium higher 52 US: PE.com: Group urges chemical cleanup 53 asahi.com : RADIATION CONCERNS:Russia ships spent nuke fuel through 54 Las Vegas SUN: Nevada, feds face off in court over Yucca Mountain fu NUCLEAR WEAPONS US DEPT. OF ENERGY 55 Rocky Flats Still Unsafe, Says Ex-FBI Agent 56 DOE: Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board, Northern 57 ABQjournal: LANL Management Criteria Changed 58 Tri-City Herald: PNNL evolves to meet changing needs of nation 59 Tri-City Herald: 2 cracks found at K East Basin 60 ABQjournal: DOE Reducing Number of Required Polygraphs 61 lamonitor.com: Have concerns over draft RFP for lab's contract 62 lamonitor.com: Was LANL shutdown necessary and worth it all? 63 Albuquerque Journal: LANL Management Criteria Changed 64 Albuquerque Journal: DOE Reducing Number of Required Polygraphs OTHER NUCLEAR 65 [du-list] Nuclear Week in Review (Vol. 91) ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** FULL NEWS STORIES ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** 1 UPI: U.S. urges Iran to dispel concerns - (United Press International) January 10, 2005 Washington, DC, Jan. 10 (UPI) -- The U.S. State Department said Monday the Iranian nuclear program continues to be a cause of concern for the United States. "Clearly Iran's uranium enrichment program is a concern. There are clearly outstanding questions that have not been answered," deputy spokesman Adam Ereli told a briefing in Washington. His comments followed a statement by a senior Iranian official in Tehran if Iran's needs are not satisfied, it will end the suspension of uranium enrichment. In late November, Iran signed an agreement with some European nations for suspending its enrichment program in return for assurance that the United States and its allies will not push for U.N. sanctions against Tehran and Europe will expand its trade links with the Islamic Republic. But Hossein Mousavian, a member of the Iranian nuclear negotiations team, told reporters in Tehran they may resume enrichment if a March meeting with EU for reviewing the progress of the agreement failed to produce results acceptable to Iran. Ereli said there were "grave doubts" about Iran's commitment to nonproliferation but instead of dispelling those doubts, Iran "steadfastly persist in causing more problems than they solve." [UPI Perspectives] ***************************************************************** 2 UPI: Politics & Policies: The Iran dossier - (United Press International) January 10, 2005 By Claude Salhani UPI International Editor Washington, DC, Jan. 10 (UPI) -- As soon as President George W. Bush brushes the confetti off his lapels and returns to the Oval Office from his second inaugural parade on Jan. 20, he will find a series of "presidential papers" on Iran, requiring his immediate attention, waiting for him. Well-informed Washington insiders say the nation's top think tanks have been scurrying over the last several weeks to put the finishing touches on comprehensive policy papers, or presidential directives that would help the Bush administration formulate a policy on Iran for the next four years. The abridged version of these exhaustive papers will be along the line of "What the heck do we do with Iran?" Indeed, just a few days after his second inauguration, the president will be driven back up Pennsylvania Avenue to Capitol Hill where he will deliver his State of the Union address to the nation. Iran, most likely, will deserve a mention of note. It was in his 2002 State of the Union speech that Bush placed Iran, along with North Korea and Iraq, in his now infamous Axis of Evil. Now, three years later, it remains unclear what course U.S. policy regarding Iran is likely to follow, but according to more than one analyst, the second Bush administration will delve into the Iran dossier with renewed vigor. The Iran dossier comprises three aspects: first, the Islamic Republic's pursuit of nuclear weapons technology; second, the United States' accusation that Iran supports terrorism; and third, Iran's involvement in Iraq. These are all points that the president will have to address. "U.S. policy will have to shift to the policy of supporting democratic opposition to bring about regime change," Alireza Jafarzadeh, president of Strategic Policy Consulting, told United Press International. Barring a change of regime in Iran, Washington should get used to the idea of a nuclear-armed Islamic Republic, as all indications are that Iran is set to follow its desire to join the nuclear club. However, warns Jafarzadeh, the world cannot afford to allow Iran "to acquire the nuclear bomb as well as erect a sister Islamic Republic in Iraq while suppressing its own population." It was Jafarzadeh who in August of 2002 revealed Iran's Natanz and Arak nuclear sites to the international community. At the time he was the spokesperson in Washington for Iran's National Council of Resistance of Iran, a group otherwise known as the Mujahedin-e-Khalq, or MEK. The United States had designated the MEK as a foreign terrorist organization in 1997. Iran's pursuit of its nuclear weapons program is sure to continue despite periodic disclaimers to the contrary by officials in Tehran. Well-controlled and carefully orchestrated visits by inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency are not about to reveal anything, either, as the Iranians have learned to disperse and camouflage their work. From Tehran's perspective, it makes sense for Iran to push ahead. Iran has always viewed itself as a regional sphere of influence, hoping to sway the region's policies. Since the 1979 Islamic Revolution when the Shiite clergy toppled the imperial rule of Shah Reza Pahlavi, Iran's theocratic regime has been trying -- one should add without too much success -- to export its revolution to neighboring countries. Outside of Lebanon, where the Revolutionary Guards found sympathetic ears in the country's largely under-privileged Shiite community, repeated calls from Iran's mullahs to the people of the Middle East to topple their "corrupt leaders" has gone unheeded. However, now for the first time since 1979, Iran is seeing new opportunities open up in neighboring Iraq, a country with a majority Shiite population. Faced with this dilemma, the United States has three options. First, the United States can avoid confrontation and continue to engage Iran in dialogue, hoping that Iran will see logic in diplomacy. This is the European Union's favorite policy. "This option produced a 2004 accord with Iran to freeze some of its nuclear programs that might allow for weapons development," Raymond Tanter, a visiting professor at Georgetown University's School of Foreign Service, told UPI. The problem with this option is that it failed to produce concrete results in the past because Iran did not respect prior agreements. "This route is bound to fail," said Tanter, who served on the National Security Council staff and as representative of the secretary of Defense to arms control talks in the Reagan administration. Iran's nuclear aspiration is also worrying other countries in the immediate neighborhood such as Kuwait, Bahrain and Saudi Arabia, each with an important Shiite minority. Furthermore, the speed with which the United States managed to topple Saddam Hussein's regime in Baghdad is yet further incentive for Tehran to arm itself with nuclear deterrence. The second option, Tanter believes, is for Israel or the United States to conduct military strikes against Iran's nuclear facilities. "But because Iran has hidden, hardened, dispersed, and placed its nuclear facilities in populated areas, military strikes are unlikely to be effective and may lead to escalation and expansion of combat," said Tanter. This leaves the third option -- and the most logical one -- that of regime change. This option fits in with the hard approach preferred by the neo-cons in the Bush administration. Both Tanter and Jafarzadeh believe the Bush administration will opt for beginning a "process of changing the regime in Tehran" sometime soon after the second inauguration. There is one minor snag however, and that is the lack of an organized opposition able to help bring about regime change. One of the main opposition groups, the MEK, remains on the U.S. list of terrorist organizations. To collude with those opposition forces requires the United States to remove restrictions against Iranian opposition groups, argues Tanter. Because the MEK and its associate political umbrella organization, the National Council of Resistance of Iran, have "been instrumental in exposing some of Tehran's key nuclear secrets, President Bush is likely to favor lifting the terrorist designation on the MEK in 2005," says Tanter. "The removal of the MEK's terror designation would be a litmus test for the new administration to adopt a tougher approach toward the Iranian regime," said Jafarzadeh. What the Bush team will learn, however, is that there are no simple answers to the Iranian predicament. Bringing about regime change through the support of democratic forces in the country, while desirable, may prove to be harder than expected. Finally, a word of caution: paraphrasing the secretary of defense, it is true that you underwrite revolutions and foment regime changes with the opposition you have, not the opposition you want. Lessons should be learned, however, from the Ahmad Chalabi affair in Iraq and what happened when too much trust was placed in him and his organization. In dealing with the Mujahedin-e-Khalq one should recommend caution. -- (Comments may be sent to Claude@upi.com.) [UPI Perspectives] ***************************************************************** 3 Guardian Unlimited: Iran Won't Allow Military Gear Inspection From the Associated Press [UP] Monday January 10, 2005 5:16 AM AP Photo NY114 By ALI AKBAR DAREINI Associated Press Writer TEHRAN, Iran (AP) - Iran will allow U.N. nuclear experts to take environmental samples at a military site the United States links to an alleged nuclear weapons program but won't allow them to inspect military equipment, the foreign ministry spokesman said Sunday. The head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, Mohamed ElBaradei, said last week that Iran had agreed to grant access to the site at Parchin, just southeast of Tehran, and that his inspectors could arrive soon. The IAEA had pressed Tehran for months to be allowed to inspect the military complex, long used to research, develop and produce ammunition, missiles and high explosives. ``The discussion is not about visiting military installations,'' Foreign Ministry spokesman Hamid Reza Asefi told reporters Sunday. ``The IAEA had asked to take environmental samples from the complex's green spaces,'' Asefi said, apparently referring to landscaped areas outside the huge complex's ammunition production workshops. ``To show that nothing other than peaceful nuclear activities are carried out in the Islamic Republic of Iran, we agreed to allow the taking of environmental samples from the green spaces in the complex,'' Asefi said. Iran has repeatedly denied U.S. and other allegations it has a secret nuclear weapons programs, saying it wants nuclear technology only for peaceful energy purposes. In leaks to media last year, U.S. intelligence officials said that a specially secured site at Parchin may be used in research on making high-explosive components for use in nuclear weapons. Iran asserts its military is not involved in nuclear activities, and the IAEA has found no firm evidence to the contrary. Under international pressure, Iran suspended uranium enrichment and all related activities in November to try to escape U.N. Security Council sanctions for which the United States had pressed. The IAEA agreed to police suspension of Iran's nuclear activities. Under the agreement reached with France, Germany and Britain, which negotiated on behalf of the European Union, Iran will continue suspension of its enrichment activities during negotiations with the Europeans on economic, political and technological aid from the 25-nation European Union. Details of those talks are to start later this month. Iran says it will judge within three months whether to continue suspension. Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2005 ***************************************************************** 4 Persian Journal: IAEA chief promises close checks on Iran - [http://www.iranian.ws/] Iran News Jan 10th, 2005 - 13:44:42 The head of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Mohamed ElBaradei, said on Monday that he is confident of finding traces of a nuclear weapons programme at Iran's Parchin military installation if any such traces exist. On Austrian ORF radio, ElBaradei said the IAEA's equipment was sensitive enough to defect nuclear activity that had ceased long ago. The United States suspects Iran of working on nuclear weapons at Parchin, 30km south of Tehran. Last week Iran agreed to an inspection of the installation by the IAEA, and raised the prospect of the agency visiting it "in the next few days or weeks". But on Sunday Tehran said it had merely agreed to "environmental probes in green areas". © Iranian.ws ***************************************************************** 5 Mehr News: Iran’s membership in nuclear fuel cycle group important - MP 2005/01/10 TEHRAN, Jan. 10 (MNA) -- Iran’s representative to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Piruz Husseini, said here on Monday that technical experts are not the only representatives of member states at the Expert Group on Multilateral Approaches to the Nuclear Fuel Cycle because legal and political figures are also representatives. Foreign ministry diplomats from various countries, nuclear experts, and an expert on nuclear rights are attending the group’s current session in Vienna, which started on Monday, Husseini told the Mehr News Agency. He said that so far the group, which is led by a Swiss expert, has held two meetings and is scheduled to hold a fourth meeting in February. The third session of the Expert Group of Multilateral Approaches to the Nuclear Fuel Cycle concludes on January 14. The session is being attended by experts and diplomats from Canada, the United States, Brazil, Argentina, the Netherlands, Switzerland, Sweden, Spain, France, Germany, Japan, China, Russia, India, Pakistan, Australia, Malaysia, Kazakhstan, and Iran. Iranian nuclear negotiator Sirus Naseri, who heads the Iran-EU joint nuclear working group, is also attending the talks after having been officially invited by IAEA Director General Mohamed ElBaradei. Meanwhile, MP Kazem Jalali, the rapporteur of the Majlis National Security and Foreign Policy Committee, stressed that Iran’s membership in the IAEA nuclear fuel cycle group is important and can be effective. Until recently, the IAEA director general had not invited Iran to join the nuclear fuel cycle group, despite the country’s request to become a member, Jalali told MNA on Monday. However, the Europeans agreed in the Paris Pact (signed between Iran and the EU in November) to support Iran’s membership in the group, he said, adding, “This is one of the achievements Iran has gained from negotiations with Europe.” Elsewhere in his remarks, the MP noted that some countries will seek to restrict the nuclear activities of countries which lack nuclear fuel at the IAEA’s next review conference, which is due to be held in spring 2005. Referring to the remarks made by U.S. President George W. Bush in February 2004, Jalali said that the U.S. has called for dividing the world into two groups, namely countries with access to the nuclear fuel cycle and those that lack the technology, so that the former can export the fuel to the latter. ElBaradei recently proposed halting the programs of countries active in the process of accessing the nuclear fuel cycle by asking them to observe a five-year moratorium on the construction of facilities for uranium enrichment and nuclear reprocessing, he added. “So, under the current circumstances, our membership in the IAEA nuclear fuel cycle group, which will make one of the most important decisions on the issue, is very significant and can be effective,” he stated. HL/HG End MNA © 2003 Mehr News Agency ***************************************************************** 6 Washington Times: Forward thinking on nuclear policy Commentary - January 10, 2005 By David L. Hobson As a House Appropriations Committee member, it is my responsibility to know about programs that need funding, their cost and, most important, why they are needed. In recent months, there has been considerable debate on funding decisions regarding certain nuclear weapons initiatives funded through the fiscal 2005 omnibus appropriations bill. Since becoming chairman of the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Subcommittee two years ago, I have worked hard to educate myself on the needs of the agencies and programs funded through my bill. This has included visits to Energy Department labs and weapons plants, and many Army Corps of Engineers projects across the country. z We made some news last November, when we cut funding for three nuclear weapons research programs, including the Modern Pit Facility, the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator (also known as the "bunker buster"), and Enhanced Test Readiness. Some critics have wrongly assumed this was against the will of the majority of the House and Senate, which is simply inaccurate. The reductions in the fiscal 2005 omnibus bill were included in the House bill that was passed overwhelmingly by the subcommittee and the full committee and finally passed the House of Representatives in a 370-16 vote. Unfortunately, my Senate colleagues were unable to pass an energy and water development bill last year, so neither the administration nor the public had any idea where Senate appropriators stood on these issues before conference negotiations. In my position, I have a responsibility to the House and to American taxpayers for due diligence on all aspects of the administration's budget request for energy and water development. No program, even those submitted under the umbrella of "national defense," should get a free pass. Consider the Modern Pit Facility. Contrary to the charges I refused to allow the United States to begin the 15-year process of building a new facility for pits, the bill includes $7 million for planning and conceptual design of the Modern Pit Facility. I support the eventual design and construction of a pit facility  a manufacturing plant for the so-called "nuclear triggers." However, we won't need to have such a facility operational for another 15 years (i.e., 2020). It is premature to site such a facility now until we know how large it must be. The facility's size is a function of two variables  the total size of our nuclear stockpile and the expected life of the plutonium pits in that stockpile. What the Energy Department proposed was a pit facility with a production capacity designed to support a Cold War-sized nuclear stockpile, rather than the much smaller stockpile reflecting reductions the president proposed last year. Further, the plutonium aging experiments that will tell us how long the pits will last and (therefore how often they need to be re-manufactured) will not be complete for several more years. There are compelling arguments why the budget requests for the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator and Enhanced Test Readiness also did not withstand scrutiny. Not only are these initiatives an unwise and unnecessary use of limited resources, they also send the wrong signal to the rest of the world. When we want countries such as Iran and North Korea to abandon nuclear weapons development, it is hypocritical for the United States to embark on new weapons and testing initiatives. The U.S. needs to lead by example. These new initiatives might actually risk rather than enhance our national security by encouraging other countries' nuclear weapons initiatives. Some people contend that, unless the policy outcomes in the fiscal 2005 bill are overturned, the United States will be condemned to an obsolete nuclear stockpile. That claim is simply inaccurate. None of these three initiatives deal directly with the Energy Department's responsibility to certify the safety, security and reliability of the U.S. nuclear stockpile. Our nuclear arsenal remains an important component of our overall national security program. And, let me make clear my support for maintaining our current stockpile. However, there are many other pressing demands, including the cost of safeguarding existing weapons and materials in the U.S. and the former Soviet Union and providing armor for our troops overseas. Next to such pressing, immediate needs, the desires of Cold War fighters for new weapons and facilities pale. David L. Hobson, Ohio Republican, is chariman of the U.S. House of Representatives' Appropriations Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development. contents copyright © 2005 News World Communications, ***************************************************************** 7 ArriveNet: Growing Costs of Nuclear Power Makes Renewable Energy More Attractive NOTE TO EDITORS: The Following Is an Investment Opinion Being Issued by Global Communications, Inc. Distribution Source : Market Wire Date : Monday - January 10, 2005 FULLERTON, CA -- (Market Wire - Jan 10, 2005) -- The importance of electric energy in modern times goes without saying, but sometimes without notice as well with electronic appliances and components pervading our everyday lives. Companies in this industry obviously present good long-term investment opportunities. Companies in the traditional electricity generation market do face certain surmounting obstacles to continuing success though. One such obstacle is the issue of nuclear waste storage. Nuclear power plants are facing increasingly expensive storage costs for radioactive waste that should have been moved to a central repository at Yucca Mountain, Nevada, seven years ago. Legislative impasse has prevented the development of this project and caused utility companies such as Dominion Resources (NYSE: D [http://press.arrivenet.com/bus/cmpny_snpsh.php?symb=D] ), Exelon Corporation (NYSE: EXC [http://press.arrivenet.com/bus/cmpny_snpsh.php?symb=EXC] ), and Southern Company (NYSE: SO [http://press.arrivenet.com/bus/cmpny_snpsh.php?symb=SO] ) to face the ongoing problem of storing spent nuclear fuel. The 104 licensed nuclear plants in the United States are a vital component of the nation's energy portfolio, producing 20 percent of electricity generation. The economic and environmental costs associated with nuclear power and even fossil fuel burning power generating plants has ignited the emerging renewable energy field to provide solutions that are economically and technologically sustainable. Global Environmental Energy Corp. (OTC BB: GEEC [http://press.arrivenet.com/bus/cmpny_snpsh.php?symb=GEEC] ) has for the last several years developed a unique proprietary technology, EcoTechnology(TM), which supplies energy through an efficient and environmentally safe process. The Biosphere Process(TM) System, a central part of the EcoTechnology(TM) system, can safely and efficiently processes traditional and non-traditional waste materials into electricity and other beneficial by-products. Global Environmental presents a good example of companies that see the potential and are looking to capture market share in the growing renewable energy sector. Global Environmental Energy Corp. presents a unique combination of renewable as well as traditional energy generation with its intention to become a fully integrated energy company whose interests will include traditional oil and gas and alternative energy sources, environmental infrastructure and electrical micro-power generation. Global Environmental Energy Corp. recently announced that it had formed of a wholly owned subsidiary, Sahara Petroleum Exploration Corp., to maximize the Company's potential as a fully integrated energy company, but especially to develop the Company's potential in Libya and Algeria. Global Environmental Energy Corp. intends to issue a stock dividend to existing shareholders that own not less than 100 shares of Global Environmental Energy Corp.; 3 new shares of Sahara Petroleum Exploration Corp. will be issued for each 100 shares of Global Environmental Energy Corp. owned. Investors should consider researching alternative energy companies as potential investment opportunities in light of the current energy market's precarious position being dictated by factors such as nuclear waste storage and the environmental hazards that it presents, as well as the growing alarm of the environmental costs that traditional fossil fuel burning power plants introduce. Companies such as Global Environmental Energy that are strategically leveraging traditional energy generation with next generation renewable energy production should present good investment opportunities. About Global Communications, Inc. Global Communications offers investor and market awareness services. Through proven techniques and a solid proprietary network of investors and professionals, Global Communications leverages its resources to maximize awareness and targeting return on investment. Global Communications, Inc. may have an equity position of up to 4.9% in the companies mentioned herein and may buy or sell the stock any time. Please visit our Section 17B disclaimer at www.globalcinc.com [http://www.globalcinc.com] Contact: Global Communications, Inc. Heriberto Cruz Email: hcruz@globalcinc.com [hcruz@globalcinc.com] Tel: 949.394.7495 Copyright © 2003 - 2005 ArriveNet LTD., RLLLP, All Rights ***************************************************************** 8 Greenpeace USA: Challenging the Greatest Force on Earth: Nuclear Weapons [http://www.greenpeaceusa.org/] In June of 1972, Greenpeace co-founder David McTaggart raised a pair of binoculars from the deck of his 38-foot ketch, Vega. He and two crewmembers had been 70 days at sea, and they were stationed in the forbidden zone outside Moruroa, the Pacific atoll where the French government tested nuclear weapons in the atmosphere. As the French signaled imminent detonation, McTaggart recorded a farewell message to his loved ones. Listen to his audio diary entry here. [http://www.greenpeace.org/international_en/multimedia/download/0 /684721/0/] The French military had been ghosting the Vega throughout its stay in the forbidden zone, and communicated orders to leave. Helicopters had buzzed the masts. The crew of the Vega had expected to be boarded and physically removed from the area. But on June 17, the French released a balloon signaling detonation despite the presence of the protestors. In preparation for the fallout, McTaggart, Nigel Graham and Grant Davison made wooden blocks to seal the vents of Vega. They made plans to throw their stove and generator fuel overboard so it wouldn't ignite. They'd agreed that if they survived the blast and the shockwave that two would stay below and one would go up into the deadly fallout on deck wrapped in oilskins to motor them out of the forbidden zone. They'd prepared the matchsticks they would draw to determine who that would be. And they'd radioed a telegram to their Vancouver base saying "BALLOON RAISED OVER MORUROA LAST NIGHT STOP GREENPEACE THREE SIXTEEN MILES NORTHEAST STOP SITUATION FRIGHTENING PLEASE PRAY AND ACT." But instead of detonating, the next day the French sent a minesweeper to "escort" Vega out of the blast zone. When McTaggart and the crew refused, a high-seas game of maneuvers ensued which ended with the ramming of Vega and the detention of McTaggart and his crew. The weapon was detonated on June 26. But the voyage of the Vega drew worldwide attention to nuclear weapons testing and renewed pressure on the French to abandon the program from many quarters. [French commando's beat up McTaggart onboard the McTaggart was relentless. On his return to Moruroa in 1973, he so infuriated the French military that he and his crew were beaten to the point that McTaggart lost vision in one of his eyes for several months. With the entire Pacific united in outrage and opposition, the French government at last relented - partially - and moved its weapons testing program underground. You Can't Sink a Rainbow [Evacuation of islanders from radioactive contaminated Pacific islands] Fast forward to July 1985. The Greenpeace flagship the Rainbow Warrior was in Auckland, New Zealand, having just completed a journey in the Pacific where it moved a whole population from their home, radioactive since the U.S. tests at Bikini atoll in the 1950s. Greenpeace was again preparing a voyage into Moruroa to protest the continued French nuclear testing program there as part of an expanded campaign against underground weapons testing by the United States, UK and the Soviet Union. The Mitterrand government, exasperated, sent in scuba divers who planted two limpet mines on the hull of the Rainbow Warrior. The subsequent blasts sank the ship, and took the life of a young photographer, Fernando Pereira. The French effort to stop the Greenpeace protests backfired, as a worldwide outcry and investigation revealed the plot, and galvanized opposition to the testing program in the Pacific. Greenpeace built another Rainbow Warrior and in the early 1990s we returned to Moruroa to continue our protests. [In 1995, just weeks before the 10th anniversary of the bombing, French President Chirac again announced the resumption of the nuclear testing program, galvanizing, once again, a truly global protest. With a huge flotilla, Greenpeace sailed the Rainbow Warrior into the area, and the boat was detained, this time for months. Fortunately, it was worth the effort. The French nuclear weapons testing program finally came to an end in January 1996. The Threat Today The efforts of McTaggart, the tragedy of the Rainbow Warrior, and our ongoing campaign against nuclear weapons testing achieved an uneasy truce. We drove the testing program out of the atmosphere, then stopped testing altogether. But look around the world today. [Bush plotting new nuclear weapons] A treaty banning nuclear weapons testing has been signed, but remains unratified by the United States. The Bush administration speaks openly of the possibility of renewed nuclear weapons testing to create "more usable" nuclear weapons. The other nuclear powers murmur about renewing their own testing programs in response, and nations such as North Korea and Iran strive to join the nuclear club, newly expanded to include Pakistan and India. The threat of global nuclear annihilation has receded. The deathlock embrace of "Mutually Assured Destruction" between the United States and Soviet Union is gone. But George Bush talks about developing "bunker busting" nuclear weapons. Nuclear warheads lie in insecure warehouses in Russia, weapons grade plutonium transits the planet and nuclear power plants keep the deadly fuel cycle, which feeds weapons systems alive. The pressure on smaller states to develop a nuclear capability to defend themselves is higher than ever, and for violent extremists of every ilk, a nuclear weapon is the ultimate prize. The threat of a nuclear weapon actually being used is probably higher now than it has ever been. Peace: Back by Popular Demand On the 20th anniversary of the bombing of the Rainbow Warrior, we're gathering people from all over the world to work with us to end to the nuclear threat forever. 2005 is also the 60th anniversary of the horrific bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki - devastation that today could be wrought by a suitcase-sized weapon. It cannot happen again. Not ever. Take Action to End Nuclear Power. David McTaggart on the Vega Greenpeace, Inc. 702 H St NW, Suite 300, Washington, DC 20001 1-800-326-0959 ***************************************************************** 9 Journal of Turkish Weekly: Rice Drops Bolton Who Scorned Britain's Iran Stance [http://www.isro.org.uk] [http://www.turkishweekly.net/turkce/] Irans' nuclear program John Bolton, one of the most powerful hawks in the Bush administration and a robust opponent of Britain's "softly-softly" approach to Iran over its nuclear program, has lost his job at the State Department. Condoleezza Rice, who will be confirmed as secretary of state at congressional hearings next week, rebuffed pressure from conservative hardliners, believed to include Dick Cheney, the vice-president, to promote Mr Bolton as her deputy. Tough: John Bolton is expected to return to the private sector Instead, he will leave his post as under-secretary of state for arms control and international security after Dr Rice chose other candidates for her new team. Mr Bolton, a tough-minded, Yale-educated lawyer, was not available for comment. He is expected to return to the private sector or academic world, although there is speculation that he might join Mr Cheney's staff. An aide insisted that he had not openly campaigned for the post of deputy, but made clear that he would have been happy to accept it. Mr Bolton, a veteran of Republican politics, played a far more powerful role than his title indicated. He headed the president's Proliferation Security Initiative, aimed at policing the trade of illicit arms and weapons of mass destruction. His exit will be a source of relief for Jack Straw, the foreign secretary, and his fellow European foreign ministers. Mr Bolton was scornful of efforts by Britain, France and Germany to persuade Iran's ruling clerics to abandon their nuclear weapons ambition by diplomacy. Mr Bolton believed that Teheran should be isolated by United Nations sanctions and, if it would not back down, confronted with the threat of military action. He was also uncompromising about North Korea, describing life in the Stalinist dictatorship as a "hellish nightmare". Pyongyang responded by calling him "human scum". It was apparently Mr Bolton's abrasive approach as much as his unflinching politics that prompted Dr Rice to choose Robert Zoellick, the US trade representative, as her deputy instead. Her choice reflects the fact that Dr Rice wields far greater influence in the administration than her predecessor, Colin Powell. He often found himself at odds with Mr Cheney's office and the Pentagon under Donald Rumsfeld, the defense secretary, and Mr Wolfowitz. By contrast, President Bush has unstinting trust in the loyalty and political instincts of Dr Rice, for four years his National Security Advisor. She is keen to improve relations with Germany and France, most notably, and believes that America should adopt a less confrontational approach to its old foes without compromising security or the international war in terror. "There is a change in emphasis and approach, but don't think this means that the administration is going to go soft on Iran and North Korea," said a senior Republican political operative at the State Department. "It means that Condi wants her own people in place and the President trusts her go get the job done." Telegraph via Iran News Daily, 10 January 2005 WASHINGTON 2005-01-10 09:21:51 [http://www.phpmyvisites.net/] ***************************************************************** 10 Update+Action: Support Reconfirmation of ElBaradei Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2005 15:09:22 -0800 Dear friends and colleagues: At the end of this update is a link to send messages in support of elBaredei's reconfirmation. Read on... -- Marylia U.S. Tries to Unseat IAEA Chief Take Action to Support Dr. ElBaradei By Inga Olson From Tri-Valley CAREs' January 2005 newsletter, Citizen's Watch The Bush Administration is mad at Dr. Mohamed ElBaradei, the Director General of the United Nations International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). And, so, in typical Bush Administration fashion, it is now seeking to change the rules in order to prevent ElBaradei from standing for reelection. Elections are generally a straightforward process. According to IAEA spokesman Mark Gwozdecky, candidates for Director General in this election cycle are scheduled to be approved at the IAEA board meeting in June 2005. This would be followed by an election by the general conference in Sept. Even though no new nominations for Director General were received by the deadline, which was last Dec. 31, the U.S. has made it clear it doesn't want the current chief, Dr. ElBaradei, to stand for a third term. The U.S., joined by a few other western nations, has called for a two term limit for UN officials. However, former Director General Hans Blix served four terms and before that Sigvard Eklund served five terms. Countries on the 35-nation IAEA Board of Governors will attempt to reach a common position before deciding whether to reelect ElBaradei. Diplomats report this could take several months given Washington's opposition to Dr. ElBaradei. Recently, the Washington Post and New York Times revealed that the U.S. tapped Director General ElBaradei's phone in order to intercept conversations he had with Iranian diplomats. The intercepts produced no evidence of inappropriate conduct. However, they do reveal the lengths to which some in the Bush Administration have gone to try to replace the 62 year-old Egyptian lawyer. The Bush crowd has a long history of dissatisfaction with ElBaradei. It began with his refusal to back U.S. allegations that Saddam Hussein had revived his clandestine nuclear bomb program. Recently, the U.S. advocated that the UN Security Council impose sanctions on Iran because of suspected nuclear weapons development activities. Instead, the IAEA Board of Governors adopted a resolution on the implementation of an agency safeguards agreement with Iran, based on a detailed report by ElBaradei. Still, it is likely that Dr. ElBaradei most egregiously irked the Bush Administration when he made pointed references to the nuclear weapons states' hypocritical policies. He said, for example: "We must abandon the unworkable notion that it is morally reprehensible for some countries to pursue weapons of mass destruction yet morally acceptable for others to rely on them for security and indeed to continue to refine their capacities and postulate plans for their use." Tri-Valley CAREs often educates disarmament staff at the UN about nuclear weapons activities at the Dept. of Energy, including at the Lawrence Livermore National Lab. In doing this, we challenge the same double standard that ElBaradei has addressed. In addition, we find that Dr. ElBaradei's experience and expertise reinforce his ability to stand by UN findings in the face of tremendous political pressure. He has served two decades in high-level positions at the IAEA, and his diplomatic service and work in fields of international law span four decades. Take Action We urge you to support the reconfirmation of Dr. ElBaradei by sending letters to key governors on the IAEA board. You can do this through Nuclear Age Peace Foundation at www.wagingpeace.org. The direct link is: http://capwiz.com/wagingpeace/issues/alert/?alertid=6779766&type=ML. You can also fax a letter to all 35 governors of the IAEA board at: http://www.wagingpeace.org/menu/action/ongoing-actions/iaea-reconfirmation/ ends Marylia Kelley Executive Director Tri-Valley CAREs (Communities Against a Radioactive Environment) 2582 Old First Street Livermore, CA USA 94551 - is our web site address. Please visit us there! (925) 443-7148 - is our phone (925) 443-0177 - is our fax ***************************************************************** 11 Guardian Unlimited: Arab Nuclear Ambitions Spurred by Israel From the Associated Press [UP] Monday January 10, 2005 7:16 AM By DONNA BRYSON Associated Press Writer CAIRO, Egypt (AP) - Questions about why Arabs would want nuclear weapons are usually answered with one word: Israel. But the latest allegations about Arab nuclear ambitions - involving Egypt - are a reminder of the inadequacies of simple answers in an uncertain and unstable part of the world. If Egypt were pursuing nuclear weapons, which it denies, it may have been driven by fear of Iran as much as of Israel, by geopolitical concerns or by events in places as far away as India. Diplomats in Vienna, Austria, where the International Atomic Energy Agency is based, told The Associated Press last week that the agency had found evidence of secret Egyptian nuclear experiments that could be part of a weapons program. The diplomats said most of the work appears to have been done in the 1980s and 1990s, but that the U.N. nuclear watchdog also was looking at evidence suggesting some work was performed as recently as a year ago. There have been questions about Egypt's nuclear program in the past. Shannon Kyle, an expert on proliferation at the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, said Egypt was known to have had a fledgling nuclear weapons program a generation ago but made little progress because of opposition from the Soviet Union. Kyle said Egypt's activities in recent years have been confined to small-scale experimentation in areas that have weapons as well as energy uses. Egypt makes no secret of its nuclear programs for medical and research purposes. Plans announced in 2002 for a nuclear power reactor appear to have stalled. But questions have been raised about visits to Egypt by Abdul Qadeer Khan, the Pakistani scientist who has admitted passing nuclear technology to other countries. When Libya, which had been one of Khan's clients, agreed in 2003 to dismantle its nuclear weapons program, some Arabs grumbled publicly that closing the program would only be to Israel's advantage - and perhaps they worried privately that Libya's revelations would focus attention on their own secrets, said Fawaz Gerges, a Middle East expert. ``That tells you about the thinking informing the official establishment in the region,'' said Gerges, who teaches Middle Eastern and International Affairs at Sarah Lawrence College in Bronxville, N.Y. ``I know that the official Egyptian line is to deny. But common sense and history tell me that the Egyptians, the Syrians, the Iraqis have either acquired or experimented with acquiring nuclear weapons.'' In response to the reports from Vienna, Egyptian Foreign Minister Ahmed Aboul Gheit told reporters Wednesday his country was ``fully committed'' to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, which it signed in 1968. Egypt, though, has in recent years begun to question whether the treaty can deliver on its promise of containing the threat posed by nuclear weapons. Some critics say the treaty just freezes the military advantage nuclear powers like the United States and Russia have over the rest of the world. India, arguing it could not risk being at a disadvantage in a world divided between nuclear haves and have-nots, tested a nuclear weapon in 1998. Its archrival Pakistan quickly answered with its own tests. Both were punished by U.S. economic sanctions, but most of the sanctions were later lifted in exchange for the countries' support of the U.S.-led war on terror. Uday Bhaskar, an expert on proliferation and deputy director of India's Institute for Defense Studies and Analysis, said the lessons Arabs and others likely drew from the Indian tests and their aftermath was that the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty was ``inadequate.'' The most direct impact of the tests, Bhaskar said, was felt in Iran, which already feared Israel had a nuclear arsenal and now saw a neighbor - Pakistan - arming. Iran says its nuclear program is purely peaceful, but the United States insists Iran is pursuing a nuclear bomb in a secret program the U.N. International Atomic Energy Agency is seeking to contain. Kyle, of the Stockholm institute, said Iran may have been spurred by developments in India and Pakistan, but that its nuclear activities began even earlier, in response to fears that rival Iraq was developing nuclear weapons. Iraq's ousted dictator Saddam Hussein may even have overstated his progress toward a bomb to scare Iran, risking international wrath, Kyle said. If U.S. accusations against Iran are correct, it would mean nuclear weapons would be in the hands of another state with which Egypt has difficult relations. Experts have long concluded Israel has nuclear weapons, though Israel refuses to confirm or deny that. Egypt's 1979 peace treaty with Israel has endured, but is often strained by Israeli-Palestinian violence. Relations between Egypt, whose citizens are mostly Sunni Muslim and Arab, and Iran, whose citizens are mostly Shiite Muslim and Persian, have been rocky, in part because of fears Iran's 1979 Islamic revolution would inspire militant fundamentalism across the region. India, Pakistan, Iraq, Iran, perhaps Egypt - all linked by what proliferation expert Bhaskar calls sometimes unlikely ``nuclear interconnections.'' ``The nuclear entropy of the world is increasing,'' he said. Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2005 ***************************************************************** 12 Bellona: Russia needs uranium from former Soviet republics Russian nuclear power minister Alexander Rumyantsev expressed his interest in uranium deliveries from Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan and Ukraine. 2005-01-10 18:04 Alexander Rumyantsev said at the Russian Government meeting in November last year that Russia should pay attention to the uranium deliveries from Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan and Ukraine, while these countries prefer to export it to the west, [http://pek.com.ua] reported. The minister said it is necessary to pay attention not only to gas and oil deliveries from the former Soviet republics, but also to the uranium deliveries for the Russian nuclear industry. He also raised concerns regarding the uranium mines developed in Soviet time. A program on uranium mines development should be drafted for many years ahead like it was during Soviet times, the minister added. Publisher: [bellona@bellona.no] , President: [frederic@bellona.no] Information: [info@bellona.no] , Technical contact: [webmaster@bellona.no] Telephone: +47 23 23 46 00 Telefax: +47 22 38 38 62 * P.O.Box 2141 Grunerlokka, 0505 Oslo, Norway ***************************************************************** 13 Financial Express: 33 projects in N-energy, oil, telecom on schedule [http://www.financialexpress.com/] Tuesday, January 11, 2005 NEW DELHI, JAN 10: The government on Monday said 33 central projects costing Rs 100 crore or more in atomic energy, petroleum and telecom sectors are progressing on schedule and not facing major time or cost over-runs. The six projects in atomic energy sector are at different stages of implementation and not facing any major constraints, according to the latest exception report of the ministry of statistics and programme implementation. These six projects include two 400 mw units at Tarapur atomic power station in Maharashtra, two units at Kaiga power station in Karnataka, two 1000 mw each light water reactors at Kudankulam in Tamil Nadu, two units at Rajasthan atomic power station and a uranium ore processing mill, an official release said here. Though there are no constraints at present, supply of equipment to these projects as per schedule is necessary to avoid time over-run, it said. Of the 27 projects in petroleum sector, 10 are being executed by IOC, 12 by ONGC, 3 by HPCL and one each by BPCL and gail. No major problems have been experienced in the implementation of these projects, it said. The refinery modernisation project of BPCL is making good progress but the hydrocracker package of this project might be delayed. The Dahej-Hazira-Uran pipeline project of Gail has been delayed by four months due to clearances, it said. Two projects in telecom — national radio spectrum management and monitoring system being executed by wireless planning cell of DoT and the second and third generation mobile communication system of C-DoT are also progressing as planned, the statement said. — PTI © 2005: Indian Express Newspapers (Bombay) Ltd. All ***************************************************************** 14 Risks of nuclear-plant radiation is well documented Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2005 17:52:11 -0600 (CST) http://www.app.com/app/story/0,21625,1168333,00.html Risk to humans from nuclear-plant radiation is well documented Published in the Asbury Park Press 1/09/05 The "baby teeth" project has demonstrated that when seven nuclear power plants closed, the health status of children improved in the areas surrounding the plants. It is irresponsible that AmerGen Energy Co., owner of the Oyster Creek nuclear power plant in Lacey, made misleading statements about nuclear radiation in a recent mass mailing sent to residents. What is quoted from the National Academy of Sciences is true: We do have a lot of information and that information, accumulated over decades, points to damage caused by nuclear radiation. It is true as well that there are natural sources of radiation from the earth and outer space. What is important is the difference between "natural" radiation and that generated by nuclear power plants. Every plant, in the course of operation, continually gives off some 200-plus radioactive elements. Some of these have short half-lives, some long; they emit beta, gamma and alpha radiation of varying energies. They are taken up by living plants, animals and humans, and concentrate in various organs in the body. For example, the radioactive forms of iodine (I-129 and I-131) concentrate in the thyroid gland. Both congenital hypothyroidism and thyroid cancer have increased in the population in proximity to nuclear power plants. Radioactive strontium (Sr-90) acts like calcium and concentrates in the bones and teeth of the unborn and young children. Sr-90 never existed before the advent of the nuclear industry. Sr-90 is a powerful beta emitter, radiating the tissue in which it embedded. It decays to yttrium (Y90), which gives off a second beta particle, increasing the likelihood of damage to cellular structures and DNA. Increasing levels of Sr-90 are linked to increased fetal losses, neonatal deaths and cancer in children as well as adults living in proximity to nuclear power plants. The AmerGen letter states: "Adverse health effects from low doses of radiation from a nuclear power plant .'.'. cannot be distinguished from health effects from other sources of low-level radiation." That is why the research by the Radiation and Public Health Project, collecting baby teeth and measuring levels of Sr-90, has been so important. That research has proved that Sr-90 is highest in proximity to nuclear plants, and has linked it to increasing incidence of cancers and other adverse health effects. Furthermore, the project has demonstrated that when seven nuclear power plants closed, the health status of children improved in the areas surrounding all seven plants. Other radioactive elements interchange with nonradioactive elements in animals and plants, and result in damage. Carbon-14, with a half-life of some 5,000 years, accumulates in any portion of the body or plant as it displaces a nonradioactive carbon atom. The European Committee on Radiation Risk has clearly demonstrated the adverse health effects of low-level nuclear radiation risk. High levels of nuclear radiation may kill a cell. Low levels damage the machinery of the cell, allowing for altered repair and the development of genetic and carcinogenic alterations. Hundreds of research articles have been published, linking radioactive elements to damage to humans, animals and plants. There are safer, less costly ways to generate electricity. These include solar, wind, natural gas and hydroelectric power. And lastly, conservation is important. Some 15 to 20 percent of U.S. electrical power comes from nuclear plants. It is very likely that if the public understood the contribution of nuclear power to cancer in children and adults, and fetal and neonatal loss, most citizens would be more than willing to cut their use of electrical power by 20 percent to prevent the illnesses and losses that so many are bearing. Dr. Janette D. Sherman INTERNAL MEDICINE AND TOXICOLOGY ALEXANDRIA, VA. ***************************************************************** 15 [NukeNet] Group presses Taft on FirstEnergy Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2005 15:02:15 -0800 NukeNet Anti-Nuclear Network (nukenet@energyjustice.net) TOLEDO BLADE Saturday January 8, 2005 Group presses Taft on FirstEnergy The Ohio Public Interest Research Group yesterday urged Gov. Bob Taft to become more visible in dealings with FirstEnergy Corp., given the utility's series of events the last three years. As the state's chief public safety official, Mr. Taft cannot sit idle, the group contends. "Until the governor takes a stand and speaks up, it is unlikely things will get better at FirstEnergy," Erin Bowser, Ohio PIRG director, said. In 2002, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission found Davis-Besse's old reactor head to be the most dangerous in the country because of maintenance FirstEnergy failed to do. In 2003, the utility was blamed by federal energy officials in the United States and Canada for North America's worst blackout. In December, the U.S. Attorney's Office in Cleveland told FirstEnergy that it can expect its nuclear subsidiary to be indicted on federal criminal charges once a grand jury completes its investigation into the Davis-Besse episode. On Thursday, FirstEnergy's Perry nuclear plant east of Cleveland was shut down for the second time since Dec. 23 because of unexplained problems with reactor water recirculation pumps. The Ohio PIRG is calling upon Mr. Taft to seek NRC revocation of FirstEnergy's license to operate nuclear plants. In 2003 and in 2004, respectively, the NRC rejected petitions to keep Davis-Besse from resuming operation. The first petition was filed by U.S. Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D., Cleveland). The second was by a coalition of activist groups. Mr. Taft takes exception to allegations that he has stayed on the sidelines. The governor, as well as the Ohio Emergency Management Agency, have been "fully briefed" by the NRC and others about all FirstEnergy developments. He will not call for the license to be revoked, Orest Holubec, the governor's press secretary, said. Todd Schneider, a FirstEnergy spokesman, claimed Ohio PIRG is "trying to make up for lost ground." "They were not anywhere in sight for the extended shutdown at Davis-Besse. Now, they're bringing on an unnecessary full-court press," he said. Davis-Besse, which restarted in March following a two-year outage, continues to operate at full power. It is to be shut down for 21 days of planned inspections and maintenance on or about Jan. 17. Rob Sargent Senior Energy Policy Analyst National Association of State PIRGs & affiliated organizations 44 Winter Street Boston, MA 02108 P: 617-747-4317 F: 617-292-8057 C: 617-312-7546 rsargent@pirg.org www.pirg.org Arizona PIRG * CALPIRG * Environment California * CoPIRG * Environment Colorado * ConnPIRG * Florida PIRG * Georgia PIRG* Iowa PIRG* Illinois PIRG* INPIRG * Environment Maine * MaryPIRG * MASSPIRG * PIRGIM * MoPIRG * MontPIRG * NHPIRG * NJPIRG Citizen Lobby * NMPIRG * NYPIRG * NCPIRG * OhioPIRG* Oregon State PIRG * PennPIRG * PennEnvironment * RIPIRG * TexPIRG * U.S. PIRG * VPIRG * WashPIRG * WISPIRG _______________________________________________________________________ Subscribe/Unsubscribe Here: http://www.energyjustice.net/nukenet/ Change your settings or access the archives at: http://energyjustice.net/mailman/listinfo/nukenet_energyjustice.net ***************************************************************** 16 [CMEP] Comment on NRC Environmental Review of Nuke Plant Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2005 15:09:20 -0800 [CMEP] Comment on NRC Environmental Review of Nuke Plant Date: Thu, 6 Jan 2005 13:37:19 -0600 (CST) !!! A C T I O N A L E R T !!! Jan. 6, 2005 Submit Comments TODAY on the NRC's Environmental Review of Proposed Nuclear Fuel Plant in New Mexico Tomorrow -- Friday, Jan. 7 -- is the deadline for public comments on the NRC's Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for the National Enrichment Facility (NEF) proposed by the foreign-dominated multinational company Louisiana Energy Services (LES). The company -- which has already been booted out of two communities where it attempted to locate its polluting plant -- is again seeking a license to build and operate a uranium enrichment facility that would produce fuel for nuclear power reactors. TAKE ACTION! Public Citizen has prepared sample comments which are pasted below and may also be sent directly to the NRC (with amendments, if you prefer) via our Web site: http://action.citizen.org/pc/mail/oneclick_compose/?alertid=6790516 You may view the complete comments of Public Citizen and the Nuclear Information and Resource Service (NIRS) -- which are jointly involved in a legal intervention against LES's license application -- here (comments will be posted soon): http://www.citizen.org/cmep/energy_enviro_nuclear/nuclear_power_plants/uranium/ The LES license application and the NRC's DEIS may be viewed through the NRC's Web site: http://www.nrc.gov/materials/fuel-cycle-fac/lesfacility.html You may also submit your own comments directly (noted "Docket No. 70-3103" with attention to "Anna Bradford") to: E-MAIL: nrcrep@nrc.gov FAX: 301-415-5397 SNAIL MAIL: Chief, Rules Review and Directives Branch U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mail Stop T6-D59 Washington, DC 20555-0001 ========== [SAMPLE COMMENTS] Chief, Rules and Directives Branch U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mail Stop T6-D59 Washington, D.C. 20555-0001 Re: Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Proposed National Enrichment Facility in Lea County, New Mexico (NUREG-1790); Docket No. 70-3103 To Whom It May Concern: The NRC has determined in its Draft EIS that the environmental impacts from building and operating a uranium enrichment facility on the site would be "small" to "moderate," and has recommended that the proposed license be issued to LES (Draft EIS, ' 2.4). However, it is my view that the Draft EIS fails to consider important factors that may contribute to substantial environmental impacts not adequately represented in this review. Generally, the Draft EIS does not fully meet the requirement of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) that each federal agency must consider in an environmental impact statement "the relationship between local short-term uses of man's environment and the maintenance and enhancement of long-term productivity" (42 U.S.C. ' 4332(c)(iv)). The cumulative hazards and dangers of the nuclear fuel cycle, nuclear power generation, and nuclear waste management weigh deserve a thorough accounting in the EIS, which is lacking in this draft version. Specifically, t ***************************************************************** 17 Jerusalem Post/Al-Osboa: Tsunami triggered by Indian nuke Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2005 15:07:33 -0800 http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellitepagename=JPost/JPArticle/Printer&cid=1104981578311&p=1101615860782 Egyptian Paper: Israel-India Nuke Test Caused Tsunami Jan. 6, 2005 Joseph Nasr THE JERUSALEM POST The earthquake that struck the Indian Ocean on December 26, triggering a series of huge waves called tsunami, "was possibly" caused by an Indian nuclear experiment in which "Israeli and American nuclear experts participated," an Egyptian weekly magazine reported Thursday. According to Al-Osboa', India, in its heated nuclear race with Pakistan, has lately received sophisticated nuclear know-how from the United States and Israel, both of which "showed readiness to cooperate with India in experiments to exterminate humankind." Since 1992, the magazine argued, leading geological centers in Britain, Turkey and other countries, warned of the need "not to hold nuclear experiments in the region of the Indian Ocean known as 'the Fire Belt,' in which the epicenter of the earthquake lies... -- +++ Sparen Sie mit GMX DSL +++ http://www.gmx.net/de/go/dsl AKTION für Wechsler: DSL-Tarife ab 3,99 EUR/Monat + Startguthaben ***************************************************************** 18 new link: Egyptian paper: Israel-India nuke test caused tsunami Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2005 15:07:39 -0800 ...some people told me, link was broken or replaced. Here is a shorter link: http://tinyurl.com/6smh8 Jan. 6, 2005 19:25 | Updated Jan. 6, 2005 20:01 Egyptian paper: Israel-India nuke test caused tsunami By JOSEPH NASR [Print this Article] [EMail this Article] [Subscribe] [SMS Alerts] Advertisement The earthquake that struck the Indian Ocean on December 26, triggering a series of huge waves called tsunami, "was possibly" caused by an Indian nuclear experiment in which "Israeli and American nuclear experts participated," an Egyptian weekly magazine reported Thursday. According to Al-Osboa', India, in its heated nuclear race with Pakistan, has lately received sophisticated nuclear know-how from the United States and Israel, both of which "showed readiness to cooperate with India in experiments to exterminate humankind." Since 1992, the magazine argued, leading geological centers in Britain, Turkey and other countries, warned of the need "not to hold nuclear experiments in the region of the Indian Ocean known as 'the Fire Belt,' in which the epicenter of the earthquake lies. Geologists labeled that region 'The Fire Belt' for being "a dangerous terrain that can move at anytime, without human intervention," Al-Osboa' wrote. Despite warnings not to carry out nuclear experiments in and around the 'Fire Belt', "Israel and India continue to conduct nuclear tests in the Indian Ocean, and the United States has recently decided to carry out similar tests in the Australian deserts, which is included in the 'Fire Belt', the Egyptian weekly magazine wrote. -- +++ GMX - die erste Adresse für Mail, Message, More +++ 1 GB Mailbox bereits in GMX FreeMail http://www.gmx.net/de/go/mail >>>>> I could imagine something like this: > > Taping a CNN show, by lip-syncing their hosts with our text, combined with > music at the end and beginning and blasting it into limewire (for i-pod > casts) and bit-torrent (for video-swappings) >>>>>>>>> When I first read that, I thought, good ideas all. Making fun of BushCo and their enablers is the smartest and quickest way to bring about their downfall. People like Rumsfeld, Uncle Fester Cheney and the mediawhores are just begging for a send up. But let's not be too webcentric. Is Wolfowitz going to get his stated wish, better control of the internet? Many of the online public have limited competence and confidence or they have dicey connections. We need everyone, even those who don't have i-pods. Sooo... If you do lip synch tv hosts with your own dialog, burn a few DVDS of the piece. If it cannot be tracked back to you, you are free to say anything you want. You can steal background music. You can redo the commercials. You could re-dub a Bush press conference. It will get around really quickly that the great comedy is not what's broadcast, but what's copied onto a DVD your best friend surrepetitiously hands you when he passes your cubicle. Martha ---------- Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: * http://groups.yahoo.com/group/911TruthAction/ * * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: * 911TruthAction-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com * * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. ***************************************************************** 19 [NukeNet] PSEG's CEO stays on; workers get pink slips Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2005 15:07:42 -0800 NukeNet Anti-Nuclear Network (nukenet@energyjustice.net) PSE&G's CEO to stay on after sale Exelon deal to leave Izzo with president, COO title Sunday, January 09, 2005 BY TOM JOHNSON Star-Ledger Staff Ralph Izzo, president of Public Service Electric & Gas, will retain the helm of the state's largest utility after its parent company completes a $12 billion sale to Chicago- based Exelon, according to the companies' chief executives. Izzo, 47, a physicist by training who once served as an adviser to former Gov. Tom Kean, will remain the public face of PSE&G with the titles of president and chief operating officer, said E. James Ferland, chairman of the Newark-based Public Service Enterprise Group, during a meeting with The Star- Ledger's editorial board Friday. "Ralph Izzo will continue to have a major job in this company," John Rowe, the chairman and chief executive of Exelon, said during the editorial board. Rowe will be CEO of the combined company, while Ferland will be nonexecutive chairman. Izzo, who lives in Cranbury, oversees a business with revenue of $6.7 billion a year, delivering gas to 1.6 million customers and electricity to 2 million homes and businesses across the state. PSEG's acquisition by Exelon is expected to close in 12 to 15 months after extensive regulatory review. By announcing Izzo will remain, Exelon and PSEG executives hope to reassure employees jolted by last month's announcement that Exelon will buy one of New Jersey's oldest and most powerful corporations. The combined company will be the largest utility operator in the country. "I couldn't be happier," said Izzo, who noted he and others who will remain at the utility will continue to work to improve service reliability to customers. "Now, we know that so much will remain the same. That's what distinguishes the utility sector from other industries." Executives had previously announced the merger would result in the loss of 900 jobs in New Jersey, some of which the company hopes to achieve by attrition. Approximately 400 of those jobs will involve the company's nuclear- power subsidiary, PSEG Nuclear, which operates plants in South Jersey. A small number of those employees began receiving pink slips Friday, a PSEG spokesman said. Rowe, the Exelon chief, said the two companies hope to work out a more generous severance package for employees who are laid off as a result of the merger, but no decisions have been made. Under current company policies, PSEG employees would receive 1 1/2 weeks' pay for each year of service, while Exelon employees would get three weeks' salary for each year. "We will try and agree on a common severance package," Rowe said. The headquarters of the combined company will be in Chicago. Rowe said even though some executives may have an opportunity to work in Chicago, they may not want to relocate. In discussing the deal, Rowe vowed to continue PSEG's tradition of being actively involved in the community and a potent force in charitable donations. "You don't win if you don't serve the communities well," he said. To win regulatory approval of the merger, Rowe and Ferland said it is likely the companies will have to sell off some of combined company's fossil-fuel plants. The combination of the two big power suppliers is sure to raise questions about whether one company with such a large market share could set prices for the region. The sale of fossil-fuel plants is aimed at warding off problems with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. If the merger is approved, it would create the nation's largest group of nuclear power plants, which both executives said in the long run could produce lower electric costs for consumers. All four of New Jersey's nuclear plants are owned either by Exelon (Oyster Creek) or PSEG (Salem I, Salem II and Hope Creek). PSEG is looking for the deal to achieve improvements in performance. In recent months, the plants have been plagued by equipment failures that have dragged down earnings and drawn scrutiny from anti-nuclear activists and the federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Its Hope Creek unit has been shut down since early October for an extended refueling outage. There has been vigorous debate about whether the plant should be allowed to restart without the replacement of a key water pump. Both Ferland and Rowe said their experts have concluded the reactor is ready to restart, despite ongoing concerns raised by the state Department of Environmental Protection. Ferland said he expects the federal agency will concur at a special meeting on the issue in Bridgeport Wednesday. "Our company has determined this is not a safety issue," Ferland said. "Ultimately," Rowe said, "the more these plants run, not only do they make money for Public Service, which they do, the lower the wholesale power prices will be in New Jersey for consumers." Tom Johnson can be reached at tjohnson@starledger.com or (973) 392-5972. Copyright 2005 NJ.com. All Rights Reserved. -- Coalition for Peace and Justice UNPLUG Salem Campaign; 321 Barr Ave, Linwood NJ 08221; 609-601-8583; cell 609-742-0982 ncohen12@comcast.net; http://www.unplugsalem.org http://www.coalitionforpeaceandjustice.org "Life is a jelly donut. You don't really know what its about until you bite into it. Then, just when you decide its good, you drop a big glob of jelly on your best t-shirt." Janet Evanovich -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.298 / Virus Database: 265.6.8 - Release Date: 1/3/05 _______________________________________________________________________ Subscribe/Unsubscribe Here: http://www.energyjustice.net/nukenet/ Change your settings or access the archives at: http://energyjustice.net/mailman/listinfo/nukenet_energyjustice.net ***************************************************************** 20 NRC: NRC Releases Two Letters Regarding Hope Creek Nuclear Plant; Letters Discuss Pump Review and Special Inspection Results News Release - Region I - 2005-00 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Office of Public Affairs, Region I No. I-05-002 January 10, 2005 CONTACT: Diane Screnci (610) 337-5330 Neil A. Sheehan (610) 337-5331 E-mail: opa1@nrc.gov [opa1@nrc.gov] The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has released two letters regarding the Hope Creek nuclear power plant in advance of a public meeting about the facility scheduled for this Wednesday, Jan. 12. One letter provides the agencys assessment of whether one of Hope Creeks two reactor recirculation pumps can safely operate until the plants next refueling and maintenance outage. The other letter provides the preliminary results of an NRC special inspection conducted at the Hancocks Bridge (Salem County), N.J., plant following a steam pipe failure and shutdown with complications that occurred there on Oct. 10. With regard to the NRCs assessment of the plants B recirculation pump, the NRC has conducted a detailed review of its safety. This review included analyses of information provided by PSEG, which operates the plant, meetings with the company to obtain additional data and assessments of the information by the agencys technical experts. Following this review, the NRC has concluded that operation of the pump for one more operating cycle is acceptable, provided that PSEG implements commitments to closely monitor the pump for vibrations throughout the cycle and to respond promptly to any evidence that its performance may be degrading. (Nuclear plants typically shut down for refueling and maintenance outages about once every 18 to 24 months.) These commitments will be formalized in a Confirmatory Action Letter that the NRC expects to issue to PSEG prior to the plants restart. The NRCs Resident Inspectors at the site also will ensure that PSEG complies with this new commitment. After a careful and thorough review, including analysis by the NRCs Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, the NRC concludes that the Hope Creek nuclear plant can operate safely without replacing the pump until its next refueling and maintenance outage, NRC Region I Administrator Samuel J. Collins said. That conclusion, however, is contingent on requirements agreed to by the company that rigorous and continuous monitoring be maintained of pump parameters, including vibration levels, so that prompt actions can be taken should there be abnormal indications. Following the Oct. 10th event at the plant, 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 failure of the 8-inch-diameter pipe could have been prevented and an independent evaluation of equipment and human performance issues that complicated the shutdown of the reactor. Based on the preliminary results of that inspection, the team has determined that Hope Creek operators successfully responded to the event and that PSEG conducted comprehensive follow-up evaluations and developed appropriate corrective actions. The NRC team also has confirmed PSEGs determination that the root cause of the event was that plant personnel did not properly evaluate and address a degraded level control valve for the moisture separator drain tank. That valve malfunctioned several weeks prior to the event when it opened and then failed to close. As a result, a drain line for the tank received a combination of water and steam even though it is primarily intended for the removal of water. The ensuing turbulent flow placed stresses on the pipe that eventually led to its failure and caused the plants Oct. 10th shutdown. The NRC is continuing to review the significance of this finding and will issue a preliminary determination in the full inspection report to be issued within 45 days after the Jan. 12th meeting. However, the team believes the finding could be of low to moderate safety significance. If validated through the agencys review process, the finding would eventually be finalized as a white issue and lead to some additional NRC oversight. (The NRCs Reactor Oversight Process classifies inspection findings by color, ranging from green, for a very low safety issue, to red, for a high safety issue.) In addition, the team has identified three other inspection findings associated with some equipment issues that challenged plant operators during the shutdown. The team has deemed those issues to be of very low safety significance because none of the problems would have prevented the systems involved from performing their intended safety functions. Copies of both reports will be posted on the NRCs web site at: http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/plant-specific-items/hope-creek-salem -issues.html. As previously announced, the Jan. 12th 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. Last revised Monday, January 10, 2005 ***************************************************************** 21 NRC: NRC Revokes License of a Missouri Company and Prohibits its Owner from Involvement in NRC-Licensed Activity News Release - Region III - 2005-00 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Office of Public Affairs, Region III No. III-05-002 January 10, 2005 CONTACT: Jan Strasma (630) 829-9663 Viktoria Mitlyng (630) 829-9662 E-mail: opa3@nrc.gov [opa3@nrc.gov] The Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff issued an Order Dec. 30 to KTL Roudebush Testing, located in Kansas City, Missouri, revoking its NRC license to use nuclear material. In addition, an Order was issued the same day to its owner prohibiting his involvement from all NRC-licensed activities for deliberately violating safety requirements and providing false information to the agency. KTL Roudebush held an NRC license to possess and use radioactive material for radiography, which uses sealed radiation sources to make x-ray like images of heavy metal objects like pumps, valves, and pipes. The Order revoking the license required the company to transfer all NRC-licensed materials to authorized recipients and provide proof that all transferred materials have been leak-tested and securely transferred. The Order prohibiting NRC-licensed activity prohibited Christopher V. Roudebush, the company owner, president and radiation safety officer from engaging in any NRC licensed activities for five years from the date of the Order. An NRC inspection and followup investigation by the agencys Office of Investigations found numerous violations of NRC safety requirements and multiple instances of providing the NRC with incomplete and inaccurate information. As a result, on March 11, 2004, the NRC issued a Suspension Order requiring the company to immediately stop all work involving NRC-licensed radioactive materials (refer to NRC press release No 3-04-012, issued March 16, 2004). The Suspension Order remained in effect until the license was terminated. Our license holders have a responsibility to follow the NRCs regulations designed to protect public health and safety. We also rely on them to provide the NRC with complete and accurate information. Because the company and its owner failed to follow through on these responsibilities, we are barring them from handling NRC-licensed materials, said James Caldwell, Regional Administrator for the NRCs Region III office in Lisle, IL. The license holder may request a hearing by January 19. Copies of the Order can be accessed at the NRC web site at: http://www.nrc.gov/what-we-do/regulatory/enforcement/current.html . Last revised Monday, January 10, 2005 ***************************************************************** 22 NRC: NRC Begins In-Depth, Three-Part Inspection at Perry Nuclear Plant News Release - Region III - 2005-00 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Office of Public Affairs, Region III No. III-05-003 January 10, 2005 CONTACT: Jan Strasma (630) 829-9663 Viktoria Mitlyng (630) 829-9662 E-mail: opa3@nrc.gov [opa3@nrc.gov] The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has begun the first of a broad three-part inspection to assess activities at the Perry Nuclear Power Plant as part of its heightened oversight of the plant as a result of past problems with safety system equipment. The plant, operated by FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Co., is in Perry, Ohio. The eight-person team began the first of two weeks onsite today (Jan. 10) and will return to the plant Jan. 24 for the second week. The team is focusing on the utilitys corrective action program how it finds, evaluates, and fixes problems. In addition to the NRC inspectors, there are observers from the State of Ohio and the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission. The Perry plant continues to operate safely, said James Caldwell, NRC Regional Administrator. However, the NRC has increased its oversight of the Perry plant because of previous equipment problems. This extensive inspection will provide the agency with important insights into plant operations and the effectiveness of FirstEnergys performance improvement initiatives. The second part of the broad inspection is scheduled for late February or early March to review activities during the plants refueling outage. The third part of the inspection, planned for April and early May, will involve a team of 8 to 10 inspectors for three weeks of onsite inspection. This team will focus on operating procedures, staff and management performance, engineering, and emergency planning. The team will also review the progress of the FirstEnergy performance improvement plan for Perry. In August of last year, the NRC announced it was increasing scrutiny over the Perry plant as a result of several equipment problems which occurred during the period October 2002 through May 2004. The NRC found that these problems were of low to moderate safety significance and, in two of the instances, the utility had not taken adequate corrective action initially to resolve the problems. Reports of each part of the inspection will be issued about 45 days after the conclusion of the inspection. The report will be publicly available in the NRCs Agencywide Documents Access and Management System, or ADAMS, at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. Use Docket Number 05000440 to locate the reports. Help in using ADAMS is available from the NRC Public Document Room at 1-800-397-4209. Last revised Monday, January 10, 2005 ***************************************************************** 23 NRC: NRC Begins Implementing the New National Response Plan News Release - 2005-00 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Office of Public Affairs Telephone: 301/415-8200 Washington, DC 20555-0001 E-mail: opa@nrc.gov No. 05-003 January 6, 2005 plan and its nuclear/radiological incident annex. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) on behalf of the federal government, officially unveiled the new plan today in a ceremony in Washington, D.C. "The agency has required significant emergency response and security upgrades at facilities and now, with the implementation of the new plan, the NRC and the entire emergency management community are better prepared than ever to respond to both man-made and natural disasters," said NRC Chairman Nils J. Diaz. Technical experts from within the NRC participated in developing the National Response Plan and its nuclear/radiological incident annex, and Chairman Diaz signed the plan on behalf of the commission on Nov. 29, 2004. The National Response Plan standardizes federal incident response but does not change the NRCs statutory authority and responsibility to nuclear facilities and the communities in which they are located. It also introduces new structures, such as the Interagency Modeling & Atmospheric Assessment Center, which provides one source for information related to predictions of the consequences of an airborne release of hazardous materials. In addition, the plans nuclear/radiological annex places greater emphasis on response to terrorist incidents involving radioactive material than the previous Federal Response Plan, and clarifies operational responsibilities and coordination functions. Consistent with the new coordinating features of the plan, NRCs response to significant events will involve support to DHS, including the Homeland Security Operations Center and the Interagency Incident Management Group. To ensure licensees and other NRC stakeholders understand the new plan, the NRC has been holding a series of workshops across the country for emergency officials, the nuclear industry and other interested parties. The final regional workshop will be held in Orlando, Fla., later this month. A meeting for the general public will be held at the agencys Rockville, Md., headquarters; details will be posted on the NRC Web site. Last revised Thursday, January 06, 2005 ***************************************************************** 24 NRC: NRC Revises Procedure for Inspection of Electrical Circuits for Safe Reactor Shutdown News Release - 2005-00 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Office of Public Affairs Telephone: 301/415-8200 Washington, DC 20555-0001 E-mail: opa@nrc.gov No. 05-005 January 6, 2005 plant operators about changes to its inspections for electrical circuits necessary to safely shut down reactors after a fire. The changes focus inspection resources on circuits where failures are more likely to occur, and are described in Revision 1 to Regulatory Issue Summary (RIS) 2004-03, which was issued Dec. 29, 2004. The revision replaces the earlier RIS on this subject, and covers all of a nuclear plants post-fire, safe-shutdown circuits. NRC inspectors are using the revised procedures in their triennial fire inspections; the circuit portion of which was suspended while we revised our regulations, but it resumes this month, said Suzanne Black, Director of the Division of Systems Safety and Analysis in the NRCs Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. All nuclear power plants have fire protection plans, and our inspections will ensure the plants continue to meet their commitments to protect public health and safety. Under the new procedures, inspectors will verify, using credible fire scenarios, that one set of safe-shutdown systems would remain free of fire damage. If an inspector discovers a circuit configuration where failure could affect a plants ability to safely shut down, the RIS provides information on addressing the issue and maintaining public health and safety until repairs or modifications can be made. If such a circuit configuration issue is not resolved, enforcement action may be taken. The RIS is available electronically on the NRC web site at: http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/gen-comm/reg-issues /2004/. The NRCs Public Document Room (phone 800-397-4209 or 301-415-4737) can help interested persons obtain material. Last revised Thursday, January 06, 2005 ***************************************************************** 25 NRC: NRC Realigns Office of Executive Director for Operations News Release - 2005-00 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Office of Public Affairs Telephone: 301/415-8200 Washington, DC 20555-0001 E-mail: opa@nrc.gov No. 05-006 January 7, 2005 Nuclear Regulatory Commission Executive Director for Operations Luis A. Reyes has realigned the Office of the Executive Director for Operations (OEDO) to better position the agency to carry out its strategic management goals. As part of the realignment, Reyes has appointed Jacqueline E. Silber as Deputy Executive Director for Information Services and Administration. The position was established, in part, to replace the Deputy Executive Director for Management Services, now held by Patricia Norry, who is retiring. Silber will continue as the agencys Chief Information Officer and will directly oversee that office (which will be renamed the Office of Information Services) and the Office of Administration. Certain functions that previously reported to Norry will now report directly to Reyes. These include the Offices of Human Resources and Small Business and Civil Rights, as well as the OEDOs communications function (in coordination with the agencys Director of Communications). This realignment reflects the high priority I intend to place on human capital initiatives, diversity management and internal and external communications in the agency, Reyes said in announcing the changes. It also allows us to assign high priority to the NRCs strategic goals in the area of management excellence. Edward T. Baker, currently deputy director of the Office of the Chief Information Officer, will become director of the renamed Office of Information Services. Timothy F. Hagan will continue to be director of the Office of Administration. Last revised Friday, January 07, 2005 ***************************************************************** 26 NRC: South Carolina Electric & Gas Company; Virgil C. Summer Nuclear FR Doc 05-400 [Federal Register: January 10, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 6)] [Notices] [Page 1742-1743] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr10ja05-68] Station; Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is considering issuance of an exemption from Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 50, Sections 50.44, and 50.46 and Appendix K, for the Renewed Facility Operating License No. NPF-12, issued to South Carolina Electric & Gas Company (the licensee), for operation of the Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station (VSNS), located in Fairfield County, South Carolina. Therefore, as required by 10 CFR 51.21, the NRC has performed an environmental assessment as described in this notice and has made a finding of no significant impact. Environmental Assessment Identification of the Proposed Action The proposed action would allow operation with up to four lead test assemblies (LTAs) containing fuel rods with Optimized ZIRLOTM and several different developmental clad alloys in the core. The proposed action is in accordance with the licensee's application dated September 3, 2004, as supplemented by letter dated November 11, 2004. The Need for the Proposed Action The proposed exemption is needed because the NRC regulations identified above specifically refer to light-water reactors containing fuel consisting of uranium oxide pellets enclosed in zircaloy or ZIRLO tubes. A new zirconium-based alloy cladding has been developed, which is not the same chemical composition as zircaloy or ZIRLO. Therefore, the licensee needs an exemption to insert up to four assemblies containing the new fuel cladding material into the VSNS reactor core for test during operation. Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action The NRC has completed its safety evaluation of the proposed action and concluded that it will not present an undue risk to the public health and safety. The safety evaluation performed by Westinghouse, upon which the licensee is relying, demonstrates that the predicted chemical, mechanical and material performance of the Advance zirconium- based cladding is within that approved for Zircaloy-4 or ZIRLO under all anticipated operational occurrences and postulated accidents. Furthermore, the LTAs will be placed in nonlimiting core locations. In the unlikely event that cladding failures were to occur in the LTAs, environmental impact would be minimal and is bounded by previous environmental impact statements. The details of the NRC staff's safety evaluation will be provided as an enclosure to the letter to the licensee granting the exemption. The proposed action will not significantly increase the probability or consequences of accidents, no changes are being made in the types of effluents that may be released off site. There is no significant increase in occupational or public radiation exposure. Therefore, there are no significant radiological environmental impacts associated with the proposed action. With regard to potential nonradiological impacts, the proposed action does not have a potential to affect any historic sites. It does not affect nonradiological plant effluents and has no other environmental impact. Therefore, there are no significant nonradiological environmental impacts associated with the proposed action. Accordingly, the NRC concludes that there are no significant environmental impacts associated with the proposed action. Environmental Impacts of the Alternatives to the Proposed Action As an alternative to the proposed action, the staff considered denial of the proposed action (i.e., the ``no-action'' alternative). Denial of the application would result in no change in current environmental impacts. The environmental impacts of the proposed action and the alternative action are similar. Alternative Use of Resources The action does not involve the use of any different resources than those previously considered in the Final Environmental Statement for the VSNS, NUREG-0719, dated May 1981. Agencies and Persons Consulted In accordance with its stated policy, on December 15, 2004, the staff consulted with the South Carolina State official, Henry Porter of the South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control, regarding the environmental impact of the proposed action. The State official had no comments. Finding of No Significant Impact On the basis of the environmental assessment, the NRC concludes that the proposed action will not have a significant effect on the quality of the human environment. Accordingly, the NRC has determined not to prepare an environmental impact statement for the proposed action. For further details with respect to the proposed action, see the licensee's letter dated September 3, 2004, as supplemented by letter dated November 11, 2004. Documents may be examined, and/or copied for a fee, at the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR), located at One White Flint North, Public File Area O1 F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland. Publicly available records will be accessible electronically from the Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) Public Electronic Reading Room on the Internet at the NRC Web site, http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html [http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/leaving.cgi?from=leaving FR.html&log=linklog&to=http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html] . Persons who do not have access to ADAMS or who encounter problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS should [[Page 1743]] contact the NRC PDR Reference staff by telephone at 1-800-397-4209 or 301-415-4737, or by e-mail to pdr@nrc.gov [pdr@nrc.gov] . Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 3rd day of January 2005. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Karen R. Cotton, Project Manager, Section 1, Project Directorate II, Division of Licensing Project Management, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. [FR Doc. 05-400 Filed 1-7-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P ***************************************************************** 27 San Luis Obispo Tribune: Diablo plant will likely be featured on PBS show | 01/10/2005 | David Sneed The Tribune The PBS public affairs program "Now" with David Brancaccio will examine security at the nation's nuclear power plants and will likely feature Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant. The half-hour show is scheduled to air at 8 p.m. Friday on KCET channel 8 on Charter cable. Brancaccio and a film crew spent a day in the San Luis Obispo area in December reporting the piece. During their visit, they took a five-hour tour of the plant and interviewed Pacific Gas and Electric Co. officials about safety issues following the 2001 terrorist attacks. They also interviewed Rochelle Becker, an activist with the antinuclear group San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace, and videotaped a town hall meeting conducted by the group. At the meeting, Becker outlined the group's legal efforts to force the federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission to allow greater public participation in safety issues surrounding a proposed above-ground storage facility for highly radioactive spent reactor fuel at the plant. Brancaccio is replacing the retiring Bill Moyers as the host of show. ***************************************************************** 28 City Journal: Why the U.S. Needs More Nuclear Power Winter 2005 | by Peter W. Huber, Mark P. Mills [http://www.city-journal.org/index.html] It’s cheap, clean, safe—and doesn’t depend on Arabia. Your typical city dweller doesn’t know just how much coal and uranium he burns each year. On Lake Shore Drive in Chicago—where the numbers are fairly representative of urban America as a whole—the answer is (roughly): four tons and a few ounces. In round numbers, tons of coal generate about half of the typical city’s electric power; ounces of uranium, about 17 percent; natural gas and hydro take care of the rest. New York is a bit different: an apartment dweller on the Upper West Side substitutes two tons of oil (or the equivalent in natural gas) for Chicago’s four tons of coal. The oil-tons get burned at plants like the huge oil/gas unit in Astoria, Queens. The uranium ounces get split at Indian Point in Westchester, 35 miles north of the city, as well as at the Ginna, Fitzpatrick, and Nine Mile Point units upstate, and at additional plants in Connecticut, New Jersey, and New Hampshire. That’s the stunning thing about nuclear power: tiny quantities of raw material can do so much. A bundle of enriched-uranium fuel-rods that could fit into a two-bedroom apartment in Hell’s Kitchen would power the city for a year: furnaces, espresso machines, subways, streetlights, stock tickers, Times Square, everything—even our cars and taxis, if we could conveniently plug them into the grid. True, you don’t want to stack fuel rods in midtown Manhattan; you don’t in fact want to stack them casually on top of one another anywhere. But in suitable reactors, situated, say, 50 miles from the city on a few hundred acres of suitably fortified and well-guarded real estate, two rooms’ worth of fuel could electrify it all. Think of our solitary New Yorker on the Upper West Side as a 1,400-watt bulb that never sleeps—that’s the national per-capita average demand for electric power from homes, factories, businesses, the lot. Our average citizen burns about twice as bright at 4 pm in August, and a lot dimmer at 4 am in December; grown-ups burn more than kids, the rich more than the poor; but it all averages out: 14 floor lamps per person, lit round the clock. Convert this same number back into a utility’s supply-side jargon, and a million people need roughly 1.4 “gigs” of power—1.4 gigawatts (GW). Running at peak power, Entergy’s two nuclear units at Indian Point generate just under 2 GW. So just four Indian Points could take care of New York City’s 7-GW round-the-clock average. Six could handle its peak load of about 11.5 GW. And if we had all-electric engines, machines, and heaters out at the receiving end, another ten or so could power all the cars, ovens, furnaces—everything else in the city that oil or gas currently fuels. For such a nuclear-powered future to arrive, however, we’ll need to get beyond our nuclear-power past. In the now-standard histories, the beginning of the end of nuclear power arrived on March 28, 1979, with the meltdown of the uranium core at Three Mile Island in Pennsylvania. The Chernobyl disaster seven years later drove the final nail into the nuclear coffin. It didn’t matter that the Three Mile Island containment vessel had done its job and prevented any significant release of radioactivity, or that Soviet reactors operated within a system that couldn’t build a safe toaster oven. Uranium was finished. Three Mile Island came on the heels of the first great energy shock to hit America. On October 19, 1973, King Faisal ordered a 25 percent reduction in Saudi Arabia’s oil shipments to the United States, launching the Arab oil embargo. Oil supplies would tighten and prices would rise from then on, experts predicted. It would take some time, but oil was finished, too. Five months after Three Mile Island, the nation’s first energy secretary summed up our predicament: “The energy future is bleak,” James R. Schlesinger declared, “and is likely to grow bleaker in the decade ahead. We must rapidly adjust our economics to a condition of chronic stringency in traditional energy supplies.” Fortunately, some argued, the U.S. could manage on less—much less. Smaller, more fuel-efficient cars were gaining favor, and rising gas prices would curb demand. The nation certainly didn’t need any new giant electric power plants—efficiency and the development of renewable sources of power would suffice. “The long-run supply curve for electricity is as flat as the Kansas horizon,” noted one right-thinking energy sage. In the ensuing decades, however, American oil consumption rose 15 percent and electricity use almost doubled. Many people aren’t happy about it. Protecting our oil-supply lines entangles us with feudal theocracies and the fanatical sects that they spawn. The coal that we burn to generate so much of our electricity pollutes the air and may warm the planet. What to do? All sober and thoughtful energy pundits at the New York Times, Greenpeace, and the Harvard Divinity School agree: the answer to both problems is . . . efficiency and the development of renewable sources of power. Nevertheless, the secretary of energy, his boss (now a Texas oilman, not a Georgia peanut farmer), and the rest of the country should look elsewhere. The U.S. today consumes about 100 quads—100 quadrillion BTUs—of raw thermal energy per year. We do three basic things with it: generate electricity (about 40 percent of the raw energy consumed), move vehicles (30 percent), and produce heat (30 percent). Oil is the fuel of transportation, of course. We principally use natural gas to supply raw heat, though it’s now making steady inroads into electric power generation. Fueling electric power plants are mainly (in descending order) coal, uranium, natural gas, and rainfall, by way of hydroelectricity. This sharp segmentation emerged relatively recently, and there’s no reason to think it’s permanent. After all, developing economies use trees and pasture as fuel for heat and transportation, and don’t generate much electricity at all. A century ago, coal was the all-purpose fuel of industrial economies: coal furnaces provided heat, and coal-fired steam engines powered trains, factories, and the early electric power plants. From the 1930s until well into the 1970s, oil fueled not just cars but many electric power plants, too. And by 2020, electricity almost certainly will have become the new cross-cutting “fuel” in both stationary and mobile applications. That shift is already under way. About 60 percent of the fuel we use today isn’t oil but coal, uranium, natural gas, and gravity—all making electricity. Electricity has met almost all of the growth in U.S. energy demand since the 1980s. About 60 percent of our GDP now comes from industries and services that use electricity as their front-end “fuel”—in 1950, the figure was only 20 percent. The fastest growth sectors of the economy—information technology and telecom, notably—depend entirely on electricity for fuel, almost none of it oil-generated. Electrically powered information technology accounts for some 60 percent of new capital spending. Electricity is taking over ever more of the thermal sector, too. A microwave oven displaces much of what a gas stove once did in a kitchen. So, too, lasers, magnetic fields, microwaves, and other forms of high-intensity photon power provide more precise, calibrated heating than do conventional ovens in manufacturing and the industrial processing of materials. These electric cookers (broadly defined) are now replacing conventional furnaces, ovens, dryers, and welders to heat air, water, foods, and chemicals, to cure paints and glues, to forge steel, and to weld ships. Over the next two decades, such trends will move another 15 percent or so of our energy economy from conventional thermal to electrically powered processes. And that will shift about 15 percent of our oil-and-gas demand to whatever primary fuels we’ll then be using to generate electricity. Electricity is also taking over the power train in transportation—not the engine itself, but the system that drives power throughout the car. Running in confined tunnels as they do, subways had to be all-electric from the get-go. More recently, diesel-electric locomotives and many of the monster trucks used in mining have made the transition to electric drive trains. Though the oil-fired combustion engine is still there, it’s now just an onboard electric generator that propels only electrons. Most significantly, the next couple of decades will see us convert to the hybrid gasoline-and-electric car. A steadily rising fraction of the power produced under the hood of a car already is used to generate electricity: electrical modules are replacing components that belts, gears, pulleys, and shafts once drove. Steering, suspension, brakes, fans, pumps, and valves will eventually go electric; in the end, electricity will drive the wheels, too. Gas prices and environmental mandates have little to do with this changeover. The electric drive train simply delivers better performance, lower cost, and less weight. The policy implications are enormous. Outfitted with a fully electric power train, most of the car—everything but its prime mover—looks like a giant electrical appliance. This appliance won’t run any great distance on batteries alone, given today’s battery technology. But a substantial battery pack on board will provide surges of power when needed. And that makes possible at least some “refueling” of the car from the electricity grid. As cars get more electric, an infrastructure of battery-recharging stations will grow apace, probably in driveways and parking lots, where most cars spend most of their time. Once you’ve got the wheels themselves running on electricity, the basic economics strongly favor getting that electricity from the grid if you can. Burning $2-a-gallon gasoline, the power generated by current hybrid-car engines costs about 35 cents per kilowatt-hour. Many utilities, though, sell off-peak power for much less: 2 to 4 cents per kilowatt-hour. The nationwide residential price is still only 8.5 cents or so. (Peak rates in Manhattan are higher because of the city’s heavy dependence on oil and gas, but not enough to change the basic arithmetic.) Grid kilowatts are cheaper because cheaper fuels generate them and because utility power plants run a lot more efficiently than car engines. The gas tank and combustion engine won’t disappear anytime soon, but in the imminent future, grid power will (in effect) begin to top off the tank in between the short trips that account for most driving. All-electric vehicles flopped in the 1990s because batteries can’t store sufficient power for long weekend trips. But plug-in hybrids do have a gasoline tank for the long trips. And the vast majority of the most fuel-hungry trips are under six miles—within the range of the 2 to 5 kWh capacity of the onboard nickel-metal-hydride batteries in hybrids already on the road, and easily within the range of emerging automotive-class lithium batteries. Nationally, some 10 percent of hybrid cars could end up running almost entirely on the grid, as they travel less than six miles per day. Stick an extra 90 pounds—$800 worth—of nickel-metal-hydride batteries in a hybrid, recharge in garages and parking lots, and you can shift roughly 25 percent of a typical driver’s fuel-hungriest miles to the grid. Urban drivers could go long stretches without going near a gas station. The technology for replacing (roughly) one pint of gasoline with one pound of coal or under one ounce of uranium to feed one kilowatt-hour of power to the wheels is now close at hand. So today we use 40 percent of our fuel to power the plug, and the plug powers 60 percent of GDP. And with the ascent of microwaves, lasers, hybrid wheels, and such, we’re moving to 60 and 80 percent, respectively, soon. And then, in due course, 100/100. We’re turning to electricity as fuel because it can do more, faster, in much less space—indeed, it’s by far the fastest and purest form of power yet tamed for ubiquitous use. Small wonder that demand for it keeps growing. We’ve been meeting half of that new demand by burning an extra 400 million tons of coal a year, with coal continuing to supply half of our wired power. Natural gas, the fossil fuel grudgingly favored by most environmentalists, has helped meet the new demand, too: it’s back at 16 percent of electricity generated, where it was two decades ago, after dropping sharply for a time. Astonishingly, over this same period, uranium’s share of U.S. electricity has also risen—from 11 percent to its current 20 percent. Part of the explanation is more nuclear power plants. Even though Three Mile Island put an end to the commissioning of new facilities, some already under construction at the time later opened, with the plant count peaking at 112 in 1990. Three Mile Island also impelled plant operators to develop systematic procedures for sharing information and expertise, and plants that used to run seven months per year now run almost eleven. Uranium has thus displaced about eight percentage points of oil, and five points of hydroelectric, in the expanding electricity market. Renewable fuels, by contrast, made no visible dent in energy supplies, despite the hopes of Greens and the benefits of government-funded research, subsidies, and tax breaks. About a half billion kWh of electricity came from solar power in 2002—roughly 0.013 percent of the U.S. total. Wind power contributed another 0.27 percent. Fossil and nuclear fuels still completely dominate the U.S. energy supply, as in all industrialized economies. The other great hope of environmentalists, efficiency, did improve over the last couple of decades—very considerably, in fact. Air conditioners, car engines, industrial machines, lightbulbs, refrigerator motors—without exception, all do much more, with much less, than they used to. Yet in aggregate, they burn more fuel, too. Boosting efficiency actually raises consumption, as counterintuitive as that sounds. The more efficient a car, the cheaper the miles; the more efficient a refrigerator, the cheaper the ice; and at the end of the day, we use more efficient technology so much more that total energy consumption goes up, not down. We’re burning our 40 quads of raw fuel to generate about 3.5 trillion kilowatt-hours of electricity per year; if the automotive plug-and-play future does unfold on schedule, we’ll need as much as 7 trillion kWh per year by 2025. How should we generate the extra trillions of kilowatt-hours? With hydrogen, the most optimistic Green visionaries reply—produced by solar cells or windmills. But it’s not possible to take such proposals seriously. New York City consumes so much energy that you’d need, at a minimum, to cover two cities with solar cells to power a single city (see “How Cities Green the Planet,” Winter 2000). No conceivable mix of solar and wind could come close to supplying the trillions of additional kilowatt-hours of power we’ll soon need. Nuclear power could do it—easily. In all key technical respects, it is the antithesis of solar power. A quad’s worth of solar-powered wood is a huge forest—beautiful to behold, but bulky and heavy. Pound for pound, coal stores about twice as much heat. Oil beats coal by about twice as much again. And an ounce of enriched-uranium fuel equals about 4 tons of coal, or 15 barrels of oil. That’s why minuscule quantities contained in relatively tiny reactors can power a metropolis. What’s more, North America has vast deposits of uranium ore, and scooping it up is no real challenge. Enrichment accounts for about half of the fuel’s cost, and enrichment technologies keep improving. Proponents of solar and wind power maintain—correctly—that the underlying technologies for these energy sources keep getting cheaper, but so do those that squeeze power out of conventional fuels. The lasers coming out of the same semiconductor fabs that build solar cells could enrich uranium a thousand times more efficiently than the gaseous-diffusion processes currently used. And we also know this: left to its own devices, the market has not pursued thin, low-energy-density fuels, however cheap, but has instead paid steep premiums for fuels that pack more energy into less weight and space, and for power plants that pump greater power out of smaller engines, furnaces, generators, reactors, and turbines. Until the 1970s, engineering and economic imperatives had been pushing the fuel mix inexorably up the power-density curve, from wood to coal to oil to uranium. And the same held true on the demand side, with consumers steadily shifting toward fuels carrying more power, delivered faster, in less space. Then King Faisal and Three Mile Island shattered our confidence and convinced regulators, secretaries of energy, and even a president that just about everything that the economists and engineers thought they knew about energy was wrong. So wrong that we had to reverse completely the extraordinarily successful power policies of the past. New York has certainly felt the effects of that reversal. In 1965, the Long Island Lighting Company (LILCO) announced plans to build a $75 million nuclear plant in Suffolk County, to come on line by 1973; soon after, it purchased a 455-acre site between Shoreham and Wading River. A bit later, LILCO decided to increase Shoreham’s size and said it wanted to build several other nuclear plants in the area. Public resistance and federal regulators delayed Shoreham’s completion. Then Three Mile Island happened. In the aftermath, regulators required plant operators to devise evacuation plans in coordination with state and local governments. In early 1983, newly elected governor Mario Cuomo and the Suffolk County legislature both declared that no evacuation plan would ever be feasible and safe. That was that. By the time the state fully decommissioned Shoreham in 1994, its price tag had reached $6 billion—and the plant had never started full-power commercial operation. To pay for it all, Long Island electric rates skyrocketed. What scared many New Yorkers—and thus many politicians—away from nuclear power was what had originally attracted the engineers and the utility economists to it: nuclear facilities use a unique fuel, burned, in its fashion, in relatively tiny reactors, to generate gargantuan amounts of power. Do it all just right, end to end, and you get cheap, abundant power, and King Faisal can’t do a thing about it. But the raw material itself, packing so much power into so little material, is inherently dangerous. Sufficiently bad engineering can result in a Three Mile Island or a Chernobyl. And these days, there’s the fear that poor security might enable terrorists to pull off something even worse. How worried should we really be in 2005 that accidents or attacks might release and disperse a nuclear power plant’s radioactive fuel? Not very. Our civilian nuclear industry has dramatically improved its procedures and safety-related hardware since 1979. Several thousand reactor-years of statistics since Three Mile Island clearly show that these power plants are extraordinarily reliable in normal operation. And uranium’s combination of power and super-density makes the fuel less of a terror risk, not more, at least from an engineering standpoint. It’s easy to “overbuild” the protective walls and containment systems of nuclear facilities, since—like the pyramids—the payload they’re built to shield is so small. Protecting skyscrapers is hard; no builder can afford to erect a hundred times more wall than usable space. Guaranteeing the integrity of a jumbo jet’s fuel tanks is impossible; the tanks have to fly. Shielding a nuclear plant’s tiny payload is easy—just erect more steel, pour more concrete, and build tougher perimeters. In fact, it’s a safety challenge that we have already met. Today’s plants split atoms behind super-thick layers of steel and concrete; future plants would boast thicker protection still. All the numbers, and the strong consensus in the technical community, reinforce the projections made two decades ago: it is extremely unlikely that there will ever be a serious release of nuclear materials from a U.S. reactor. What about the economic cost of nuclear power? Wind and sun are free, of course. But if the cost of fuel were all that mattered, the day of too-cheap-to-meter nuclear power would now be here—nearer, certainly, than too-cheap-to-meter solar power. Raw fuel accounts for over half the delivered cost of electricity generated in gas-fired turbines, about one-third of coal-fired power, and just a tenth of nuclear electricity. Factor in the cost of capital equipment, and the cheapest electrons come from uranium and coal, not sun and wind. What we pay for at our electric meter is increasingly like what we pay for at fancy restaurants: not the raw calories, but the fine linen, the service, and the chef’s ineffable artistry. In our overall energy accounts, the sophisticated power-conversion hardware matters more every year, and the cost of raw fuel matters less. This in itself is great news for America. We’re good at large-scale hardware; we build it ourselves and keep building it cheaper. The average price of U.S. electricity fell throughout the twentieth century, and it has kept falling since, except in egregiously mismanaged markets such as California’s. The cheap, plentiful power does terrific things for labor productivity and overall employment. As Lewis E. Lehrman notes, rising employment strongly correlates with rising supplies of low-cost energy. It takes energy to get the increasingly mobile worker to the increasingly distant workplace, and energy to process materials and power the increasingly advanced machines that shape and assemble those materials. Most of the world, Europe aside, now recognizes this point. Workers in Asia and India are swiftly gaining access to the powered machines that steadily boosted the productivity of the American factory worker throughout the twentieth century. And the electricity driving those machines comes from power plants designed—and often built—by U.S. vendors. The power is a lot less expensive than ours, though, since it is generated the old-fashioned forget-the-environment way. There is little bother about protecting the river or scrubbing the smoke. China’s answer to the 2-gigawatt Hoover Dam on the Colorado River is the Three Gorges project, an 18-gigawatt dam on the Yangtze River. Combine cheaper supplies of energy with ready access to heavy industrial machines, and it’s hard to see how foreign laborers cannot close the productivity gap that has historically enabled American workers to remain competitive at considerably higher wages. Unless, that is, the United States keeps on pushing the productivity of its own workforce out ahead of its competitors. That—inevitably—means expanding our power supply and keeping it affordable, and deploying even more advanced technologies of powered production. Nuclear power would help keep the twenty-first-century U.S. economy globally competitive. Greens don’t want to hear it, but nuclear power makes the most environmental sense, too. Nuclear wastes pose no serious engineering problems. Uranium is such an energy-rich fuel that the actual volume of waste is tiny compared with that of other fuels, and is easily converted from its already-stable ceramic form as a fuel into an even more stable glass-like compound, and just as easily deposited in deep geological formations, themselves stable for tens of millions of years. And what has Green antinuclear activism achieved since the seventies? Not the reduction in demand for energy that it had hoped for but a massive increase in the use of coal, which burns less clean than uranium. Many Greens think that they have a good grip on the likely trajectory of the planet’s climate over the next 100 years. If we keep burning fossil fuels at current rates, their climate models tell them, we’ll face a meltdown on a much larger scale than Chernobyl’s, beginning with the polar ice caps. Saving an extra 400 million tons of coal here and there—roughly the amount of carbon that the United States would have to stop burning to comply with the Kyoto Protocol today—would make quite a difference, we’re told. But serious Greens must face reality. Short of some convulsion that drastically shrinks the economy, demand for electricity will go on rising. Total U.S. electricity consumption will increase another 20 to 30 percent, at least, over the next ten years. Neither Democrats nor Republicans, moreover, will let the grid go cold—not even if that means burning yet another 400 million more tons of coal. Not even if that means melting the ice caps and putting much of Bangladesh under water. No governor or president wants to be the next Gray Davis, recalled from office when the lights go out. The power has to come from somewhere. Sun and wind will never come close to supplying it. Earnest though they are, the people who argue otherwise are the folks who brought us 400 million extra tons of coal a year. The one practical technology that could decisively shift U.S. carbon emissions in the near term would displace coal with uranium, since uranium burns emission-free. It’s time even for Greens to embrace the atom. It must surely be clear by now, too, that the political costs of depending so heavily on oil from the Middle East are just too great. We need to find a way to stop funneling $25 billion a year (or so) of our energy dollars into churning cauldrons of hate and violence. By sharply curtailing our dependence on Middle Eastern oil, we would greatly expand the range of feasible political and military options in dealing with the countries that breed the terrorists. The best thing we can do to decrease the Middle East’s hold on us is to turn off the spigot ourselves. For economic, ecological, and geopolitical reasons, U.S. policymakers ought to promote electrification on the demand side, and nuclear fuel on the supply side, wherever they reasonably can. City Journal Books Email [cj@city-journal.org] | Copyright The Manhattan Institute ***************************************************************** 29 Burlington Free Press: Vermont Yankee's future up for grabs [http://www.burlingtonfreepress.com] | January 09, 2005 By Candace Page Free Press Staff Writer MONTPELIER -- An unexpected combination of circumstances has given the Vermont Legislature sudden power to shape -- and perhaps limit -- the future of Vermont Yankee, the state's only nuclear power plant. Lawmakers could use their new leverage to thwart Yankee's plan to increase power production by 20 percent. They could forestall the company's hope to extend its operating life by 20 years. They could try to extract new taxes from Yankee to pay for state investments in renewable energy. They could even force the Vernon plant to close before its license expires in 2012, though they are unlikely to take such a drastic step. Doing so would drive up the electric bills paid by most Vermont homeowners and businesses. The nuclear plant provides one-third of all electricity used in Vermont. At a wholesale rate of 3.9 per kilowatt-hour, Yankee is the cheapest major source of electric power in Vermont. Instead, the House and Senate are more likely to use their new leverage to negotiate limits on Yankee's future operations or to obtain substantial financial payments from the plant's owner. "Many people feel there is an inherent danger in continuing to operate that plant," said Rep. Tony Klein, D-East Montpelier, an influential Statehouse voice on energy issues. "If the plant does continue to operate, many people believe the people of the state should share in the benefits the company gets from selling that power." This winter's debate will take place in a Legislature newly under the control of Democrats who are eager to refocus Vermont's energy investments on conservation, efficiency and renewable sources. The debate will also give nuclear power opponents another chance to make their case. "The Legislature has a precious opportunity, a unique opportunity, to protect the public health and safety. They should not throw it away or sell it too cheap," said Ray Shadis, a spokesman for the New England Coalition, a Brattleboro-based anti-nuclear group. Ratepayers also are certain to weigh in. Green Mountain Power spokeswoman Dorothy Schnure said replacing the Yankee power in 2008 could increase rates by 8 percent. "That plant provides low-cost, clean power, and we need it," said John O'Kane, government relations manager at IBM in Essex Junction. IBM's supplier, Green Mountain Power, obtains 37 percent of its electric supply from Yankee. One little word A single word in a 1977 law created the platform for this fresh debate about nuclear power and its place in Vermont's energy future. That year, lawmakers passed a bill requiring any plan storing nuclear waste in Vermont to be approved by the Legislature. They granted one exemption: for temporary storage by the "Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corporation." When the plant was built in 1972, deep pools were installed for the temporary storage of highly radioactive spent fuel rods. The waste was to be shipped to permanent storage, but even today no permanent national site has opened. The spent-fuel pools have been filling up for 33 years. By 2008, there will be no more room, Vermont Yankee says. The plot thickened in 2002, when the 530-megawatt plant was sold for $180 million to Entergy Nuclear of Jackson, Miss. Entergy wants to solve its spent-fuel problem by building new, above-ground, temporary storage in concrete-and-steel cylinders known as dry casks. But the 1977 exemption from legislative oversight doesn't cover the plant's new owner, the attorney general's office concluded in an opinion last year: "As a result of the transfer of ownership of the Vermont Yankee facility, dry cask storage at that facility is not exempted ... ." Entergy would like lawmakers simply to amend the 1977 law, to exempt the nuclear power "station" rather than the "corporation" from oversight of its waste storage. "We'd like them to change just one little word," Yankee spokesman Brian Cosgrove said. No action by the Legislature, no dry-cask storage. No dry-cask storage, no Yankee power production after 2008, Cosgrove said. "The Legislature has to deal with this," said Senate President Peter Welch, D-Windsor, who requested the attorney general's opinion. Lawmakers step in Because Vermont's electric system is so dependent on Vermont Yankee's power, no legislator last week advocated forcing Yankee to shut down by refusing to approve more waste storage. "We'd find ourselves in trouble," said Senate Natural Resources and Energy Chairwoman Virginia Lyons, D-Chittenden. "I'm not sure we've got the planning in place to replace that power." Some lawmakers and advocates are more interested in using the "one little word" loophole as a chance to rein in Entergy's plans to have Vermont Yankee produce more power, longer. Entergy has applied to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission to increase power production 20 percent. Cosgrove said the company also expects to apply for a 20-year extension of its license, to 2032. Both the power increase -- commonly referred to as an "uprate" -- and the license extension are opposed by anti-nuclear groups and some residents of Windham County who believe the plant cannot safely handle more or longer production. Ordinarily, both decisions would be made by regulators, either the Vermont Public Service Board or the NRC, where public opinion has little sway. Now the debate appears headed for the most public forum of all -- the Legislature. Lawmakers are divided about how many of these issues they should weigh and how deeply they should delve. "The uprate and the license extension should be left to the NRC or the PSB," Welch said. Rep. David Deen, D-Westminster, disagreed. "The central issue is the uprate. That increases the need for spent-fuel storage by 20 percent. It is also very much in people's minds that if dry-cask storage is approved, that could be the basis for increasing the length of their license." Like Deen, Sen. Jeanette White, D-Windham, represents people who live in the towns near the Vernon plant. "The answer to dry-cask storage is probably yes -- but not for storing any amount they want. Maybe we put some parameters on that. We need to look at relicensing. Maybe the Legislature should have a role in that decision," she said. One major player has not weighed in. Vermont Public Service Department Commissioner David O'Brien said the administration of Gov. Jim Douglas has no position on dry-cask storage. "It's for the Legislature to decide," he said. Give -- and take One possible outcome of the debate is a new financial arrangement in which Entergy pays the state an annual fee or tax for the use of dry cask storage. Stephen Terry, a vice president at Green Mountain Power, described this as "exacting tribute from Entergy." Lawmakers put it differently. "Money is always an issue," Welch said, adding, "But safety is not for sale." Deen said it's a matter of give and take with Entergy. If lawmakers allow dry-cask storage, "that is a big 'give' and for me there would have to be a big 'take'," he said. Klein was most blunt. "There is precedent in other states where they have agreed to dry-cask storage and decided to collect a fixed amount of revenue per cask from the nuclear company," he said, referring to a Minnesota law. The Minnesota Legislature authorized more dry-cask storage at the Prairie Island nuclear plant in 2003. The law requires Prairie's utility-company owner to contribute $16 million a year to a renewable- energy fund, and to obtain from renewable sources at least 10 percent of the power it sells by 2015. Klein said his personal vision is for a similar approach -- permission for dry-cask storage in exchange for financial investments in future energy sources. "Everybody would win," he said. "Dry-cask is safer storage. You'd take these funds -- which would leave them with plenty of profit -- and invest them in massive amounts of conservation, efficiency and renewable generation." Someday, whether in 2008, 2012 or 2031, Yankee will close, he said, and Vermont should begin investing now in conservation and renewable sources to prepare for that day. Lyons said she, too, will try to fit the debate over Vermont Yankee into the larger discussion this winter about where Vermont's energy will come from in the future. "This is a huge decision and it is not going to be a simple discussion," she said. Reach Candace Page at 660-1865 or 229-9141 or by e-mail at cpage@bfp.burlingtonfreepress.com [http://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/letters.htm] ***************************************************************** 30 UPI: Troubled Czech nuclear reactor restarted - (United Press International) January 10, 2005 Prague, Czech Republic, Jan. 10 (UPI) -- A reactor at the Czech Republic's Temelin nuclear power station was restarted Monday after a three day shutdown, officials said. The second of the plant's two reactors was shutdown after problems in the cooling system of a generator. Officials said the problem occurred in a part of the plant that does not contain radioactive materials. The reactor will be reconnected to the Czech Republic's electricity grid Tuesday. However, anti-nuclear activists say the plant is unsafe. Reactors at Temelin were closed down on numerous occasions in 2004, prompting protests from neighboring Austria. Austria, whose border lies 35 miles to the south of Temelin, is fiercely anti-nuclear and has frequently voiced concerns over Temelin. The plant was originally built to a Soviet design but was subsequently updated using U.S. technology. [UPI Perspectives] ***************************************************************** 31 Times Argus: Vermont Yankee wants change in state law to continue operations January 10, 2005 Associated Press MONTPELIER — One word in a Vermont law is prompting a debate in the Legislature that will shape the future of the Vermont Yankee nuclear plant. At stake are plans to increase power production by 20 percent, extend the plant's life by 20 years and the potential of substantial plant payments to the state. The debate centers on a 1977 law that requires the Legislature to approve any plan to store nuclear waste in Vermont. Lawmakers granted one exemption: for temporary storage by the "Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corporation." The key word is "corporation." The corporation has since sold the plant to Entergy. The new owners say they will run out of storage space by 2008 and want to build more. But the Vermont attorney general's office issued an opinion last year saying the exemption doesn't cover them. Entergy is arguing that changing the law to exempt the Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power "Station," instead of "corporation," would solve the problem, taking the issue out of the Legislature's hands. Without it, officials said, the plant won't be able to produce power after 2008. "We'd like them to change just one little word," Yankee spokesman Brian Cosgrove said. When the plant was built in 1972, deep pools were installed for the temporary storage of highly radioactive spent fuel rods. The waste was to be shipped to permanent storage, but no permanent, national site has opened. The spent-fuel pools have been filling up for 33 years. Entergy hopes to build new, above-ground, temporary storage in concrete-and-steel cylinders known as dry casks. Several interests are weighing in, including businesses who want a reliable electricity source. The nuclear plant provides one-third of all electricity used in Vermont. At a wholesale rate of 3.9 per kilowatt-hour, Yankee is the cheapest major source of electric power in Vermont. "That plant provides low-cost, clean power, and we need it," said John O'Kane, government relations manager at IBM in Essex Junction. IBM's supplier, Green Mountain Power, gets 37 percent of its electric supply from Yankee. This winter's debate will take place in a Legislature newly under the control of Democrats who are eager to refocus Vermont's energy investments on conservation, efficiency and renewable sources. A possible outcome is requiring Entergy to pay the state an annual fee or tax for the use of dry-cask storage. Rep. Tony Klein, D-East Montpelier, said permission for dry-cask storage would then come in exchange for financial investments in future energy sources. "Everybody would win," he said. "Dry-cask is safer storage. You'd take these funds — which would leave them with plenty of profit — and invest them in massive amounts of conservation, efficiency and renewable generation." The debate will also give nuclear power opponents another chance to make their case. "The Legislature has a precious opportunity, a unique opportunity, to protect the public health and safety. They should not throw it away or sell it too cheap," said Ray Shadis, a spokesman for the New England Coalition, a Brattleboro-based anti-nuclear group. The administration of Gov. Jim Douglas has not yet weighed in on dry-cask storage. Neither has Vermont Public Service Department Commissioner David O'Brien. Lawmakers predicted handling the issue would be far from easy. "This is a huge decision," said Senate Natural Resources and Energy Chairwoman Virginia Lyons, D-Chittenden, "and it is not going to be a simple discussion." © 2004 Times Argus [http://www.timesargus.com/] ***************************************************************** 32 News Tribune: Regulators say South Jersey nuclear plant is safe to restart January 10, 2005 Published in the Home News Tribune 1/10/05 By GEOFF MULVIHILL THE ASSOCIATED PRESS MOUNT LAUREL -- A nuclear plant shut down for three months after a radioactive steam leak is safe to reopen, federal regulators said today, trumping the objections of New Jersey's top environmental official. The Hope Creek plant, one of three nuclear reactors on Salem County's Artificial Island, was shut down Oct. 10 after the leak in an area normally off-limits to plant workers. No workers were exposed. In two letters sent Monday to Public Service Energy Group, the Newark-based company that owns the plant, the federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission said the plant is safe to begin generating power again, but only if the company takes extra steps to monitor the separate issue of a problematic pump. While the leak was being fixed, concerns were raised about the pump, used to circulate cooling water, which had been vibrating so much that workers said it sounded like a freight train. New Jersey Environmental Protection Commissioner Bradley M. Campbell last month wrote to the NRC asking the federal agency to force the owner of the plant to replace the part. PSEG officials said they planned to replace the pump during a regularly scheduled plant shutdown next year and that it would be safe to operate the plant until then. The NRC agreed with that assessment. "That conclusion, however, is contingent on requirements agreed to by the company that rigorous and continuous monitoring be maintained of pump parameters, including vibration levels, so that prompt actions can be taken should there be abnormal indications," said Samuel J. Collings, the regional administrator for the NRC. Technically, PSEG does not need the permission of the regulators to restart the plant. But the power company agreed to wait until it had the NRC's approval and held a public meeting on the issue. A public meeting is scheduled for Wednesday in Swedesboro. Activists, who say the plant should not be allowed to restart now, were planning to protest. It was not immediately clear when the company would restart the reactor. PSEG is merging with Chicago-based Exelon Corp. in a deal that would make the new company the nation's largest operator of nuclear power plants. Part of the reason for the merger, company officials said, is that the new company could make the Salem plants more efficient and more profitable. Consumers are not directly affected by the plant shutdown because the reactor feeds power to a regional energy pool. © copyright 2005 The Associated Press [http://www.injersey.com/apnotice/index.html] ***************************************************************** 33 PRN: PSEG Nuclear Responds to Nuclear Regulatory Commission Announcement Regarding Hope Creek Generating Station [http://www.prnewswire.com/] [ /] [http://www.pseg.com] LOWER ALLOWAYS CREEK, N.J., Jan. 10 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/-- PSEG Nuclear today issued a statement in response to a letter released by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in advance of its public meeting slated for Wednesday evening, January 12th. The statement from Chris Bakken is as follows: "We are pleased the NRC concurs with our assessment that Hope Creek is safe to operate without replacing the 'B' recirculation pump shaft until the next refueling outage. Based on our conversations with the NRC, we now expect to receive a confirmatory action letter (CAL) from the NRC consistent with the commitment letter we delivered to them yesterday. Those commitments include setting up a vibration-monitoring program to continuously monitor the recirculation pump, taking specific actions to be based on the vibration data, and making a commitment to change out the pump shaft during the next refueling outage or sooner if an outage of a sufficient duration occurs before the next scheduled refueling. PSEG looks forward to the public meeting with the NRC on Wednesday evening to further discuss the details of their special investigation. We anticipate restarting Hope Creek shortly after the public meeting with the NRC." PSEG also released a copy of Bakken's commitment letter to Sam Collins, Regional Administrator, NRC Region I (attached below). This filing contains forward-looking statements within the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. Such statements include, but are not limited to, statements about the benefits of the business combination transaction involving Public Service Enterprise Group Incorporated and Exelon Corporation, including future financial and operating results, the combined company's plans, objectives, expectations and intentions and other statements that are not historical or current facts. Such statements are based upon the current beliefs and expectations of Public Service Enterprise Group Incorporated's and Exelon Corporation's management, are subject to significant risks and uncertainties and may differ materially from actual future experience involving any one or more of such matters. Actual results may differ from those set forth in the forward-looking statements. The following factors, among others, could cause actual results to differ from those set forth in the forward-looking statements: the timing of the contemplated merger and the impact of any conditions imposed by regulators in connection with their approval thereof; the failure of Public Service Enterprise Group Incorporated and Exelon Corporation stockholders to make the requisite approvals for the transaction; the risk that the businesses will not be integrated successfully; failure to quickly realize cost-savings from the transaction as a result of technical, logistical, competitive and other factors; the effects of weather; the performance of generating units and transmission systems; the availability and prices for oil, gas, coal, nuclear fuel, capacity and electricity; changes in the markets for electricity and other energy-related commodities; changes in the number of participants and the risk profile of such participants in the energy marketing and trading business; the effectiveness of our risk management and internal controls systems; the effects of regulatory decisions and changes in law; changes in competition in the markets we serve; the ability to recover regulatory assets and other potential stranded costs; the outcomes of litigation and regulatory proceedings or inquiries; the timing and success of efforts to develop domestic and international power projects; conditions of the capital markets and equity markets; advances in technology; changes in accounting standards; changes in interest rates and in financial and foreign currency markets generally; the economic and political climate and growth in the areas in which we conduct our activities; and changes in corporate strategies. While we believe that our forecasts and assumptions are reasonable, we caution that actual results may differ materially. We intend the forward-looking statements to speak only as of the time first made and we do not undertake to update or revise them as more information becomes available. Additional factors that could cause Public Service Enterprise Group Incorporated's and Exelon Corporation's results to differ materially from those described in the forward-looking statements can be found in the 2003 Annual Reports on Form 10- K, and Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2004, and the current reports on Form 8-K filed on December 21, 2004, and December 20, 2004, of Public Service Enterprise Group Incorporated and Exelon Corporation, as such reports may have been amended, each filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission and available at the Securities and Exchange Commission's website, http://www.sec.gov [http://www.sec.gov] . Additional Information This communication is not a solicitation of a proxy from any security holder of Public Service Enterprise Group Incorporated or Exelon Corporation. Exelon Corporation intends to file with the Securities and Exchange Commission a registration statement that will include a joint proxy statement/prospectus and other relevant documents to be mailed by Public Service Enterprise Group Incorporated and Exelon Corporation to their respective security holders in connection with the proposed merger of Public Service Enterprise Group Incorporated and Exelon Corporation. WE URGE INVESTORS AND SECURITY HOLDERS TO READ THE JOINT PROXY STATEMENT/PROSPECTUS AND ANY OTHER RELEVANT DOCUMENTS WHEN THEY BECOME AVAILABLE, BECAUSE THEY WILL CONTAIN IMPORTANT INFORMATION ABOUT PUBLIC SERVICE ENTERPRISE GROUP INCORPORATED, EXELON CORPORATION AND THE PROPOSED MERGER. Investors and security holders will be able to obtain these materials (when they are available) and other documents filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission free of charge at the Securities and Exchange Commission's website, http://www.sec.gov [http://www.sec.gov] . In addition, a copy of the joint proxy statement/prospectus (when it becomes available) may be obtained free of charge from Public Service Enterprise Group Incorporated, Investor Relations, 80 Park Plaza, P.O. Box 1171, Newark, New Jersey 07101-1171, or from Exelon Corporation, Investor Relations, 10 South Dearborn Street, P.O. Box 805398, Chicago, Illinois 60680-5398. Participants in Solicitation Public Service Enterprise Group Incorporated, Exelon Corporation, their respective directors and executive officers and other persons may be deemed to be participants in the solicitation of proxies in respect of the proposed transaction. Information regarding Public Service Enterprise Group Incorporated's directors and executive officers is available in its proxy statement filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission by Public Service Enterprise Group Incorporated on March 10, 2004, and information regarding Exelon Corporation's directors and executive officers is available in its proxy statement filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission by Exelon Corporation on March 12, 2004. OTHER INFORMATION REGARDING THE PARTICIPANTS IN THE PROXY SOLICITATION AND A DESCRIPTION OF THEIR DIRECT AND INDIRECT INTERESTS, BY SECURITY HOLDINGS OR OTHERWISE, WILL BE CONTAINED IN THE JOINT PROXY STATEMENT/PROSPECTUS AND OTHER RELEVANT MATERIALS TO BE FILED WITH THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION WHEN THEY BECOME AVAILABLE. (Bakken's letter to the NRC) LR-N05-0017 January 9, 2005 Mr. Samuel Collins, Regional Administrator United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Region I 475 Allendale Road King of Prussia, PA 19406-1415 PSEG ACTIONS IN RESPONSE TO NRC CONCERNS REGARDING 'B' REACTOR RECIRCULATION PUMP HOPE CREEK GENERATING STATION DOCKET NO. 50-354 Reference: Telecon Mr. Chris Bakken, PSEG, and Mr. Sam Collins, USNRC January 7, 2005 Dear Mr. Collins: In response to our telephone discussions on January 7, 2005, this letter documents PSEG Nuclear LLC's (PSEG) commitments regarding the Hope Creek 'B' Reactor Recirculation Pump. 1) PSEG will implement a vibration-monitoring program to continuously monitor the 'B' Reactor Recirculation Pump's primary and secondary harmonic parameters (total amplitude, 1X and 2X amplitude, and 1X and 2X phase angle) during future operating cycles. This program shall include establishing objective criteria that demonstrate that monitored parameters are within acceptable range and developing procedures which specify the actions to be taken if the monitored parameters are outside of the specified range of the acceptance criteria. We understand that PSEG procedures HC.OP-AB.RPV-0003(Q), HC.OP-AR.ZZ-0008(Q) Attachment E-4, and HC.ER-AP.BB-0001(Z) Rev. 0, provided by PSEG letter dated January 4, 2005 meet this commitment. Further, this program will continue until an inspection of the 'B' Reactor Recirculation Pump's rotating assembly and replacement of the pump shaft have been completed. 2) PSEG will notify the NRC prior to implementing any change to the vibration monitoring and operating procedures cited above. This notification will provide sufficient time for the NRC to complete a review of the proposed changes. 3) PSEG will replace the 'B' Reactor Recirculation Pump shaft and inspect the pump's rotating assembly and pressure boundary components (such as the pump casing and cover) at the earlier of the next refueling outage (RFO13) or during an outage of sufficient duration to accomplish pump replacement. During the current refueling outage (RF012) PSEG has completed extensive work directed toward improving equipment reliability and correcting long-standing problems. Attachment 1 provides a summary listing of some of the more significant activities. Should you have any further questions please contact Christina Perino, Director-Licensing and Nuclear Safety at 856-339-1989. Very truly yours, A. Christopher Bakken, III President and Chief Nuclear Officer Attachment C Mr. D. Collins, Project Manager Salem & Hope Creek U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission One White Flint North Mail Stop 08B2 11555 Rockville Pike Rockville, MD 20852 USNRC Senior Resident Inspector - HC (X24) Mr. K. Tosch, Manager IV Bureau of Nuclear Engineering PO Box 415 Trenton, NJ 08625 Document Control Desk USNRC Washington DC 20555 Major work completed during RF12 * Completed replacement of 69 CRD Mechanism and 8 O-Ring replacements (includes Guide Tube Vacuuming of associated guide tubes). This included removal of existing CRDM Exchange Machine and replaced with new equipment * Performed overhaul and material upgrade of the "B" and "C" Emergency Diesel Generators * Inspections and valve replacements of "A" Service Water Loop, including coating repairs and installation of WEKO Seals * Replaced 14 SRV Pilot Assemblies and 9 SRV Bodies * Replaced "C" EDG Electronic Governor * Replaced "B" EDG Electronic and Mechanical Governors * Replaced "B" Reactor Recirc Pump Seal and implemented "B" Reactor Recirc Seal leakoff piping slope modification * Rebuilt TACS Accumulator Floating Roof * Repaired the "A" Control Room Chiller Labyrinth Seals * Performed Internal inspection of all 8 MSIVs * Repaired Drywell Insulation * Repaired EDG Exhaust Stacks/Leaks * Replaced 'A' & 'B' Phase Main Power Transformer * Performed Fuel Sipping of the entire core * Installed Digital EHC System * Completed Reactor Level Setpoint Setdown Modification * Implemented RX Recirc Vibration Monitoring DCP SOURCE PSEG Nuclear Web Site: http://www.pseg.com [http://www.pseg.com] Copyright © 1996-2004 PR Newswire Association LLC. All Rights ***************************************************************** 34 NRC: NRC Begins Special Inspection of Pump Issues at Perry Nuclear Plant News Release - Region III - 2005-00 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Office of Public Affairs, Region III No. III-05-001 January 7, 2005 CONTACT: Jan Strasma (630) 829-9663 Viktoria Mitlyng (630) 829-9662 E-mail: opa3@nrc.gov [opa3@nrc.gov] The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has begun a special inspection of the circumstances surrounding problems with two pumps which led to the shutdown of the Perry Nuclear Power Plant early Thursday (Jan. 6). The plant, operated by FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Co., is in Perry, Ohio. Reactor operators shut down the plant after two recirculation pumps unexpectedly shifted speed, and one of the pumps shut down. The recirculation pumps increase the rate at which water flows through the reactor to increase the efficiency and power level of the reactor. The recirculation system does not have a reactor safety function. During the reactor shutdown, reactor operators were unable to start another pump, used to pump cooling water into the reactor. The operators then started a backup cooling system to maintain reactor cooling. There was no leakage of reactor cooling water, and no hazard to plant workers or the public associated with the shutdown. The four-person NRC inspection team will begin its review today (Jan. 7), monitoring the utilitys investigation and repair activities. The NRC resident inspectors have also been following the event since early Thursday, shortly after the plant shut down. The recirculation pumps have two speeds, a low speed for lower reactor power levels and a high speed for higher power levels. The unexpected speed change reduced the rate of water flow through the reactor, immediately reducing the power level from 100 percent to 46 percent. The unexpected speed change was similar to an event which occurred December 23. The utility determined that problem may have been caused by a faulty circuit card in the control system for the recirculation pumps. The card was replaced, and the utility has continued its review of the event. The NRC inspectors will also review the December 23 incident as part of its inspection. An inspection report will be issued about 30 days following the completion of the NRC inspection. The report will be publicly available in the NRCs Agencywide Documents Access and Management System, or ADAMS, at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. Use Docket Number 05000440 to locate the report. Help in using ADAMS is available from the NRC Public Document Room at 1-800-397-4209. Last revised Friday, January 07, 2005 ***************************************************************** 35 NRC: NRC Staff Seeks Input on Environmental Review for USEC's Proposed Ohio Centrifuge Plant News Release - Region II - 2005-00 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Office of Public Affairs, Region II No. II-05-001 January 10, 2005 CONTACT: Ken Clark (404) 562-4416 Roger D. Hannah (404) 562-4417 E-mail: opa2@nrc.gov [opa2@nrc.gov] meeting in Piketon, Ohio, for Tuesday, Jan. 18, to provide members of the public an opportunity to comment on the scope of the NRCs environmental review for the proposed American Centrifuge Plant. The location for the meeting is Zahns Corner Middle School, 2379 Schuster Road, Piketon, from 7:00 p.m. to 9:45 p.m. The NRC staff will also be available for more informal one-on-one discussions at 6:00 p.m. The NRC has been reviewing the application for the gas centrifuge uranium enrichment plant since USEC, Inc., which would operate the plant, filed it in August. If approved, the plant would enrich uranium to be used in producing fuel for nuclear power plants. In October 2004, the NRC issued an order establishing a 30-month time frame for completing its review and issuing a decision on the USEC application. In February 2004, the agency approved a USEC application for its lead cascade facility, which provides information on the machines planned for use during the plants commercial operation. The NRCs detailed reviews of the facilitys safety, security and environmental issues will be documented in two key documents: a Safety Evaluation Report and an Environmental Impact Statement. The Piketon meeting has been scheduled to obtain public input on what environmental issues should be included in the EIS. Those issues tentatively include land use, transportation, geology and soils, water resources, ecology, air quality, noise, historical and cultural resources, visual and scenic resources, socioeconomics, environmental justice, public and occupational health, and waste management, but the final list may differ based on public input. Anyone wanting to present oral comments is encouraged to pre-register by contacting Ron Linton of the NRC by telephone at 1-800-368-5642, extension 7777, or by e-mail at rcl1@nrc.gov [rcl1@nrc.gov] . People may also register to speak just before the start of the meeting. Last revised Monday, January 10, 2005 ***************************************************************** 36 [du-list] Judge Reverses Ruling Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2005 15:07:48 -0800 Louisville Courier-Journal - Louisville, KY, USA January 8, 2005 Regional Briefs Paducah, KY JUDGE REVERSES RULING IN LOCKHEED MARTIN LAWSUIT A federal judge has reversed a decision he made in September and ruled that former Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant operator Lockheed Martin Corp. can be sued under the False Claims Act. Judge Joseph McKinley earlier had dismissed claims against Lockheed but said the company was still responsible for its subsidiaries at the Paducah plant. The new ruling, which McKinley issued Tuesday, denied Lockheed Martin's motion to dismiss all False Claims Act allegations. The rulings came in a lawsuit first filed in mid-1999 by three current or former employees at the uranium enrichment plant and the Natural Resources Defense Council. The lawsuit alleged the government overpaid Lockheed subsidiaries millions of dollars for operating the plant and its environmental cleanup program. The False Claims Act allows whistleblowers to recover a share of overpayments against government contractors. Lockheed Martin has denied the claims. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> What would our lives be like without music, dance, and theater? Donate or volunteer in the arts today at Network for Good! http://us.click.yahoo.com/TzSHvD/SOnJAA/79vVAA/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/ ***************************************************************** 37 [du-list] WAMC interview with David Rose (Vanity Fair), Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2005 19:28:25 -0800 http://www.publicbroadcasting.net/wamc/news.newsmain? action=article&ARTICLE_ID=726111 WAMC (90.3 FM) Roundtable Segment on Depleted Uranium 1/6/05 ALBANY, NY (2005-01-10) Susan Arbetter and Alan Chartock interview Professor John Arnason, investigative journalist David Rose, and local activist Sharon Herr about Depleted Uranium and the National Lead Plant in Colonie, New York. An essay on D.U. by Joan Walker follows. Charles Jenks, attorney at law President of the Core Group Traprock Peace Center 103A Keets Road Deerfield, MA 01342 413-773-5188; fax 413-773-7507 charles@mtdata.com http://www.traprockpeace.org ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> What would our lives be like without music, dance, and theater? Donate or volunteer in the arts today at Network for Good! http://us.click.yahoo.com/TzSHvD/SOnJAA/79vVAA/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/ ***************************************************************** 38 NRDC: Chemical Attacks Thyroid, Poses Significant Threat to Infants [Natural Resources Defense Council] [http://www.nrdcaction.org/ FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Press contact: Erik Olson, Dr. Jennifer Sass or Elliott Negin, 202-289-2405 If you are not a member of the press, please write to us at nrdcinfo@nrdc.org [nrdcinfo@nrdc.org] or see our contact page. WHITE HOUSE, PENTAGON, INDUSTRY SECRETLY COLLUDED TO SKEW NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES PERCHLORATE REPORT, DOCUMENTS SHOW WASHINGTON (January 10, 2005) -- The White House, the Defense Department, and defense contractors collaborated in a backroom campaign to manipulate a federal report on health threats posed by perchlorate, a toxic rocket fuel ingredient, according to documents recently obtained by NRDC (Natural Resources Defense Council). The chemical, which has been found in water and food supplies nationally, attacks the thyroid gland, and is especially harmful to fetuses and infants. The National Academy of Sciences (NAS) is officially releasing the report tomorrow. (Click here for an overview of the campaign and to see key documents.) "The Defense Department's job is to protect Americans, not threaten our health, but these documents show that it is conspiring with its contractors and the White House to twist the science and avoid cleaning up a chemical that threatens our children's health," said Erik D. Olson, a senior attorney with NRDC, which obtained the documents through Freedom of Information Act lawsuits. "We've never seen such a brazen campaign to pressure the National Academy of Sciences to downplay the hazards of a chemical, but it fits the pattern of this administration manipulating science at the expense of public health." (Over the last year more than 6,000 U.S. scientists, including 48 Nobel laureates, 62 National Medal of Science recipients, and several science advisers to past Republican presidents, signed a letter accusing the Bush administration of distorting and censoring science for political purposes (for more information, go to the Union of Concerned Scientists' Web site [http://www.ucsusa.org/global_environment/rsi/page.cfm?pageID=132 0] ).) For decades, the Defense Department and its contractors have used millions of pounds of perchlorate, often carelessly, contaminating water and food supplies across the country. It has been detected in drinking water supplies used by more than 20 million Americans, and has recently been found in milk and lettuce and other crops that the Food and Drug Administration and others have tested. Lawsuits have been filed in California against Pentagon contractors that contaminated drinking water supplies with perchlorate, triggering a protracted battle over how much they will have to clean up and whether low-level perchlorate exposure is associated with disease. Perchlorate hampers the thyroid gland's normal functioning, which can disrupt normal brain development in fetuses and infants. The Defense Department has been blocking government efforts to address perchlorate pollution for more than a decade, but in the last few years it has intensified its campaign in the face of new revelations about its toxicity. In January 2002, the Environmental Protection Agency issued for peer review its third public draft assessment of perchlorate's toxicity since 1992, recommending that 1 part per billion (ppb) was the safe level in drinking water. In response, the Pentagon and its contractors lobbied to stop the assessment process and, with the help of the White House, ultimately wrested the assessment from EPA and handed it to NAS in 2003, a move that many observers viewed as a stalling tactic. The Pentagon has maintained that any perchlorate level below 200 ppb in drinking water is safe. NRDC sued the White House, Defense Department and EPA in March 2004 after they ignored more than a dozen Freedom of Information Act requests, refusing to disclose any records documenting their campaign to influence NAS or details of the perchlorate problem. In response to the suit, the government recently provided some 30 boxes of documents to NRDC, but is still withholding thousands of other government records, including virtually all the key papers documenting White House and Pentagon efforts to influence NAS. However, the government was required by court order to include a "Vaughn Index" describing each of the withheld documents, which reveals an extraordinary level of White House and Pentagon effort to influence NAS. This behind-the-scenes campaign included uncommon, extensive involvement by White House and Pentagon officials to limit the scope of NAS' inquiry and select the panelists, as well as collaboration among the White House, Pentagon and DOD contractors to influence the panel. "Scientists at the EPA, in state agencies, and in academia have all concluded that very low levels of perchlorate threaten the health of babies," said Dr. Jennifer Sass, an NRDC senior scientist. "Scientists should not be strong-armed by unqualified, partisan bureaucrats and corporate polluters to skew the evidence. We hope that the National Academy of Sciences was able to withstand the pressure and will be able to issue a scientifically credible report." Environment California, a Los Angeles-based organization, today is releasing a summary of the potential harmful effects of perchlorate on children, and a refutation of the Pentagon and defense contractors' assertions about the chemical. For the report, click here [http://www.environmentcalifornia.org/] . Regardless of the NAS report's conclusion, NRDC will continue to fight in court to force the government to release the withheld documents. The organization is being represented by Olson, Aaron Colangelo and other in-house attorneys, and by the Institute for Public Representation at Georgetown University Law Center. The Natural Resources Defense Council is a national, nonprofit organization of scientists, lawyers and environmental specialists dedicated to protecting public health and the environment. Founded in 1970, NRDC has more than 1 million members and e-activists nationwide, served from offices in New York, Washington, Santa Monica and San Francisco. White House and Pentagon Bias National Academy Perchlorate Report, NRDC Backgrounder © Natural Resources Defense Council ***************************************************************** 39 heraldtribune.com: Disease costs ailing ex-worker his doctor Southwest Florida's Information Leader Monday, January 10, 2005 By DEBI SPRINGER [debi.springer@heraldtribune.com] SARASOTA -- Tim Brady thought tussling with the government was the worst of his worries. But now, his primary care physician has asked the former American Beryllium Co. worker to find a new doctor. Brady filed a claim under the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act in August, and has been asked to file mountains of medical records since then. The Labor Department asked Brady to send chest X-rays from 1998 and Brady said his primary doctor couldn't find them. Brady then contacted his pulmonologist and was able to get the X-rays through him. But not before angering his own physician, Brady said. "I'm not sure if he was embarrassed that I got the X-rays from someone else, I don't know, but he suggested I get another doctor," Brady said. The Labor Department has since denied Brady's claim for medical help to treat a lung illness that has left him disabled. He faces more than $60,000 in annual medical bills. The only way Brady can get appointments to see his seven specialists is with a referral from his primary care physician. Brady has tried to find another primary care physician, but so far, he's been turned down once he reveals his illness. Brady said one physician told him she was afraid she'd kill him because she wasn't familiar with beryllium disease. Brady has a list of hundreds of physicians available under his HMO and said he started at the beginning to find one. "I think I may have one, but I'm afraid to show them how sick I am," Brady said. "I'm going to tell them the truth and see what happens." Last modified: January 10. 2005 4:40AM © Sarasota Herald-Tribune. All rights reserved. Starting first ***************************************************************** 40 heraldtribune.com: Not ready to slip away yet Southwest Florida's Information Leader Monday, January 10, 2005 [thomas.bender@heraldtribune.com] Lester Koher,78, a former American Beryllium Co. worker diagnosed with berylliosis, holds the hand of his wife, Dorlis, 73, during a weekday visit at Bay Pines Veterans Affairs Medical Center in Pinellas County. Berylliosis is an immune-system reaction that scars the lungs. More photos [Picture] By DEBI SPRINGER [debi.springer@heraldtribune.com] PINELLAS COUNTY -- This is what the end may look like for people with chronic beryllium disease. Lester Koher needs the help of nurses to steady his body so he can sit up and eat. He sleeps in a bed with a mat on the floor in case he topples over. His skin has a milky, yellow pallor and his hospital pajamas droop on his 6-foot frame. Everything about the way he looks suggests death is near. Yet Koher sits up straight and gives a firm handshake to visitors -- he's not ready to go just yet. He says he won't die peacefully until he sees his claim with the Department of Labor settled. Koher worked at American Beryllium Co. in Tallevast from 1968 to 1975. In 1975, he was diagnosed with chronic beryllium disease, and it has taken almost 28 years for him to begin suffering the physical effects. After Halloween, he began to have trouble breathing; he's sometimes not even able to walk from their front door to their mailbox, said his wife, Dorlis Koher. The American Beryllium plant ran 24 hours a day from 1961 to 1996, employing about 200 people at any one time. Beryllium is a lightweight metal used to build nuclear missiles and other military hardware. Hundreds of former American Beryllium Co. workers are undergoing testing for beryllium sensitivity -- a possible symptom of beryllium disease. Koher has been fighting a cancer that doctors are unable to identify. He also has chronic beryllium disease, and has been given only a few weeks to live. Though doctors haven't been able to link beryllium disease as a cause of death in former beryllium workers, beryllium has been classified as a human carcinogen by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC). Studies conducted by the Colorado-based National Jewish Medical and Research Center -- which specializes in research and treatment of respiratory, immune and allergic disorders -- show that workers in some beryllium plants have had an increased rate of lung cancer. Dorlis Koher, 73, recently visited her husband at the hospice center in the Bay Pines Veterans Affairs Medical Center in Pinellas County. "His greatest goal in life is taking care of me," Dorlis Koher said, clutching a tissue as she talked about her husband of 55 years. Exposure to beryllium poses other potential health threats. Former American Beryllium Co. worker Tim Brady breathed beryllium dust alongside other workers. His immune system is shot to the point where he has to get monthly blood infusions to stay alive. Another former worker, Alexander Primrose, a machinist at the plant in Tallevast from 1959 to 1985, developed stomach cancer five years ago. His bladder quit functioning in 1999, and he uses a catheter twice a day. Lester Koher's cancer is mostly in his abdomen. Koher, 78, filed a claim under the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act (EEOICPA) in August that Dorlis Koher said was verbally approved for compensation by case manager James Maxwell with the Department of Labor in Jacksonville. "We were given a guarantee over the phone that we would receive a check before the holidays," Dorlis Koher said. But when it comes to obtaining government help, former workers of the beryllium plant have learned that promises mean very little. Workers who are sick have had extreme difficulty navigating the bureaucracy and red tape required to file claims. And even those who have filed properly have mostly been turned down for assistance. After a phone call from the Herald-Tribune, Maxwell quickly got in touch with the Kohers. Maxwell asked them for a document verifying insurance information from when Lester Koher was diagnosed with chronic beryllium disease. "He told us after he receives the letter from us he will expedite getting us our check," Dorlis Koher said. Under the EEOICPA, workers afflicted with beryllium disease qualify for compensation of up to $150,000. If the person has died, the money goes to family members. The act also pays for medical services, including beryllium tests. "When you offer $150,000 to somebody, there's bound to be people raising heck about it," Lester Koher said from his bed at the hospice center. "But I only want it for Dorlis." A former Marine who landed on Iwo Jima in 1945, Koher moved his family to Florida from Indiana in 1967. In 1968, he went to work for American Beryllium Co. in Tallevast as a machinist. During a routine yearly physical in 1975, a Sarasota doctor hired by American Beryllium diagnosed Koher with beryllium disease. He was 49. At least 150 more Tallevast residents and former American Beryllium Co. workers remain to be tested for beryllium sensitivity. The first round of the free blood test was completed Dec. 16. Results from the 94 people tested showed three as positive for beryllium sensitivity. The test, a beryllium lymphocyte proliferation test (BeLPT), measures whether a person has an allergy to beryllium. Physicians at the National Jewish Medical and Research Center said testing positive on a BeLPT blood test could be a sign of beryllium disease. In individuals with the disease, known as chronic berylliosis, a person's immune system attacks and attempts to break down the substance. The lungs are scarred in the process, which causes them to stiffen. This makes it difficult to breathe deeply. The disease, though not curable, can be controlled. When Koher was diagnosed in 1975 with chronic beryllium disease, he was fired from his job. He went on to work for Progressive Glass Technology in Nokomis as a plant operator until he retired. American Beryllium kept Koher on its insurance, allowing him to continue to get treatment for the disease. Koher would travel to Boston twice a year for checkups. He saw one of the only physicians in the country familiar with beryllium disease. This continued until Kemper Insurance Company reopened his case in 1997. Linda Klingman, spokeswoman for Kemper, said when they looked at his case, they discontinued medical coverage and gave Lester Koher a $10,000 pay-out. Klingman would not discuss reasons Kemper dropped Koher. Now, Dorlis Koher is faced with another hurdle. On Thursday, doctors said her husband's health, though terminal, had stabilized. He has to be moved out of hospice care and into a nursing home to make space in the eight-room unit. Lester Koher has been at hospice for five weeks and though he is not expected to live much longer, the maximum stay is usually six weeks. Dorlis Koher is researching nursing homes, but still isn't sure the Labor Department is going to come through for her. "I have to go on the assumption we won't be getting a check, so I can't go wild in my search," Dorlis Koher said. Ed Koher, one of the Kohers' sons, wants to quit his job and take care of his father full-time. "I do want him home with us," Dorlis Koher said through tears on Friday. "But, you've got to be realistic about these things." ***************************************************************** 41 Scotsman.com: Fears Raised over Nuclear Submarine Refits [http://www.scotsman.com/directory.cfm] [http://www.pressassociation.co.uk/] Mon 10 Jan 2005 By Sam Marsden, PA Anti-nuclear campaigners raised safety fears today about the continuing refit of nuclear submarines in a British port city. The Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament demanded answers to its “serious concerns” about the 10-year project to refit the Royal Navy’s Vanguard class nuclear-powered submarines at Devonport Royal Dockyard in Plymouth. HMS Vanguard left the dockyard last month after becoming the first of four Vanguard class submarines, capable of firing 16 Trident missiles with nuclear warheads, to undergo a refit. CND is asking Plymouth City Council to ensure the dockyard’s facilities pose no safety risks to workers or the public before HMS Victorious, the next submarine to be refitted, arrives later this month. The campaign group also raised concerns that “costly delays” in refitting HMS Vanguard could be repeated in the future. Kate Hudson, CND chairman, said: “We have serious concerns about the mounting series of problems the Navy is experiencing with the new submarine technology. “These problems present grave safety concerns for the population of Plymouth. We are asking the council to address these concerns before allowing the next submarine to arrive in Plymouth.” CND is calling for the UK’s Trident missile-carrying submarines to be scrapped. Dockyard operator DML, which is carrying out the submarine refits for the Ministry of Defence, declined to comment. ©2005 Scotsman.com [http://www.scotsman.com/] ***************************************************************** 42 KATC: Proposed factory critics say government should disclose risks January 10, 2005 EUNICE, N.M. Opponents of a proposed New Mexico uranium enrichment plant say federal government fears of terrorism are trampling on the public's right to know.Louisiana Energy Services wants to build the plant in Eunice, New Mexico, to refine uranium for nuclear reactors. The federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission is considering whether to license the plant.Don Hancock of the Southwest Research and Information Center says the N-R-C removed large sections from the original version of a draft environmental impact statement on the plant.He says the missing information is about the health risks of accidents at the plant. The N-R-C's Tim Johnson says the information could be useful to terrorists. He says security concerns should come before the public's right to know.Opponents say the plant -- already blocked in Tennessee and Louisiana -- is an unneeded, water-hogging boondoggle that would generate nuclear waste with no place to go.A decade ago, L-E-S wanted to build a uranium enrichment plant in Claiborne Parish. The plan was abandoned after opponents accused the group of environmental racism for picking a site populated by minorities. Copyright 2004 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This All content © Copyright 2003 - 2004 WorldNow, KATC and ***************************************************************** 43 [NYTr] Brits to Bury Int'l Rad Waste for Money Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2005 16:30:55 -0600 (CST) Via NY Transfer News Collective * All the News that Doesn't Fit sent by John Clancy Guardian Weekly - Dec 24, 2004 Government changes tack on foreign nuclear waste by Paul Brown The government has decided to bury Japanese, German, Italian, Spanish, Swiss and Swedish nuclear waste in Britain as a money-making venture to help pay for Britain's own nuclear waste problems. The decision has been taken even though Britain as yet has no depository for the waste. It overturns a 30-year-old policy that the UK would not become a dumping ground for other countries' nuclear waste. Conservative and Labour governments have previously said waste arising as a result of lucrative nuclear fuel reprocessing contracts at Sellafield in Cumbria should be returned to the country of origin. Successive governments had intended to return all highly dangerous waste contaminated with plutonium to its country of origin -- a total of 225 shipments. Last week's decision means keeping and disposing of the bulk of that toxic waste in Britain. The trade secretary, Patricia Hewitt, said the benefits were environmental and economic. She said the additional income -- up to ,#680m -- would be "used for nuclear clean-up which will result in savings for the UK taxpayer over the longer term". Environmental groups warned that it will leave Britain with thousands of tonnes of waste for which there is currently no form of disposal. The government has set up a committee to find a way of disposing of high- and intermediate-level nuclear waste safely. It considered 20 options, including burying the waste in the Antarctic and firing it at the sun. No preferred method has been established, but it is likely to be either storage above ground or disposal below ground in deep rock caverns. The seas and beaches around the British Isles are polluted with a cocktail of man-made detritus, writes Mark Townsend. More than 2,700 "suspect items", often left over from military exercises, dumped illegally or lost after shipping accidents were reported in a government-funded investigation to find out how many potentially dangerous items washed up on the coastline each year. The haul included 1,680 army munitions or flares. The Guardian Weekly 2004-12-24, page 8 * Search the NYTr Archives at: http://olm.blythe-systems.com/pipermail/nytr/ To subscribe or unsubscribe or change your settings via the web, visit: http://olm.blythe-systems.com/mailman/listinfo/nytr ================================================================= NY Transfer News Collective * A Service of Blythe Systems Since 1985 - Information for the Rest of Us 339 Lafayette St., New York, NY 10012 http://www.blythe.org e-mail: nyt@blythe.org ================================================================= ***************************************************************** 44 [NukeNet] Feds deny N.J. aid to check radiation Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2005 15:02:03 -0800 NukeNet Anti-Nuclear Network (nukenet@energyjustice.net) ------- Forwarded message ------- From: "frederick zierold" To: "Jerseyshorenuclearwatch@Yahoogroups. Com" Subject: [JerseyShoreNuclearWatch] Feds deny N.J. aid to check radiation Date: Sun, 9 Jan 2005 21:33:48 -0500 http://www.app.com/app/story/0,21625,1169565,00.html Feds deny N.J. aid to check radiation Published in the Asbury Park Press 1/09/05 By NICHOLAS CLUNN MANAHAWKIN BUREAU LACEY -- Radiation monitors that would sound alarms in Trenton if readings around the Oyster Creek nuclear power plant climbed to unhealthy levels remain broken and beyond repair after the federal government denied the state funding to replace them. Now officials are looking for other ways to buy new monitors for the real-time system, which is required under the state Radiation Accident Response Act, and would help determine the extent of an accidental radiological release without sending emergency response personnel into contaminated areas to assess the damage with hand-held devices. State Department of Environmental Protection Commissioner Bradley M. Campbell during an interview Friday continued to tout the system as one of the most sophisticated in the nation among state governments, but the funding proposal his agency submitted to the federal Environmental Protection Agency said the system's integrity has declined. It said the "existing system is 15 years old and both hardware and software components of it are no longer functional and no longer repairable." "Oh, that's great," Tinton Falls retiree Doris Piserchia said sarcastically. "They should close that plant and bury it." But Lacey resident Charlie Yuhl, who worked on Navy ships that repaired nuclear submarines, said he trusts the people running the plant to monitor radiation levels. "It's going to be as safe as any man-made thing can be," said Yuhl, of the plant. State officials asked for $100,000 to replace 10 of the surveillance system's 19 monitors located near population centers, schools and parks within 2.5 miles of the plant -- home of the county's oldest commercial reactor -- but the program they applied through excluded radiation protection projects. The funding proposal called the project "critical" because the reactor could become the nation's first to operate longer than 40 years. Plant owner AmerGen needs a 20-year license renewal from federal regulators to continue operation past 2009. It plans to apply for the extension in July. Degradation from old age and inclement weather has rendered computer hardware and batteries in some monitors unreliable, Campbell said. Old parts have resulted in shoddy performance by one-fifth of the monitors around Oyster Creek and three other reactors in Salem County, he said. Nevertheless, government leaders in other states continue to hold New Jersey's monitoring program in high regard, according to Campbell and others familiar with tracking radiation doses around reactors. "At the moment, it is functioning well," he said. "We believe that it is a model system." Pennsylvania, for example, lacks a real-time monitoring system, according to that state's Department of Environmental Protection. Instead, on a weekly basis, state personnel collect and analyze air filters around each of its nine operating reactors on five sites. New Jersey's monitors in the Continuous Radiological Environmental Surveillance and Telemetry Network, or CREST, provide state officials with up-to-the-minute data -- gamma radiation levels, wind speed and wind direction -- that would enable emergency management officials to react intelligently during a radiological release. The network's monitors, $10,000 devices located on telephone poles and protected by barbed-wire fences, transmit the information over dedicated telephone lines to a computer in Trenton. State officials installed one monitor in each compass sector to reduce the chance of having a release go undetected. They later put some around casks holding spent nuclear fuel on plant property. Other monitors surround Salem 1, Salem 2 and Hope Creek reactors on Artificial Island in Lower Alloways Creek. Gamma radiation, a product of nuclear fission, can kill in high doses. It does so by penetrating living cells, a result that has been honed by oncologists to eliminate cancers. State radiation monitoring programs operate independently of similar systems, on-site and off, run by plant owners and overseen by the federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Officials in charge of monitoring radiation levels at Oyster Creek said they are confident in the plant's surveillance system. Nearby residents, they said, should feel safe, despite the decline in the state's system. Several systems within plant boundaries would immediately detect dangerous radiation levels and alert control room staff to any unusual readings, according to plant officials. Plant workers, they said, would then quickly find the problem's source and solve it. A monitor placed atop the plant's iconic stack would detect radiation within the ventilation system. Radiation personnel also watch monitors that keep track of the sewers and the salt water pumped through the reactor to cool the steam used to generate power. "Any pathway that would lead to the environment, you will find a monitor there," said Lynn Newtown, plant manager of chemistry, environment and radioactive waste. News of the problem with the state's system should bolster advocacy groups and government officials that want the plant closed when its license expires in 2009, said Brick Mayor Joseph C. Scarpelli, a license renewal opponent. Its condition, he said, shows how degradation can increase the possibility of an accident when running and monitoring an aged reactor. "It makes me feel even more strongly that this plant should not stay open past 2009," he said. Residents around Oyster Creek should form their own radiation monitoring group, said Eric Epstein, coordinator of the EFMR Monitoring Group, which tracks radiation levels several times daily around three reactors at the Three Mile Island and Peach Bottom plants near Harrisburg, Pa. "Even though the state is there, I think you can supplement what the state does," he said. "It doesn't hurt to have another set of eyes." Volunteers at 90 locations -- in-cluding homes, churches and union halls -- check and record data five times daily using hand-held monitors. EFMR members are trained by a college professor on how to use the monitors before taking readings, said Epstein, 45. Dave Giombetti, a license renewal supporter who's raised a family in Lacey and owns a marina there, said he would like to see fewer groups critical of Oyster Creek. "Personally, I think they're out of control, all these groups," he said. Nicholas Clunn: (609) 978-4597 or nclunn@app.com Go Back | Subscribe to the Asbury Park Press -- Coalition for Peace and Justice UNPLUG Salem Campaign; 321 Barr Ave, Linwood NJ 08221; 609-601-8583; cell 609-742-0982 ncohen12@comcast.net; http://www.unplugsalem.org http://www.coalitionforpeaceandjustice.org "Life is a jelly donut. You don't really know what its about until you bite into it. Then, just when you decide its good, you drop a big glob of jelly on your best t-shirt." Janet Evanovich No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 265.6.9 - Release Date: 1/6/05 _______________________________________________________________________ Subscribe/Unsubscribe Here: http://www.energyjustice.net/nukenet/ Change your settings or access the archives at: http://energyjustice.net/mailman/listinfo/nukenet_energyjustice.net Attachment Converted: "c:\program files\eudora\attach\attachment969.dat" ***************************************************************** 45 NRC: NRC Withdraws Proposed Rule on Dual-Purpose Casks for Spent Nuclear Fuel News Release - 2005-00 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Office of Public Affairs Telephone: 301/415-8200 Washington, DC 20555-0001 E-mail: opa@nrc.gov No. 05-004 January 6, 2005 dual-purpose (DP) spent fuel casks to make certain design changes to the casks without prior NRC approval. The proposed Subpart I was contained in a larger rulemaking first published in April 2002 that was intended to make NRC regulations on the transportation of radioactive materials compatible with international standards set by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). That rule was issued as a final rule in January 2004 (and became effective Oct. 1, 2004), without Subpart I. Subpart I would have created a new type of package certification, Type B(DP), for casks used for storage and transportation of spent nuclear fuel. It would have authorized holders of Type B(DP) certificates to make some non-safety-related changes to the package design and procedures without NRC approval under certain conditions. There is a similar authority in NRC regulations for non-safety-related changes to storage casks. The NRC received several public comments on the proposed Subpart I and in a public workshop on the proposal held in April 2004. Several cask vendors and certificate holders said the proposal would impose significant regulatory costs and burdens. In addition, some non-safety-related changes to transport cask designs are already authorized under current NRC regulations. Further detail on the NRCs reasons for withdrawing the proposed Subpart I can be found in a Federal Register notice published Jan. 4. Last revised Thursday, January 06, 2005 ***************************************************************** 46 Buffalo News: Local firm makes its mark with close-tolerance nuclear projects www.buffalo.com/ Monday, January 10, 2005 News Business Reporter 1/10/2005 Sharon Cantillon/Buffalo News Executives at West Metal Works, from left, Chief Executive Officer Patricia Mertz, Vice President James Kelly and President Wayne Mertz check a wall module the firm is building to hold nuclear waste containers. When the 22-foot-tall steel walls are finished, West Metal Works will load them on trucks, point them west on Interstate 90, and send them 2,000 miles to a rural corner of Washington state. The Buffalo company is making critical parts for the $6 billion cleanup of the Hanford Nuclear Reservation, the U.S. government's Cold War-era plutonium manufacturing site. The steel walls, interlaced with pipes and supported by a metal skeleton, will form the interior of two "melters" at Hanford. The specialized furances, wrapped in two feet of concrete, will transform liquid nuclear waste into balls of radioactive glass. It's an important job for the locally owned business - worth about $5 million in sales - and a demanding one. "If there's a crack in a weld, there's no way to go inside and fix it," said James M. Kelly, vice president and general manager. The inside of the melters will be "hot" with radioactivity. The attention to quality is such that general contractor Bechtel has an inspector stationed at West Metal's plant in Depew. The nuclear project exemplifies the sort of high-skill jobs that have engineered a turnaround for the Buffalo area manufacturer. The contract, being performed in a temporary, leased plant, will create 35 new jobs, about doubling West Metal's employment. The task will end with the final delivery scheduled in September, but the company expects that 18 to 22 of the new jobs will continue as a result of other work for Bechtel. When Patricia and Wayne M. Mertz bought it in 1995, West Metal was down to two workers. "It was really at the end of its rope," President Wayne Mertz said. But it also had a track record of providing leak-proof tanks, like those for oxygen you see standing behind hospitals. And it had experience supplying the military, with components on the U.S. Navy's nuclear submarines. Wayne and Patricia Mertz already owned sheet-metal fabricator Goergen-Mackwirth in Buffalo, a specialist in ventilation ductwork they acquired in 1986. When West Metal came on the market in 1995, as owner Nelson A. Pauly sought to retire, Wayne Mertz saw opportunity in the 50-year-old company. He envisioned cross-marketing products with his sheet-metal company while bidding for more close-tolerance work. "It was a company doing the type of thing we were doing," he said. When he was a banker at M, before becoming an entrepreneur, Mertz remembers getting advice from NOCO Energy's Reginald Newman. "He said "stick to what you know.' " West Metal stuck to its steel fabrication expertise, but graduated to more complex, highly engineered projects. The company's "NQA-1" nuclear quality certification, a standard set by the American Society of Mechanical Engineers, opens doors to the rarified business of nuclear projects. Auditors regularly examine the company's records and its quality checks to maintain the certification. With its nuclear credentials, West Metal supplied components for the West Valley Demonstration Project, the federal cleanup near Springville in Cattaraugus County. It has also performed steel fabrication work for the Oak Ridge National Laboratory and Los Alamos National Laboratory nuclear sites. Being named "Outstanding Supplier" for the West Valley waste-to-glass project for six years running, from 1996 through 2001, probably helped win the much larger contract with Bechtel, Mertz said. The Hanford work will boost West Metal's revenues to $6 million this year, from $2 million in 2004. In all, it will supply 18 L-shaped wall modules, each weighing 16,000 pounds, that make up the walls of Hanford's two waste-melting units. The company's union relationship helped it win the work, by providing welders certified for the close-tolerance project, Mertz said. The Plumbers and Steamfitters Local 22 provides highly trained welders with experience on nuclear projects. "The relationship with the union's very strong - we couldn't do this without them," he said. Local 22 has a five-year apprenticeship program, followed by journeyman-level training taught by advanced welders, business agent Michael W. McNally said. Work at West Valley has given the union a group of workers who are in demand at nuclear projects around the country, he said. In addition to the training levels and certifications needed for nuclear work, the workers have also cleared the tests and background checks required on high-security projects. "Once you're in the nuclear system . . . it gets easier," he said. West Metal has also received an edge from government programs for small businesses. Based in Buffalo and majority owned by Patricia Mertz, it qualifies as a small, woman-owned business. "All those little things helped package it for us," chief executive Patricia Mertz said. Bechtel began work on the Hanford cleanup in 2001, 12 years after plutonium manufacturing ended in 1989. Covering 65 acres, the remediation plant for waste "vitrification," or encapsulating waste within glass, is to be running in 2011, the company says. Vitrified waste will be stored at Hanford temporarily, then moved to the underground federal repository at Yucca Mountain, Nev. e-mail: fwilliams@buffnews.com [http://www.buffalonews.com/copyright.htm] ***************************************************************** 47 Guardian Unlimited: Health Standard for Perchlorate to High From the Associated Press [UP] Monday January 10, 2005 11:01 PM By ERICA WERNER Associated Press Writer WASHINGTON (AP) - A panel of scientists concluded Monday that perchlorate, a toxic chemical used in rocket fuel and explosives, is safe for consumption at levels 20 times greater than the standard being considered by the Environmental Protection Agency. In a report expected to influence a final EPA regulation on the chemical, the National Academy of Sciences supported a level of contamination closer to that favored by the Pentagon, and not the more stringent rules sought by environmentalists and some Democrats. The study comes after years of disagreement over how dangerous it is for people to consume water tainted with perchlorate, a pervasive leftover of Cold War defense manufacturing that has been found in drinking water in 35 states. The EPA currently has no final pollution standard for perchlorate in drinking water. The chemical can inhibit thyroid function and is considered particularly dangerous to children. The NAS panel recommended allowing a level roughly equal to 20 parts per billion in drinking water. Two years ago, EPA issued a preliminary recommendation of 1 part per billion. Parts per billion is a common water quality measurement. The academy's report criticized the agency's methods of evaluating health risks. ``The committee disagrees with EPA's conclusion and thinks that perchlorate exposure is unlikely to lead to thyroid tumors in humans,'' the panel said in a statement accompanying its report. Environmentalists disputed the academy's conclusion and accused the panel of being pressured by the Pentagon and the defense industry. ``The recommendations don't make sense if our goal is really to protect children and the environment and not to protect the military and our contractors,'' said Gina Solomon, a senior scientist at Natural Resources Defense Council. In a conference call Monday, the council said documents obtained under Freedom of Information Act requests showed that the Pentagon and the White House sought to influence the scope of the academy's study. Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., said the administration's friendships with special interest groups are standing in the way of public health. ``The administration routinely downplays the health risks of perchlorate despite the well-documented risks it poses to the physical and metal health of children,'' Boxer said in a statement. While the chemical also is found in nature, the panel said that its presence in the environment primarily comes from the manufacture and use of rocket fuels as well as explosives and fireworks. In many states, pollution from defense sites is blamed for perchlorate in groundwater. The academy study was ordered by the Bush administration in 2003 to review the stricter standard EPA had proposed in 2002. The Pentagon had criticized that standard as too stringent and recommended one as high as 200 parts per billion. Local governments around the country already have begun trying to hold defense contractors and the Pentagon liable for huge cleanup costs to rid groundwater of the toxin. A Pentagon spokesman referred calls to the White House, where Bob Hopkins, spokesman for the Office of Science and Technology Policy, said accusations of improper influence by the administration ``couldn't be further from the truth.'' The academy defended its work. ``We think our committee has done a fine job. We look forward to the public and policy makers reading our report and the science in it,'' E. William Colglazier, the academy's executive officer, said in a statement. A few states have adopted their own proposed regulations public health goals, though none is finalized. California's is 6 parts per billion, while Massachusetts' is 1 part per billion. Although California's standard would remain in place even if the national standard were more lax, Californians would still be affected in many ways - most importantly because contamination in Colorado River water comes from a former Kerr-McGee Corp. rocket fuel plant in Nevada. That plant is the single largest source of perchlorate contamination, as the Colorado River is the main drinking water source for 20 million people in the Southwest. Perchlorate in the Colorado River has been measured as high as 9 parts per billion. Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2005 ***************************************************************** 48 Courier Journal: Judge reverses ruling in Lockheed Martin lawsuit [http://www.courier-journal.com/index.html] · Saturday, January 08, 2005 PADUCAH Ky. A federal judge has reversed a decision he made in September and ruled that former Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant operator Lockheed Martin Corp. can be sued under the False Claims Act. Judge Joseph McKinley earlier had dismissed claims against Lockheed but said the company was still responsible for its subsidiaries at the Paducah plant. The new ruling, which McKinley issued Tuesday, denied Lockheed Martin's motion to dismiss all False Claims Act allegations. The rulings came in a lawsuit first filed in mid-1999 by three current or former employees at the uranium enrichment plant and the Natural Resources Defense Council. The lawsuit alleged the government overpaid Lockheed subsidiaries millions of dollars for operating the plant and its environmental cleanup program. The False Claims Act allows whistleblowers to recover a share of overpayments against government contractors. Lockheed Martin has denied the claims. Copyright 2004 The Courier-Journal. ***************************************************************** 49 AS: enviro-rocket-fuel Mon Jan 10 13:39:20 2005 Pacific Time National Academy of Sciences Affirms Strict Standard for Rocket Fuel in Drinking Water OAKLAND, Calif., Jan. 10 (AScribe Newswire) -- Today's National Academy of Sciences (NAS) report on the toxic rocket fuel chemical perchlorate strongly supports the conclusions of the EPA and the states of Massachusetts and California: that to protect infants and children, exposures should be no higher than a few parts per billion. The Academy completely knocked down the claim by defense contractors and the Pentagon that high levels of the chemical in drinking water are safe. When the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) sets the safety standard for rocket fuel in drinking water, the NAS findings will almost inevitably lead it to a single-digit standard because: (1) The NAS number is based on the body weight of an adult male, not an infant or child, and the EPA will write safety standards for children. (2) The NAS number does not take into consideration additional exposure to this chemical through milk and other foods, where it has been found in nationwide tests. Correcting for these differences, EWG calculates that the findings in the NAS report support a national drinking water standard of no higher than 2.5 ppb. The EPA and Massachusetts had earlier recommended a level of 1 ppb, while California has recommended 6 ppb. "The NAS findings almost certainly mean that when federal health officials write a standard to protect children, we'll see a standard that is even more protective than what the Academy recommends. This is a complete and total rejection of the defense contractors' junk science," said EWG Senior Analyst Renee Sharp. ---- CONTACT: Bill Walker or Renee Sharp, EWG, 510-444-0973 -30- AScribe - The Public Interest Newswire / 510-653-9400 www.ascribe.org ***************************************************************** 50 Thunder Bay's Source: Editorials Nuclear Waste www.tbsource.com Thunder Bay's Source Editorials 2005 Rick Smith Web Posted: 1/10/2005 3:57:58 PM For decades its been considered likely that an increasingly desperate nuclear industry would look to sparsely populated areas offered in abundance in Northern Ontario to rid themselves of their hazardous radioactive waste, which, they admit, will remain hazardous for thousands of years. I’ve been saying, you in Southern Ontario made this mess (and reaped the considerable benefits from it, so you lie in it). To my surprise the folks at Ontario Power Generation are thinking of burying the stuff in their own back yard, putting the waste deep in the ground near the scenic Lake Huron Shoreline at the Bruce Nuclear Power Plant. It’s a hard sell, made more difficult by the dominant headlines serving to remind us of the stunningly disastrous consequences of earthquakes. And, are they going about this sales pitch process in the proper manner? Not at all. They’ve left themselves open to charges of Bribery, charges of orchestrating a phony phone poll of public opinion, charges of “secret deals”. Under a recent “hosting” agreement (don’t you love it? “Hosting Agreement!”) with council that critics say was inked in secrecy OPG will pay 5 municipalities in the area over 35 million dollars over 30 years, conditional upon community support for the plan. Critics say the whole process in ethically and morally reprehensible. With the prospect of our “hosting” a Synfuel Plant we shall watch this process with great interest and be grateful that, for the moment, this one is not in our backyard!This is Rick Smith and That’s One Man’s Opinion Copyright Thunder Bay's Source © All Rights Reserved 2005 ***************************************************************** 51 The Australian: Demand to drive uranium higher [January 11, 2005] [http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/mm] Increased demand and a supply-side crunch will combine to push uranium prices up to historic highs over the next few years, industry officials said overnight. Last year the spot price for uranium hit 20-year-highs of $20 per lb, having in 2002 broken above $10 per pound (lb) ($24 per lb) where it had hovered since the late 1980s, according to figures from the industry consultancy group Nuclear International. "Right now the industry does not see prices weakening, the question is how much more will they go up," Dustin Garrow, president of consultancy Nuclear International, said in a speech to a uranium mining conference in London. Processed uranium is mainly used to create nuclear energy which supporters say is an environmentally friendly alternative to fossil fuels as it does not emit the greenhouse gases blamed by many scientists for global warming. But ecologists and anti-nuclear campaigners worry about the safety of nuclear storage and waste. Nuclear power produces some 16 percent of world electricity while coal, oil and gas account for two thirds. Governments are divided. Countries such as the United States, Finland and energy-hungry China are developing their nuclear power programmes, while others such as Germany are phasing it out. Nuclear International estimates that current uranium consumption tops 173 million lbs a year and will rise to over 200 million lbs by 2020. In the 1980s and 1990s world uranium mining dropped off as companies abandoned mines and failed to exploit reserves as the price of uranium bottomed out. The industry relied instead on stockpiles and reprocessed uranium from the military. Now those supplies have shrunk and old mines and undeveloped uranium ore deposits across the world are beginning to look attractive once more. Strathmore Minerals Corp, bought a series of discarded uranium deposits at discount prices in Canada and the US in the mid-1990s. "For years you felt like the red haired step-daughter in the family, but that has now changed," Dev Randhawa, chief executive officer of the uranium exploration company, said in a speech. Strathmore now wants to wait until the contract price of uranium between miners and processors reaches around $50 per lb before signing supply deals. Canada's International Uranium Corp also plans to expand, saying it is looking into reopening uranium mines in the United States, as well as exploring in Mongolia for further deposits. "The market needs a $20 a lb contract price to sustain it," Ron Hochstein, the company's chief executive, told Reuters. ``And in the long-term I think the contract price will remain above $20 a lb.'' The predictions come amidst a bitter battle for control of one of the world's largest uranium producers, Australian's WMC Resource. In November, WMC, which is the subject of a $7.4 billion takeover bid by Swiss-based Xstrata, increased its long-term uranium forecast to $US30 per lb, saying that its Olympic Dam deposit in South Austalia could become the world's biggest uranium mine if a $4-billion expansion is approved. © The Australian ***************************************************************** 52 PE.com: Group urges chemical cleanup | Inland Southern California | Local News ENVIRONMENT: A report says perchlorate at current levels may be harmful to children. 07:48 AM PST on Monday, January 10, 2005 By DAVID DANELSKI / The Press-Enterprise A rocket fuel chemical that has contaminated the Colorado River and several other Inland drinking water sources should be cleaned up to protect the health of fetuses, infants and children, an environmental group says in a report to be released today. The Los Angeles-based Environment California Research & Policy Center contends that the small amounts of perchlorate in drinking water consumed by some 16 million Californians might be linked to lower intelligence, learning disabilities and other problems in children. "We think perchlorate could be tied to problems we are seeing in increased neurological and behavior problems in kids," said Sujatha Jahagirdar, clean water policy advocate for Environment California. After reviewing scientific studies and evaluating the extent of contamination and other factors, the group concluded that regulators should limit perchlorate in drinking water to no more than 1 part per billion - less than the concentrations in many Inland drinking water supplies. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and state of Massachusetts have made preliminary findings that 1 part billion is safe for everyone, even infants and fetuses. Environment California contends that California's proposed health goal - an amount the state considers safe for everyone - of 6 parts per billion is too high. The group is urging the state to lower that goal. Perchlorate is used in rocket fuel, munitions and fireworks. Leaks and spills at factories and military bases have allowed the chemical to invade rivers and groundwater. In sufficient doses, it is known to impair the thyroid gland's ability to absorb iodide, a building block for the hormones that guide neurological development in fetuses and infants. Just how much perchlorate is safe is the subject of scientific debate. Scientists paid by industries responsible for much of the pollution have said that as much as 200 parts to billion is safe for all people. To settle the debate, the Bush administration in 2003 asked the independent National Academy of Sciences to review the science on perchlorate and make recommendations to the administration. The academy, dubbed by some as the Supreme Court of Science, is scheduled to release its findings on Tuesday. Gail Rymer, spokeswoman for Lockheed Martin Corp., said by telephone she wanted to wait until the academy makes its report before commenting on the environmental group's conclusions. "It's important to wait until Tuesday to see what the NAS report says about the health effects of perchlorate," Rymer said. "They took an independent look at the science and followed a credible process." Perchlorate pollution that turned up in Redlands, Loma Linda and Riverside drinking water supplies is believed to have leaked from a former Lockheed rocket factory in Mentone. Glen Avon environmentalist Penny Newman, executive director of the Center for Community Action and Environmental Justice, said her organization is working in a partnership with Environment California. The Glen Avon group will use the report to press regulators and water districts to remove perchlorate from Inland drinking water supplies, she said. Newman acknowledged that many of the health impacts of perchlorate are unknown. But she added that no one should be taking risks with a chemical that might be harming people, especially small children. "Once the damage is done, you can't undo it," she said. Reach David Danelski at (951) 368-9471 or by e-mail at ddanelski@pe.com [ddanelski@pe.com] More headlines... [http://www.pe.com/pe/] Belo Interactive Inc. ***************************************************************** 53 asahi.com : RADIATION CONCERNS:Russia ships spent nuke fuel through Soya Strait near Hokkaido By HIROYUKI TAKEI:The Asahi Shimbun Japanese nuclear experts fear the vessel and its containers are not up to international standards. Russia has been using a Soviet-era ship to transport spent nuclear fuel near Hokkaido and through the Sea of Japan, raising concerns about possible radioactive contamination in northern Japan, nuclear industry officials said. Despite the risks of moving such highly radioactive material, Moscow is under no legal obligation to inform Tokyo of such shipments, Japanese government officials say. But Russian authorities provided a map of the ship's route to the Japan Atomic Industrial Forum (JAIF) in autumn 2003. Until now, the route of the Russian vessel was not known. The spent fuel is taken from dismantled nuclear-powered submarines at a plant in a suburb of Petropavlovsk Kamchatskiy on the Kamchatka Peninsula. The fuel is then loaded on a ship which passes through the Soya Strait, the narrow strip of water that separates Hokkaido and Russia's Sakhalin, according to JAIF officials. The ship crosses the Sea of Japan and docks in Vladivostok to keep the fuel at a nearby temporary storage facility. From there, the fuel is carried by train to reprocessing plants. ``We have been informed by the Russian side that they transport spent nuclear fuel in containers placed in the vessel's storage area,'' said a Foreign Ministry official in charge of the issue. ``But we have not been told of the detailed transportation methods, the routes taken or the frequency of the transportation.'' The lack of information from Russia has added to Japanese fears about the spent nuclear fuel being transported so close to Japan. A researcher at the Nuclear Safety Institute at the Russian Academy of Sciences said Moscow currently has no other route to get the spent nuclear fuel to the railway network. But even Russian scientists are concerned about possible hazards of transporting such a dangerous cargo by sea, the Russian researcher said. Russian nuclear-powered submarines usually carry uranium fuel enriched by 20 percent or more. Some levels reach as high as 90 percent, about the same as for weapons-grade fuel, experts say. In comparison, the level of enrichment of fuel used at Japanese nuclear reactors is about 3 percent. There is also the issue of volume. Spent nuclear fuel from a single decommissioned submarine fills about a dozen 40-ton containers, according to nuclear industry sources. Spent nuclear fuel from reactors in Japan is transported in double-hull cargo ships and special containers that meet international standards. But about the only detail known about the Russian vessel is that it was built in the mid-1980s. ``The containers are heavy, and I believe that the Russian ship would not withstand the weight if it carries many of them,'' said Kunihiko Uematsu, an adviser to JAIF and former vice president of what is now the Japan Nuclear Cycle Development Institute. ``There is also the possibility that the containers do not meet international standards.''(IHT/Asahi: January 11,2005) [Copyright Asahi Shimbun. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 54 Las Vegas SUN: Nevada, feds face off in court over Yucca Mountain funding Today: January 10, 2005 at 12:09:44 PST By ERICA WERNER ASSOCIATED PRESS WASHINGTON (AP) - An attorney for Nevada tried to convince a federal appeals court Monday that the state was shortchanged $4 million last year to fight the proposed Yucca Mountain nuclear waste dump. But a lawyer representing the Energy Department argued that the $1 million Nevada got in 2004 was just what Congress intended, and the state had no right to demand more. "Nevada seems to view the $1 million appropriation as essentially a floor," Justice Department attorney Ronald M. Spritzer told a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. "When Congress makes an appropriation, it is a ceiling." Nevada contends that under the federal Nuclear Waste Policy Act, it should get the additional money from a "nuclear waste fund" paid for by companies that use nuclear power. The state says the law allows Nevada the money for scientific studies and to oversee the Energy Department's application for a license from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to build the dump. "There's nothing about that $1 million appropriation that says, by the way, you shouldn't make grants under the waste fund," said Nevada attorney Robert Cynkar. Judges exhibited some skepticism about Nevada's arguments. "Doesn't that suggest that's what Congress intended Nevada to get?" Judge David Tatel asked Cynkar. "Your theory is that Nevada's entitled to whatever it needs" out of the waste fund, Tatel said. The lawsuit, which Nevada filed last March, is part of the state's ongoing effort to block federal plans to bury 77,000 tons of radioactive waste beneath Yucca Mountain, 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas. Despite opposition by Nevada lawmakers, Congress and President Bush approved the Yucca project in 2002. The Department of Energy planned to submit a license application by December 2004 and open the dump in 2010. But a partly unfavorable ruling from the appeals court in July set back the government's schedule. That ruling said the government's plans for Yucca did not go far enough to protect people from potential radiation beyond 10,000 years in the future. Judge Tatel was also on the three-judge panel that issued that ruling, and he asked for updates on where the government stands in developing a new radiation standard and readying its license application. Spritzer, the government's attorney, said no new date for submitting the application has been set. Cynkar said Nevada officials expect the application in late spring or early summer. The three-judge panel was composed of judges Raymond Randolph, Stephen Williams and Tatel. -- ***************************************************************** 55 Rocky Flats Still Unsafe, Says Ex-FBI Agent Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2005 23:48:44 -0600 (CST) Nuclear Weapons Site Still Unsafe, Says Ex-FBI Agent Thu Jan 6, 7:55 AM ET By David Kelly Times Staff Writer http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=2026&ncid=2026&e=6&u=/latimests/20050106/ts_latimes/nuclearweaponssitestillunsafesaysexfbiagent DENVER The FBI agent who led the raid on the Rocky Flats nuclear weapons plant in 1989 charged the federal government Wednesday with deceiving the public about cleanup efforts at the facility and said plans for a national wildlife refuge there were irresponsible. "Public recreation at Rocky Flats is a foolish idea driven by politics, not by facts," said Jon Lipsky, who took early retirement from the FBI to speak out against the refuge. "It's dangerous and scientists say they can't make it safe." Lipsky and other critics held a news conference Wednesday where they said the U.S. Department of Energy and the Justice Department had minimized the extent of radioactive contamination at the site to save money and not alarm local residents. Lipsky said radioactive ash, contaminated soil and water still posed hazards but were being ignored by the government. The 6,420-acre site is just west of Denver. Federal officials deny the allegation. Wes McKinley, former head of the grand jury that investigated Rocky Flats and now a Democratic state legislator, will introduce a bill requiring future wildlife refuge managers at Rocky Flats to warn visitors about potential dangers. "If you go horseback riding, you get a warning. You can't even drink a beer without a warning label," he said. "I am proposing that information be given to the children and adults about what happened there and what dangers they face going there." Rocky Flats began making plutonium triggers for nuclear weapons in 1952. The FBI raided the facility in 1989 after reports surfaced of widespread radioactive contamination on the property. The FBI found numerous violations of federal antipollution laws including massive contamination of water and soil. The Department of Justice investigated but did not prosecute anyone from Rockwell International, which operated the plant for the government. Rockwell was fined $18.5 million. Since then, a $7-billion cleanup effort has been underway and is scheduled to conclude next year. "These allegations are absurd," said Karen Lutz, Department of Energy spokeswoman. "We have interviewed hundreds of former workers, examined tens of thousands of pages of documents and have done extensive sampling. Every aspect of this cleanup has been under a microscope for the last 15 years. When you look at the involvement of the community and oversight of regulators, it's hard to think how there could be a cover-up." David Abelson, who heads the Rocky Flats Coalition of Local Governments, a group of communities near the site that monitors the cleanup, said much of what Lipsky said might be true but was old news. "I have no qualms about 99.9% of what he said but the leap he made, that the cleanup was dangerous, I can't go along with," he said. "He needs to look at new data. The local governments feel highly confident in the cleanup. There is no bit of information we have asked for that has been turned down." Lipsky said the FBI muzzled him when he tried to discuss Rocky Flats and punished him with a transfer from Denver to Los Angeles after he testified before Congress in 1992 about the nuclear facility. He retired last week. A spokesman for the Justice Department was unavailable for comment. "It would be a grave mistake for anyone to rely on what Justice or the Department of Energy said about the level and extent of contamination at Rocky Flats," he said. "The public needs to ask for a congressional investigation. Maybe we will save a life." 000. __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? All your favorites on one personal page Try My Yahoo! http://my.yahoo.com ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> Help save the life of a child. Support St. Jude Children's Research Hospital's 'Thanks & Giving.' http://us.click.yahoo.com/0iazvD/5WnJAA/xGEGAA/6xSolB/TM --------------------------------------------------------------------~-> ---------- http://www.thebreastcancersite.com Please click today. Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/radiation-survivors/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: radiation-survivors-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ ***************************************************************** 56 DOE: Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board, Northern FR Doc 05-432 [Federal Register: January 10, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 6)] [Notices] [Page 1696-1697] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr10ja05-22] New Mexico AGENCY: Department of Energy. ACTION: Notice of open meeting. SUMMARY: This notice announces a meeting of the Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board (EMSSAB), Northern New Mexico. The Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. No. 92-463, 86 Stat. 770) requires that public notice of this meeting be announced in the Federal Register. DATES: Wednesday, January 19, 2005, 1 p.m.-8:30 p.m. ADDRESSES: Cities of Gold Hotel, 10-A Cities of Gold Road, Pojoaque, NM. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Menice Manzanares, Northern New Mexico Citizens' Advisory Board, 1660 Old Pecos Trail, Suite B, Santa Fe, NM 87505. Phone (505) 995-0393; Fax (505) 989-1752 or e-mail: mmanzanares@doeal.gov [mmanzanares@doeal.gov] . 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 Wednesday, January 19, 2005 1 p.m. Call to Order by Ted Taylor, Deputy Designated Federal Officer (DDFO) Establishment of a Quorum Welcome and Introductions by Chairman, Tim DeLong Approval of Agenda Approval of Minutes of November 17, 2004 Meeting 1:15 p.m. Board Business A. Report from Chairman, Tim DeLong B. Report from Department of Energy, Ted Taylor, DDFO C. Report from Executive Director, Menice S. Manzanares D. New Business 2 p.m. Break 2:15 p.m. Reports A. Executive Committee, Tim DeLong B. Waste Management Committee, Jim Brannon C. Environmental Monitoring, Surveillance and Remediation Committee, Chris Timm D. Community Involvement Committee, Grace Perez E. Comments from Ex-Officio Members 5 p.m. Dinner Break 6 p.m. Public Comment 6:15 p.m. Consideration and Action on Board Recommendations or Resolutions 6:30 p.m. Presentation on Environmental Management Issues 8 p.m. Comments from Board Members and Recap of Meeting 8:30 p.m. Adjourn This agenda is subject to change at least one day in advance of the meeting. Public Participation: The meeting is open to the public. Written statements may be filed with the Board either before or after the meeting. Individuals who wish to make oral statements pertaining to agenda items should contact Menice Manzanares 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 [[Page 1697]] wishing to make public comments will be provided a maximum of five minutes to present their comments. This notice is being published less than 15 days before the date of the meeting due to programmatic issues. Minutes: 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 at the Public Reading Room located at the Board's office at 1660 Old Pecos Trail, Suite B, Santa Fe, NM. Hours of operation for the Public Reading Room are 9 a.m.-4 p.m. on Monday through Friday. Minutes will also be made available by writing or calling Menice Manzanares at the Board's office address or telephone number listed above. Minutes and other Board documents are on the Internet at: http://www.nnmcab.org [http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/leaving.cgi?from=leaving FR.html&log=linklog&to=http://www.nnmcab.org] . Issued at Washington, DC, on January 4, 2005. Carol Anne Matthews, Acting Advisory Committee Management Officer. [FR Doc. 05-432 Filed 1-7-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6405-01-P ***************************************************************** 57 ABQjournal: LANL Management Criteria Changed Albuquerque, New Mexico [webmaster@abqjournal.com] Monday, January 10, 2005 Albuquerque Journal--> By Adam Rankin Journal Staff Writer In response to concerns cited by a federal nuclear safety board, the National Nuclear Security Administration has submitted a corrected version of some parts of the draft criteria that will be used to determine the next manager of Los Alamos National Laboratory. The changes beef up the language in the request for proposals from potential LANL managers to assure government oversight of the contractor and that safety concerns aren't overlooked. Released Dec. 1, NNSA's draft request for proposals lays out what is expected of the next LANL manager. It is the first time such a document has been crafted for LANL, which has been operated by the University of California since 1943 without competition. The university's contract to run LANL expires at the end of September, and the Department of Energy will decide on a new manager by this summer. To the federal Defense Nuclear Facilities Board, the draft criteria gave too much control to the next manager, placed too great an emphasis on efficiency over safety and restricted the government's nuclear safety oversight. "All the language in the (request for proposals) suggesting that the contractor determines in the first instance how nuclear activities are to be carried out should be deleted," the board wrote in its December letter to NNSA chief Linton Brooks. The board's comments challenged NNSA's wording suggesting commercial practices were superior to federal standards and stressed that government overseers should never place themselves in a position subsidiary to contractors. NNSA was given 20 days to respond to the safety shortcomings cited by the board. In a letter dated Jan. 5, Brooks and the NNSA issued their response. Scott Kovac, research director for Nuclear Watch of New Mexico, said NNSA basically made every change the board requested. "I want to assure the Board that the NNSA is committed to safe operation of the Los Alamos National Laboratory and successfully executing (a Department of Energy plan) to resolve issues raised in Board Recommendation 2004-1," Brooks wrote. "I also want to stress that NNSA has no intention of limiting its ability to carry out its oversight responsibilities. Any inferences to the contrary in the initial (request for proposals) are due to imprecise drafting and have been corrected... " Brooks offered to ensure that Tyler Przbylek, chairman of the board of NNSA officials responsible for drafting the request for proposals, meets with the safety board to address its concerns prior to releasing a final version of the criteria. NNSA responded in its report back to the board that the agency "agrees that the government should not be subordinate to its own contractors," and ensured the board that the document clauses "do not limit NNSA's abilities to carry out its responsibilities." The report states that the changes "make it abundantly clear that NNSA is not in a subsidiary position to the contractor and that there are no limitations on NNSA's ability to inspect and assess contractor performance." For example, NNSA's report notes that in one revised clause, NNSA "will continue to preserve and maintain a robust oversight program and will examine, assess and audit any functional area at any level of detail deemed necessary." One of the overarching changes, applied throughout much of the revised draft criteria, is the inclusion that LANL nuclear operations shall meet the principles of DOE's Integrated Safety Management and Integrated Safeguards and Security Management. Those terms, which denote specific safety programs, were mentioned on only a few occasions in the original draft version. NNSA's response and report back to the nuclear safety board is available at www.deprep.org. [http://www.deprep.org] Copyright 2005 Albuquerque ***************************************************************** 58 Tri-City Herald: PNNL evolves to meet changing needs of nation This story was published Sunday, January 9th, 2005 By John Trumbo, Herald staff writer In the beginning there was the bomb, and the war was at an end. And the bomb became fallout and learning to live in an Atomic Age. By the time Battelle took over the Hanford Laboratories in 1965, the Cold War had chilled the world. The Beatles had invaded. Nuclear physicists were excited by the prospect of radioactive energy producing electricity "too cheap to meter," and Bill Bair was testing theories about the effects of radionuclides on genetics at the newly named Pacific Northwest Laboratory in north Richland. Bair, now 80 and retired in Richland, says the bomb changed his life in at least two ways. First, it kept him alive. The bombs that devastated Nagasaki and Hiroshima in 1945 ended the war and plans to invade Japan. That gave the young Army infantryman an opportunity to build a career in the new field of radiological physics. After earning a degree in chemistry on the GI Bill, Bair received what he claims is the world's first doctorate in radiation biology following studies in 1950 at the University of Rochester in New York. Then, he had to choose whether to go on to Yale or federal laboratories at Oak Ridge, Tenn., or Hanford. Bair chose the West and stayed the next 50 years in the Tri-Cities. His assignment was to study inhalation toxicology. "There were fission products coming out of the (nuclear fuel reprocessing plant) stacks and people inside the plants being exposed to aerosol particles from the production of plutonium," he said. "When Battelle came in, everything we did had to be with radiation and exposure for people." For a decade, Bair worked to determine how plutonium dust affected living organisms. It wasn't easy to get the heavy and insoluble plutonium dust to stay in the air long enough to conduct an experiment simulating fallout's effects on rats, pigs and beagles. So Bair and his cohorts put the radioactive dust into capsules, then fired them from an air gun. It was unconventional, but it worked. Much has changed with today's concerns about animal rights and the environment, he said. "The work we did with plutonium in those days, we could not do today," he admits. Even scientists didn't fully appreciate the risks. For example, Bair remembers that in the mid-1960s a scientist in England sent a sample of British-made weapons-grade plutonium to the Richland lab. The teak box he sent contained a lead-lined glass tube with plutonium packed inside. The scientist had simply mailed it, taking no special precautions. "Just imagine that happening today," said Bair incredulously, recalling that he had enough sense to ask someone from the radiation lab to "come and get it." Bair's work earned him an E.O. Lawrence Award in 1970. From 1986-93, he managed all of the lab's research in health and radiological physics, inhalation toxicology, cellular, molecular and radiation biology, chemical toxicology, epidemiology and related fields. During his long career before retiring in 1994, Bair and his team applied radiological expertise to studying radon for the National Institute of Health Sciences; evaluating the hazards of asbestos, beryllium and other heavy metals for the National Cancer Institute; and analyzing tobacco smoke for the Tobacco Institute by putting radioactive tracers on tobacco to see where the smoke went in the body. Battelle's mission today is to develop science-based solutions to problems facing the Department of Energy and the nation. The lab's 3,900 employees also assist other federal agencies, such as the Environmental Protection Agency and the Departments of Defense, Health and Human Services, Transportation and Homeland Security. When moon rocks were brought back to Earth, the Richland lab studied them. When Chernobyl's nuclear reactor melted down, the lab sent scientists to help understand why. When Mount St. Helens blew up, lab researchers flew nearby, collecting samples of ash for analysis. Doug Olesen, lab director from 1977-84, then Battelle's chief from 1984-01 and now retired in Arizona, said the most significant shift in mission came in the 1980s. "When the lab switched from reporting to the energy side of the Department of Energy to the basic sciences side, it was a huge turning point. It opened a whole new panorama of opportunities and allowed the laboratory to grow," he said. Before that, the Richland facilities were a nuclear energy laboratory, reporting to the Atomic Energy Commission. When the Department of Energy was created in 1977, the mission broadened. "We took on health and environment and basic science," Olesen said. The focus on things nuclear moved toward waste management and storage. Olesen said during the Carter administration, the lab found research opportunities for such alternative energies as solar, geothermal, tidal and wind. Through it all, one aspect did not change. "One of the reasons for selecting Battelle was to diversify the economy of the Tri-Cities. Part of the bid to win that was to agree to do diversification," Olesen said. "We agreed to make an investment of our own and sign a dual-use pact, and thereby offer diversification to the community." That pact was in the original contracts Battelle signed in 1965. Battelle's first obligation was to do government work. Initially, that was nuclear-related research. The second obligation allows private research to be done at the government lab. Under it, Battelle encouraged researchers to drum up business, said Bair. "We had to go out and write proposals," he said. Today, the mission for the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory includes licensing technologies to existing or start-up companies, offering research assistance or research capabilities to qualified companies, contract research to private industry and collaborating with schools, colleges and universities. That range of research has spawned dozens of new enterprises in the Tri-Cities, diversifying the economy and creating an estimated 1,500 new jobs through new companies, commercialization, licensing and assistance. The lab has worked on problems involving renewable energy; a so-called Smart Power Grid that allows feedback from user appliances to the generating source; development of a low-cost dosimeter to measure radiation; a remote acoustic inspection device that can detect foreign objects, contraband or hidden explosives inside a container; nanotechnologies that explore solutions at a molecular level for environmental problems; and in proteomics, in which researchers are attempting to understand how a living cell functions by discovering what proteins do. Perhaps the biggest changes came in the late 1980s and early 1990s under lab director William R. Wiley, who foresaw the future of molecular science. The $230 million William R. Wiley Environmental Molecular Sciences Laboratory opened in 1996, offering capabilities previously unknown at the Richland facility. "EMSL is the cornerstone of much of what occurs today at Pacific Northwest National Laboratory," said Allison Campbell, EMSL acting director. In the past eight years, EMSL has put PNNL in the forefront in proteomics, atmospheric science and other research that requires a supercomputer. Its technological tools include a 900-megahertz nuclear magnetic resonance mass spectrometer and a supercomputer rated as one of the 10 best and fastest in the world. One of the lab's greatest strengths is its availability to visiting researchers. In fiscal 2004, more than 2,400 users from outside Battelle worked at EMSL, up 37 percent from the 1,500 in 2003. "Our users come from all over the U.S. and the world. We provide a comprehensive suite of instrumentation," said Campbell, adding that the combination of tools and brain power of the more than 100 resident researchers makes the lab attractive to scientists elsewhere. "It is what has put the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory on the map. It's made us more visible and transformed us from a contract research and development lab into really focusing on long-term national problems," Campbell said. In retrospect, EMSL had to happen. "EMSL was a life-defining event," said Len Peters, PNNL director for the past two years. "It lent a lot of long-term value to this lab." Peters said as a result, the lab's dominant missions now are in fundamental sciences. "We've been able to make mission changes in response to the government's needs based on the fundamental science we do here," he said. "EMSL was really unique. It dramatically changed the emphasis from project engineering in cleanup (of nuclear contamination) to research in chemistry and biology." Genomics and proteomics are the offspring, and with EMSL, Battelle researchers have what Peters calls "a leg up on what we are trying to do with proteomics." © 2005 Tri-City Herald, Associated Press &Other Wire Services ***************************************************************** 59 Tri-City Herald: 2 cracks found at K East Basin This story was published Sunday, January 9th, 2005 By Annette Cary, Herald staff writer Two large cracks have been discovered in the walls of Hanford's K East Basin below the level of its radioactively contaminated water. A preliminary investigation has detected no water leaking through the cracks into the ground. But the Environmental Protection Agency is suspicious that small amounts of contaminated water are seeping from the basin, whether through those cracks or small or undiscovered cracks elsewhere in the old concrete pool, said Larry Gadbois, an EPA environmental scientist. "It's at least oozing water," he said. A more complete engineering study of the newly discovered cracks could be ready by the end of this week. It is expected to show how deeply into the walls the cracks extend. "Any abnormality in the K Basins we are going to take a look at seriously," said Colleen French, spokeswoman for the Department of Energy's Richland office. The K East Basin has had two major leaks in the past, releasing several million gallons of radioactive water into the surrounding ground in the 1970s and 1990s. Each of the basins holds 1.2 million gallons in an indoor pool just 400 yards from the Columbia River. The newly discovered cracks are in a 5-foot by 30-foot section of the pool called the weasel pit. The biggest crack is 10 feet long and the other is 2 to 4 feet long. A video of the cracks shows that at least one of them clearly extends beyond the surface of the basin wall, which is a couple of feet thick. "These basins are old," Gadbois said. "We know they are way past their design life." The K East and West Basins were built in the 1950s for holding fuel irradiated in Hanford reactors until it was processed to remove plutonium used in the nation's nuclear weapons program. When processing at Hanford stopped, 4.65 million pounds of fuel were left stranded in the basins for more than a decade. Last year Hanford workers removed the last of the highly radioactive fuel from the basins. But they are still in the early stages of removing radioactive sludge that's left from corroded fuel and concrete that sloughed off the walls of the basins. The weasel pit had 4 to 6 feet of sludge to be removed. In the past, fuel or equipment that might be cracked or that otherwise appeared abnormal was moved to the weasel pit for inspection. Workers then used long-handled tools poked through a steel grating 20 feet above the bottom of the pool to manipulate the items and turn them over and around for closer inspection. The 17-foot deep water in the K Basins shields workers from radiation. They called the work to maneuver the suspect items "weaseling around" and the pool became known as the weasel pit. Last year, workers found an unexpected pile of debris in the weasel pit that had been hidden by the sludge. They lowered a video camera into the pool to try to discover more about the debris and found another surprise -- the cracks in the pit wall. Signs that indicated past major leaks in K East are not present this time, French said. Data was checked to make sure the water level in K East had remained level other than the amount expected to be lost to evaporation. The check turned up no abnormalities. There also have been none of the air bubbles that indicated past major leaks. Five monitoring wells between the K Basins and the Columbia River have shown no spikes in contamination, French said. However, discovery of the cracks could lead to more frequent checks of the well data. Fluor Hanford, which holds the contract to close the K Basins, is putting together a plan, French said. "Our guess is there are more (cracks)," Gadbois said. As concrete ages, it tends to develop small cracks that water can seep through and pipes in and out of the basins also could have loosened enough to allow some water to ooze out of the pools. Fluor also has structural engineers studying the newly discovered cracks, with a goal of having more information this week. "Based on that, we'll decide if we need to change any of the work we're doing or make modifications to the wall itself like patching it," French said. Early indications are that the cracks are not new and may have occurred when the basins were built. Patching and painting that once covered the cracks may have worn away at the surface of the wall, French said. "This underscores the importance of getting out of the basins, first by finishing the sludge and then by removing the water so we can close the basins forever," she said. Gadbois agreed, saying that removing the fuel had been the largest step but that much work remains to be done at the K Basins to protect the environment. Regulatory deadlines call for getting the sludge out of K East by Jan. 31, 2006, and water out of that basin by March 31, 2007. Both the K East Basin and the neighboring K West Basin are to be completely removed by March 31, 2009. © 2005 Tri-City Herald, Associated Press &Other Wire Services ***************************************************************** 60 ABQjournal: DOE Reducing Number of Required Polygraphs Albuquerque Journal newspaper. January 10, 2005 The Associated Press LOS ALAMOS — The U.S. Department of Energy has proposed reducing the number of employees subject to lie detector tests, but opponents of the tests say the department misconstrued National Academy of Sciences findings on their use. The revised rule would allow random polygraph tests, but will prohibit managers from relying solely on those tests to take action against employees. The Energy Department "proposes to conclude that the utility of polygraphs is strong enough to merit their use in certain situations, for certain classes of individuals and with certain protections that minimize legitimate concerns," according to the DOE's revised polygraph rule published Friday. In April 2003, the DOE proposed fewer polygraph tests after a study said employees could be unjustly accused. The National Academy of Sciences found lie detector tests weren't an effective means to screen for spies and could result in "false positives" — innocent lab workers coming under suspicion for espionage. The DOE began requiring employees take lie detector tests following the Wen Ho Lee controversy at Los Alamos National Laboratory. Lee was accused in 1999 of mishandling nuclear weapons codes; the case ended with a plea bargain that freed him after nine months. Concerns over the tests prompted congressional demands for the NAS review and that the Energy Department incorporate the results into its polygraph program. "Polygraph testing yields an unacceptable choice," the NAS said. "Its accuracy in distinguishing actual or potential security violations from innocent test takers is insufficient to justify reliance on its use in employee security screening in federal agencies." The April 2003 proposal reduced the number of people who would be required to take the tests from 20,000 to about 4,000, then added a pool of 6,000 employees who would be tested randomly. The latest proposal doesn't estimate the number of employees who could be randomly tested but said the total would be much lower. The DOE misconstrued the NAS findings on polygraph tests and "unduly relied on the counsels of bureaucrats with a vested interest in the perpetuation" of such tests, George W. Maschke of AntiPolygraph.org wrote the Los Alamos Monitor in an e-mail after the latest draft rule was published. Stephen Fienberg, who headed the National Research Council committee that reviewed polygraph use, told a Senate committee hearing in September 2003 that the scientific foundations of the screening for national security "were weak at best, and are insufficient to justify reliance on its use in employee security screening in federal agencies." While acknowledging the DOE should use all effective tools available to conduct thorough background checks, Sen. Jeff Bingaman, D-N.M., expressed concerns "that DOE would pursue a polygraph policy at odds with the National Academy of Sciences findings." "While polygraph tests might be effective as an investigative tool, there is no evidence it is a useful screening tool so I'm not clear on why the DOE wants to use it for that purpose," he said. Copyright Albuquerque Journal ***************************************************************** 61 lamonitor.com: Have concerns over draft RFP for lab's contract The Online News Source for Los Alamos [http://www.lanl.gov/worldview] [http://www.lac-nm.us] by J. Buchholz, Special to the Monitor Unfortunately, during the Christmas-New Years week, information was made known by The Retired Public Employees Association Chapter 97: Los Alamos/Northern New Mexico and by several informational letters in local newspapers that is disquieting in the extreme to large numbers of retirees from the University of California - Los Alamos National Laboratory. With a Jan. 7 DOE deadline (now Jan. 21) for comments, the timing of course for this situation couldn't be more difficult and inconvenient, for those of us who feel it is imperative that we voice our heartfelt comments and concerns about the draft RFP and the fact that it recognizes the importance of benefits such as health care for retention of employees, but is silent on health care for retirees. Under the University of California Contract, health care is provided to both current and retired UC/LANL employees. How could such a basic need and responsibility be overlooked in the draft RFP? If there ever was something that exemplifies the gentleman's agreement between academic/research employees and their employers, continuing health care in retirement is an absolute bottom line - bottom line believed in by those of us who have spent our entire lives proudly participating in academic/research careers as a part of the stellar University of California staff, I first as a UCLA undergraduate, then UC Berkeley graduate student, then at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, then at Los Alamos National Laboratory. We always were proud and confident in the integrity of the University of California and the U.S. government to insure our interests, perhaps unwisely abjuring unions or other employee bargaining units, who insist on combing the fine print to be sure the implied contract has been documented. In my own case, and in the case of many others I'm sure, because of being a lifetime employee of the University of California at various venues, I like apparently millions of other state and local government employees across the country have worked without Social Security, under what was deemed a separate but equal, or potentially superior retirement/health care program. When in the mid-1970s, I believe, a notice came out at LANL that if you chose, you could make a once in a lifetime decision to opt to begin under Social Security, instead, a large number of us chose for various reasons to stay under the University of California's own benefits/retirement program. As far as I'm concerned, that is still the gentlemen's agreement the University of California and I made many, many, many years ago. I as an employee and as a retiree of the University of California would be eligible for all the benefits and health care every other UC employee and retiree would receive. Please consider that when state and local and other agencies were given dispensation to opt out of Social Security, it was not to give them carte blanche to through subtle fine print means disenfranchise the old, the loyal, the trusting. It is patently obvious that agencies who do not have to pay into Social Security for their workers save untold millions of dollars, compounding, compounding (hopefully). Those funds are to assure that their staff are guaranteed coverage, equivalent to or better than those under Social Security. The University of California, like other such entities, by not fully participating in Social Security for all staff have accepted the obligation to provide both monetary and health care coverage for life to those University of California employees and spouses who retired never having had Social Security, yet many working 30 years and more. Many of us have inquired, but such information has not been forthcoming; we ask here again: As of 1-2-05 how many University of California LANL retirees do not have Social Security/Medicare? How many University of California LANL employees do not have Social Security/Medicare? What exactly would the best-suggested course be for a non-Social Security LANL retiree if next fall he were suddenly left without health insurance and no Medicare? What might a 69-year-old without health care and without Medicare have to pay per month for family health coverage equivalent to the University of California's? How available might such coverage be? These are questions that must be answered. They are especially imperative that your committee address them immediately. Perhaps a "do unto others" mindset is most apropos at this juncture. Now we come to an additional and not inconsequential concern voiced in venues from letters-to-the editor to social occasions. This concern is that UCRP Annuitants could potentially be transferred to the new contractor. I for one am opposed to this concept for too many reasons to enumerate here. All I know is that I committed myself to the work that I did for the University of California my entire life because I respected their reputation, their integrity, and their goals. The thought that there could even be a very small possibility that my pride in UC, my UC retirement annuity, my 403B, and assumed benefits could be bundled up and traded to a consortium or corporations saddens and frightens me beyond description. As with other professions that do radical surgery, do contemplate two maxims as you consider your final RFP 1.) Do no harm. 2.) If it ain't broke don't fix it. J. Buchholz is retired employee of the University of California and LANL. © 2003 Los Alamos Monitor All Rights Reserved. ***************************************************************** 62 lamonitor.com: Was LANL shutdown necessary and worth it all? The Online News Source for Los Alamos [http://www.lanl.gov/worldview] [http://www.lac-nm.us] by Brad Lee Holian, Special to the Monitor Director Pete Nanos took the unilateral action of completely shutting down Los Alamos National Laboratory, following a security incident and then a safety incident last July. Was a complete shutdown necessary? Was it worth it? The recent security difficulties at LANL began with the Wen Ho Lee incident about six years ago, was quickly followed by the missing hard drives in 2000, and in July 2004, the missing CREM (classified removable electronic media). At the end of the Wen Ho Lee matter, we found that no Red Chinese spy had burrowed into the lab, and if there was a security leak about a Los Alamos-designed nuclear weapon, it wasn't from anyone at Los Alamos. The hard drives were found behind a copying machine, and no national secrets were deemed lost. The "missing" CREM from last summer was soon found to be a procedural inventory error, once again with no secrets lost. These were not trivial matters, by any means, but they also did not live up to the level of political hype that roared like wildfire through the national media. Likewise, the "millions of dollars of fraudulent purchases" that were supposed to have occurred at LANL a couple of years ago turned out to be about $200,000, out of an annual budget of over $2 billion - that is, less than one one-hundredth of a percent. Again, this fraud, perpetrated by two lab employees (one a manager), was surely no small matter; both men were indicted, and both pled guilty. But to put this into perspective, this is far from the routine level of waste and abuse at the Department of Defense; this is nothing remotely comparable to the Enron scandal. In talking with colleagues at other Department of Energy laboratories, it became clear that when it comes to security or accountability, Los Alamos appears to be neither significantly worse nor significantly better than any other place in the DOE complex. In terms of security, the shutdown was not necessary. So, how about the question of safety? In a letter to all hands a month or two before the shutdown, the former admiral praised the staff for great strides in improving safety and security practices made - of course - under his leadership. But when the two incidents occurred, he turned right around and vilified the staff, angrily using pejorative terms like "arrogant," "buttheads" and "cowboys." In order to see whether or not his criticism was valid, a couple of my colleagues and I, with little else to do in the early days of the shutdown, decided to look up data in the public domain on rates of accidents for Los Alamos, other DOE labs and comparable industries. Do the data show that Los Alamos is "hundreds of times worse than any other place in the DOE complex," as one high DOE official claims? The answer is: not at all. While seven years ago the lab's safety record was worse than the chemical industry nationwide, a successful safety-awareness program was implemented, and the accident rate dropped significantly. In fact, Los Alamos began to lead the DOE complex in safety about four years ago, and the rate since then has been comparable to the industry leader, DuPont Chemical. It has been about half the rate of the chemical industry nationwide and four times better than the manufacturing industry. In terms of safety, the shutdown was not necessary, but did it really hurt anything? Almost everyone agrees that Los Alamos' highest value contribution to the country is world-class scientific research. Shutting all operations down for three months -most experimental facilities have by now been closed for almost six months - has meant that fully one-quarter of the lab's annual budget has been diverted from the science that taxpayers had come to expect from Los Alamos. The question must then be turned around: was the training of some 800 managers (7 percent of the work force) in the vulnerabilities of the work they are supposed to supervise and the reams of self-assessment paperwork they churned out worth the lost science? Lab management argues that in shutting down the lab, Nanos showed that he really cares about the individuals who are injured (or are nearly killed) and their families, rather than only "the statistics." The implication is that we scientists care only about statistics, but I would argue that we care far more about the human costs - arguably more than management - since we are the troops in the trenches. The shutdown itself has had human costs, too: there has been a serious erosion in trust, a deep loss of morale and an upheaval in careers that have taken years to build. Now, there is the threat that good graduate students may not want to risk their future at a place as politically unstable as Los Alamos. All we were saying in reporting the safety statistics is that there was no objective, publicly available evidence to justify the catastrophic measure of shutting down the whole laboratory. Lately, management apologists have begun turning the statistics game on its head, claiming that Los Alamos is much more dangerous than the previous publicly available data suggest. Moreover, they say the data we reported on earlier are somehow "flawed." So, which is it? Were the statistics about LANL's safety that appeared in the public domain simply window-dressing? Are there secret data available only to management, showing, say, that the plutonium pit-manufacturing facility is horribly unsafe by nuclear-industry standards? LANL management really can't have it both ways, now, can they? Physicist Brad Lee Holian has worked in the Theoretical Division at Los Alamos National Laboratory for 32 years. © 2003 Los Alamos Monitor All Rights Reserved. ***************************************************************** 63 Albuquerque Journal: LANL Management Criteria Changed Monday, January 10, 2005 By Adam Rankin Journal Staff Writer In response to concerns cited by a federal nuclear safety board, the National Nuclear Security Administration has submitted a corrected version of some parts of the draft criteria that will be used to determine the next manager of Los Alamos National Laboratory. The changes beef up the language in the request for proposals from potential LANL managers to assure government oversight of the contractor and that safety concerns aren't overlooked. Released Dec. 1, NNSA's draft request for proposals lays out what is expected of the next LANL manager. It is the first time such a document has been crafted for LANL, which has been operated by the University of California since 1943 without competition. The university's contract to run LANL expires at the end of September, and the Department of Energy will decide on a new manager by this summer. To the federal Defense Nuclear Facilities Board, the draft criteria gave too much control to the next manager, placed too great an emphasis on efficiency over safety and restricted the government's nuclear safety oversight. "All the language in the (request for proposals) suggesting that the contractor determines in the first instance how nuclear activities are to be carried out should be deleted," the board wrote in its December letter to NNSA chief Linton Brooks. The board's comments challenged NNSA's wording suggesting commercial practices were superior to federal standards and stressed that government overseers should never place themselves in a position subsidiary to contractors. NNSA was given 20 days to respond to the safety shortcomings cited by the board. In a letter dated Jan. 5, Brooks and the NNSA issued their response. Scott Kovac, research director for Nuclear Watch of New Mexico, said NNSA basically made every change the board requested. "I want to assure the Board that the NNSA is committed to safe operation of the Los Alamos National Laboratory and successfully executing (a Department of Energy plan) to resolve issues raised in Board Recommendation 2004-1," Brooks wrote. "I also want to stress that NNSA has no intention of limiting its ability to carry out its oversight responsibilities. Any inferences to the contrary in the initial (request for proposals) are due to imprecise drafting and have been corrected... " Brooks offered to ensure that Tyler Przbylek, chairman of the board of NNSA officials responsible for drafting the request for proposals, meets with the safety board to address its concerns prior to releasing a final version of the criteria. NNSA responded in its report back to the board that the agency "agrees that the government should not be subordinate to its own contractors," and ensured the board that the document clauses "do not limit NNSA's abilities to carry out its responsibilities." The report states that the changes "make it abundantly clear that NNSA is not in a subsidiary position to the contractor and that there are no limitations on NNSA's ability to inspect and assess contractor performance." For example, NNSA's report notes that in one revised clause, NNSA "will continue to preserve and maintain a robust oversight program and will examine, assess and audit any functional area at any level of detail deemed necessary." One of the overarching changes, applied throughout much of the revised draft criteria, is the inclusion that LANL nuclear operations shall meet the principles of DOE's Integrated Safety Management and Integrated Safeguards and Security Management. Those terms, which denote specific safety programs, were mentioned on only a few occasions in the original draft version. NNSA's response and report back to the nuclear safety board is available at www.deprep.org. Copyright 2005 Albuquerque Journal ***************************************************************** 64 Albuquerque Journal: DOE Reducing Number of Required Polygraphs January 10, 2005 The Associated Press LOS ALAMOS — The U.S. Department of Energy has proposed reducing the number of employees subject to lie detector tests, but opponents of the tests say the department misconstrued National Academy of Sciences findings on their use. The revised rule would allow random polygraph tests, but will prohibit managers from relying solely on those tests to take action against employees. The Energy Department "proposes to conclude that the utility of polygraphs is strong enough to merit their use in certain situations, for certain classes of individuals and with certain protections that minimize legitimate concerns," according to the DOE's revised polygraph rule published Friday. In April 2003, the DOE proposed fewer polygraph tests after a study said employees could be unjustly accused. The National Academy of Sciences found lie detector tests weren't an effective means to screen for spies and could result in "false positives" — innocent lab workers coming under suspicion for espionage. The DOE began requiring employees take lie detector tests following the Wen Ho Lee controversy at Los Alamos National Laboratory. Lee was accused in 1999 of mishandling nuclear weapons codes; the case ended with a plea bargain that freed him after nine months. Concerns over the tests prompted congressional demands for the NAS review and that the Energy Department incorporate the results into its polygraph program. "Polygraph testing yields an unacceptable choice," the NAS said. "Its accuracy in distinguishing actual or potential security violations from innocent test takers is insufficient to justify reliance on its use in employee security screening in federal agencies." The April 2003 proposal reduced the number of people who would be required to take the tests from 20,000 to about 4,000, then added a pool of 6,000 employees who would be tested randomly. The latest proposal doesn't estimate the number of employees who could be randomly tested but said the total would be much lower. The DOE misconstrued the NAS findings on polygraph tests and "unduly relied on the counsels of bureaucrats with a vested interest in the perpetuation" of such tests, George W. Maschke of AntiPolygraph.org wrote the Los Alamos Monitor in an e-mail after the latest draft rule was published. Stephen Fienberg, who headed the National Research Council committee that reviewed polygraph use, told a Senate committee hearing in September 2003 that the scientific foundations of the screening for national security "were weak at best, and are insufficient to justify reliance on its use in employee security screening in federal agencies." While acknowledging the DOE should use all effective tools available to conduct thorough background checks, Sen. Jeff Bingaman, D-N.M., expressed concerns "that DOE would pursue a polygraph policy at odds with the National Academy of Sciences findings." "While polygraph tests might be effective as an investigative tool, there is no evidence it is a useful screening tool so I'm not clear on why the DOE wants to use it for that purpose," he said. ***************************************************************** 65 [du-list] Nuclear Week in Review (Vol. 91) Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2005 15:02:21 -0800 Nuclear Policy Research Institute Nuclear Week in Review, Volume 91 About NPRI | News | Discussion Board | Audio/Video Archives | Join NPRI If this email was forwarded to you, you can directly subscribe to the Nuclear Week in Review at: http://www.nuclearpolicy.org/Issues.cfm?NewsTopicID=34 Nuclear Week in Review (Vol. 91) by Dr. John G. Duesler, Jr. http://www.nuclearpolicy.org/NewsAll.cfm?Menu=News With the new year comes our sometimes profound, and sometimes absurd, attempt at predicting what the future will hold. So I offer this 2005 Year in Preview in preparation of what issues will most significantly effect our work at the Nuclear Policy Research Institute. 1. Nuclear Energy will re-emerge as the "hot button" nuclear issue in 2005. With Republicans gaining a majority in both the House and Senate, and with the funding for Advanced Nuclear Concepts halted in the '04 Omnibus Appropriations Bill, we should anticipate nuclear energy to re-emerge as a hotly debated issue in the 109th Congress. When the "Energy Bill" again resurfaces in Congress, we will hear some very impassioned rhetoric about how nuclear energy is "environmentally friendly," how nuclear energy will reduce our dependence upon foreign oil, and how new nuclear plant designs are much safer than the designs that operate in the 103 US plants now. While the speeches will be convincing, the facts and logic behind them will fall short, especially as its manifested in issues like Yucca Mountain (not necessarily a safe repository), uranium enrichment (contributes massive amounts of greenhouse gases), and public funding of new nuclear plant construction (contrary to free market models espoused by the White House). Unfortunately, facts and logic rarely get in the way of political will, so we must remain vigilant when the nuclear energy debate is once again on the floor of Congress. 2. Russia will increasingly flex its nuclear muscle. With a stranglehold on the Duma, and little else to substantiate their role on the world geo-political stage, President Vladimir Putin will make Russia's nuclear arsenal an increasingly important tool in his attempt to maintain his nation's credibility in global matters. The recent test launch of an ICBM warhead, its ongoing support of Iran's nuclear program, and the enormous amount of fissile materials that have yet to be secured are all a prelude to issues Putin will exploit in 2005. His objectives are clear; foster nationalistic pride from within Russian borders, while simultaneously intimating to the world that Russian influence can be profound when it comes to global security. What is most dangerous is that Putin will receive little pressure beyond the obligatory U.S. rhetoric to cool his nuclear jets. Therefore, his ploys will be perceived as credible and effective. 3. More-and-more, smaller countries will rely on the "new nuclear currency." Unlike Russia's nuclear posturing to re-establish its presence in the world forum, smaller and less economically developed nations, like Iran, North and SOUTH Korea, and Pakistan will exploit possession of nuclear weapons, not primarily in military terms, but as a form of currency that has a value extending beyond national security. The possession of nuclear weapons will afford these underdeveloped nations a great source of diplomatic strength (like we have seen with North Korea), a powerful public relations tool that will feed citizens' nationalistic pride (like in Iran), and an actual source of revenue that could add billions to a nation's coiffures (like with Pakistan). While it's certainly true that most of these smaller nations who develop nuclear weapons are driven to stalemate possible U.S. interventions in their affairs, there are also clear benefits that emanate from maintaining a nuclear program that extend beyond any security or military rationale. So it will be a year filled with surprises and big stories in the nuclear world. We hope that you will continue to support our efforts at the Nuclear Policy Research Institute to reduce, and eventually eliminate, the threat nuclear energy and nuclear weapons present to our world. To view more nuclear news, click over to: http://www.nuclearpolicy.org/NewsAll.cfm?Menu=News. NUCLEAR CALENDAR (from Friends Committee on National Legislation) (to subscribe to any FCNL e-publication, click over to http://www.fcnl.org/listserv/quaker_issues.php) Jan. 5-23 House and Senate recess Jan. 8-11 Rep. Tom Lantos (CA) visits Pyongyang, North Korea. Week of Jan. 10 President Bush names a new Homeland Security Secretary and NASA director (possible). (Former Missile Defense Agency director Lt. Gen. Ronald Kadish is a leading candidate for NASA.) Jan. 11 Noon-2 p.m., Lucy Stojak, Canadian Space Agency, "Space and Security: Canadian Views and Challenges." George Washington University, 1957 E St., N.W., Suite 602, Washington. RSVP to security@gwu.edu or (202) 994-7003. Jan. 11 1:30 p.m., Peter Huessey, National Defense University Foundation, and Michael Krepon, Stimson Center, "Space and Defense: A Look at the Pros and Cons." 1539 Longworth House Office Building, Washington. Sponsored by "Security for a New Century." For information, contact Lorelei Kelly at Lorelei.Kelly@mail.house.gov or (202) 225-5161. Jan. 11-14 Rep. Curt Weldon (PA) leads a congressional delegation to Pyongyang, North Korea. Jan. 12 Noon, Ted Galen Carpenter and Doug Bandow, Cato Institute, The Korean Conundrum: America's Troubled Relations with North and South Korea, book launch. Cato Institute, 1000 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., Washington. RSVP by noon, Jan. 11 online or to events@cato.org. Webcast on the Cato web site. Jan. 13 Britain, France, and Germany continue talks with Iran on limiting its nuclear program. Brussels, Belgium Jan. 17 Martin Luther King Jr. Day (federal holiday) Jan. 18 9 a.m., Senate Foreign Relations Committee, hearing on the nomination of Condoleeza Rice to be Secretary of State. 216 Hart Senate Office Building, Washington. Broadcast and webcast on C-SPAN or C-SPAN2, and webcast on CapitolHearings.org. Jan. 19 9 a.m., Senate Foreign Relations Committee, continued hearing on the nomination of Condoleeza Rice to be Secretary of State, followed by a confirmation vote. 216 Hart Senate Office Building, Washington. Broadcast and webcast on C-SPAN or C-SPAN2, and webcast on CapitolHearings.org. Jan. 19 2:30 p.m., Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, hearing on the nomination of Samuel Bodman to be Energy Secretary. 366 Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington. Possibly broadcast and webcast on one of the C-SPAN channels. Webcast on CapitolHearings.org. Jan. 19 Tadatoshi Akiba, Mayor of Hiroshima, addresses the Foreign Affairs Committee of the European Parliament on the Mayors for Peace Campaign and the NPT Review Conference. Brussels, Belgium Jan. 20 Inauguration Day (federal holiday in Washington) Jan. 24-April 1 Conference on Disarmament, first session. Geneva Jan. 26 9:30 a.m., Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, confirmation vote on Samuel Bodman to be Energy Secretary. 366 Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington. Webcast on CapitolHearings.org. Jan. 31 President reports to Congress on a plan to coordinate and integrate nonproliferation activities (Public Law 107-314, Sec. 1205). (Annual report. The report for 2004 was due Jan. 31, 2004 and is overdue.) Jan. 31 National Nuclear Security Administration reports to Congress on the requirements for the Modern Pit Facility (Public Law 108-375, Sec. 3111). Jan. 31-Feb. 2 Weapons of Mass Destruction Commission meeting. Cairo, Egypt Jan. 31-Feb. 4 International Atomic Energy Agency, Forum on Experience of Possible Relevance to the Creation of a Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zone (NWFZ) in the Middle East. Vienna, Austria Feb. 2 2:30-4 p.m., Pavel Podvig, "Russian Perspectives on the Bush Administration's Military Space Policies and Programs." Stimson Center, 11 Dupont Circle, N.W., Ninth Floor, Washington. RSVP to Michael Katz-Hyman at mkatzhyman@stimson.org or (202) 223-5956, ext. 3472. Feb. 2 9 p.m. EST, President Bush delivers the State of the Union address to Congress. Feb. 3 9:30 a.m.-2 p.m., Arms Control Association, panel discussion on strengthening the nonproliferation system and luncheon address by Rep. David Hobson (R). At the Carnegie Endowment, 1779 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., Washington. RSVP by Jan. 17 to ACA at (202) 463-8270, ext. 105. Feb. 4 or 7 President submits the federal budget and a supplemental appropriations request for Iraq and Afghanistan to Congress. (There are conflicting reports on when the budget will be released. The traditional date is Mon., Feb. 7. There are also conflicting reports on when the supplemental request will be submitted; it may be delayed until March.) IMPORTANT NOTES... Three Minutes to Midnight: The Impending Threat of Nuclear War DVDs and audio CDs of Three Minutes to Midnight: The Impending Threat of Nuclear War are now available for sale. Additionally, audio from the symposium is available for free download. All proceeds go to support NPRI's mission of creating a consensus for a nuclear-free future. This excellent conference included key speakers on these topics, including Dr. Helen Caldicott, General Charles Horner, William Arkin, Dr. Bruce Blair, and many others. Dramatic exchanges between the speakers and former Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara brought out key issues. Visit http://www.3minutestomidnight.org to order today. Join the Partnership for a Nuclear Free Future You can join NPRI in working to create a consensus for a nuclear-free future by partnering with us. Your support allows NPRI to continue its quality programs designed to educate the public about the public health implications of nuclear power, weapons and waste. Help support our key successes by joining with us to continue our programs. Click here to join the Partnership for a Nuclear-Free Future NPRI 2005 Speaking Tour NPRI is organizing speaking tours for key speakers, including NPRI Executive Director Julie R. Enszer and President Helen Caldicott, MD. If you are interested in helping to sponsor or organize a speaking event in your community, please contact our office at 202-822-9800 or email jessica@nuclearpolicy.org (for Julie R. Enszer) or reginade@nuclearpolicy.org (for Dr. Caldicott). Your feedback is encouraged. Thank you, Dr. John G. Duesler, Jr. Senior Fellow, NPRI http://www.nuclearpolicy.org/ jgduesler@nuclearpolicy.org 215.914.0677 Please visit NPRI's website at: http://www.nuclearpolicy.org 1925 K Street NW Suite 210 Washington, District of Columbia 20006 United States ---------- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 265.6.9 - Release Date: 1/6/05 [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> Has someone you know been affected by illness or disease? Network for Good is THE place to support health awareness efforts! http://us.click.yahoo.com/RzSHvD/UOnJAA/79vVAA/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/ ***************************************************************** 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: *****************************************************************