*****************************************************************
01/14/05 **** RADIATION BULLETIN(RADBULL) **** VOL 13.10
*****************************************************************
RADBULL IS PRODUCED BY THE ABALONE ALLIANCE CLEARINGHOUSE
*****************************************************************
Send News Stories to news@energy-net.org with title on subject
line and first line of body
NUCLEAR POLICY
1 US: [southnews] The Iraqi WMD Fraud
2 Deutsche Welle: Nukes Overshadow EU-Iran Trade Talks
3 BBC: UN nuclear monitors at Iran site
4 IPS-English NORTH-SOUTH KOREA: U.S. congress team in Seoul
5 Guardian Unlimited: N. Korea Ready to Return to Nuclear Talks
6 BBC: N Korea ready for nuclear talks
7 US: [EMMAS] No WMDs, but Everyone Gets a Pass!
8 US: Anchorage Daily News: Military drops idea to arm interceptors wi
9 US: Daily Press: USS Ike to keep idling
10 National Review: Henry Sokolski on Nuclear Proliferation on
11 EUbusiness: Estonian wind farm takes off at former Soviet nuke base
NUCLEAR REACTORS
12 US: A4NR January 2005 / Committee to Bridge the Gap / Bad Day at
13 US: NRC: NRC Enforcement Policy; Extension of Enforcement Discretion
14 US: NRC: Sunshine Act Meeting Notice
15 US: Forbes.com: The Silence of the Nuke Protesters
16 US: JS Online: State will reconsider Kewaunee plant sale
17 US: Las Vegas SUN: Abraham pushes more nuclear power plants
18 Guardian Unlimited: British Energy to rejoin London market
19 St. Petersburg Times: Meanwhile, back in Chernobyl -
20 US: AccessNorthGa: Southern Co. requests federal funding to study po
21 Xinhua: China's nuclear power construction enters crucial stage - pr
22 TheStar.com: Make or break year for nuclear power
23 ThisisLondon: British Energy poised for comeback
24 US: NRC: NRC Seeks Public Input on Brunswick Nuclear Plant Environme
25 US: NRC: NRC Staff to Meet with Pacific Gas &Electric Co. To Discuss
26 US: NRC: Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Schedules Hearings on Pro
NUCLEAR SAFETY
27 [du-list] Paying the Price - Public Meeting on Iraq
28 US: NRC: Petition denial for ICN Worldwide Dosimetry
29 US: TheDay.com: Cancer Is A Reality, Not A Mere Scare Tactic
NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE
30 US: Bradenton Herald: Steroids cloud Tallevast tests
31 US: The Spectrum: Make voices heard about nuclear waste - Opinion
32 US: BusinessWeek: Perchlorate: Out of the Hot Water?
NUCLEAR WEAPONS
US DEPT. OF ENERGY
33 DOE: Health Effects Subcommittee (SRSHES)
34 Bryan-College Station Eagle: A&M won't make bid for Los Alamos
35 ABQjournal: UT Chancellor to Recommend University Not Pursue LANL Co
36 Tri-City Herald: DOE urged to reopen FFTF negotiations
37 SF Chronicle: University of Texas drops its lab quest
38 ENN: $303 million remediation contract awarded for DOE's Paducah
39 DallasNews.com: UT won't vie to run Los Alamos nuke plant
OTHER NUCLEAR
*****************************************************************
*****************************************************************
FULL NEWS STORIES
*****************************************************************
*****************************************************************
1 [southnews] The Iraqi WMD Fraud
Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2005 20:14:08 -0600 (CST)
Several hundred billion dollars down the tubes in Iraq in a war that was
started on the trumped up claim that Saddam Hussein had been building
and stockpiling "weapons of mass destruction," and several hundred
millions of secret dollars spent belatedly trying to find a hint of such
weapons, all for naught.
The WMD Fraud
DAVE LINDORFF, CounterPunch
January 13, 2004
The great thing about being George W. Bush is never having to say you're
sorry.
Several hundred billion dollars down the tubes in Iraq in a war that was
started on the trumped up claim that Saddam Hussein had been building
and stockpiling "weapons of mass destruction," and several hundred
millions of secret dollars spent belatedly trying to find a hint of such
weapons, all for naught.
Not only are there no such weapons, the few efforts that did exist to
try to make something nasty having been dismantled by 1991, but the
Iraqi scientists arrested by invading American troops, and held
incommunicado for as long as two years now have been found to have been
innocent of any wrongdoing.
In fact, some of the leaders of the so-called Iraq Survey Group charged
with finding WMDs in Iraq have been calling on the Pentagon to release
those scientists, who include Gen. Amir Saadi, who had been a liaison
between the Hussein government and U.N. arms inspectors, Rihab Taha, the
biologist American reporters breathlessly referred to as "Dr. Germ" for
his alleged work years ago with germ weapon research, and Huda Amash,
who was similarly, if somewhat sexistly, awarded the moniker "Mrs.
Anthrax." ISG officials say they have cleared all three of involvement
in any illegal WMD work for Hussein over the past decade or more, and
add that they have been cooperating with investigators.
They shouldn't hold their breaths waiting for release, however. The
Pentagon appears bent on keeping them in captivity indefinitely, as it
is doing with most of the detainees at Guantanamo and other secret
holding pens.
We shouldn't hold our breaths either for an honest accounting of what
the ISG did and what it learned about the imaginary WMDs that were the
causus belli of this ugly, bloody conflict in Iraq. The Bush
administration and the Pentagon, clearly massively embarrassed by the
failure to turn up even a shred of evidence of WMDs after two years of
searching, are sealing the ISG's records, and are not giving any account
of the hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars wasted in what was
clearly a frantic political effort to find expost facto justification
for an illegal war.
We're supposedly "building democracy" in Iraq, but meanwhile we're
deconstructing it here at home, where the areas that the public has a
right to know about are being shrunk by the day.
In the name of those non-existing WMDs, American soldiers continue to
die at a rate of two or three a day, while Iraqi civilians, their cities
flattened, their water rancid, and their hospitals swamped, are dying at
about ten times that rate.
A policy mistake or fraud of this magnitude cries out for accountability.
Dave Lindorff is the author of Killing Time: an Investigation into the
Death Row Case of Mumia Abu-Jamal. His new book of CounterPunch columns
titled "This Can't be Happening!" is published by Common Courage Press.
Information about both books and other work by Lindorff can be found at
www.thiscantbehappening.net.
He can be reached at: dlindorff@yahoo.com
:: The original address of this article is :
www.counterpunch.org/lindorff01132005.html
_________________________________________
Ten Appalling Lies We Were Told About Iraq
www.albasrah.net
January 14, 2004
It was a systematic campaign to frighten the hell out of us about the
threat of Saddam Hussein, and almost none of it was true.
"The Iraqi dictator must not be permitted to threaten America and the
world with horrible poisons and diseases and gases and atomic weapons."
-- George Bush, Oct. 7, 2002, in a speech in Cincinnati.
LIE #1: "The evidence indicates that Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear
weapons program ... Iraq has attempted to purchase high-strength
aluminum tubes and other equipment needed for gas centrifuges, which are
used to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons." -- President Bush, Oct. 7,
2002, in Cincinnati.
LIE #2: "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently
sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." -- President
Bush, Jan.28, 2003, in the State of the Union address.
LIE #3:: "We believe [Saddam] has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear
weapons." -- Vice President Cheney on March 16, 2003 on "Meet the Press."
LIE #4: "[The CIA possesses] solid reporting of senior-level contacts
between Iraq and al-Qaeda going back a decade." -- CIA Director George
Tenet in a written statement released Oct. 7, 2002 and echoed in that
evening's speech by President Bush.
LIE #5: "We've learned that Iraq has trained al-Qaeda members in
bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases ... Alliance with terrorists
could allow the Iraqi regime to attack America without leaving any
fingerprints." -- President Bush, Oct. 7.
LIE #6: "We have also discovered through intelligence that Iraq has a
growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used
to disperse chemical or biological weapons across broad areas. We are
concerned that Iraq is exploring ways of using these UAVs [unmanned
aerial vehicles] for missions targeting the United States." -- President
Bush, Oct. 7.
LIE #7: "We have seen intelligence over many months that they have
chemical and biological weapons, and that they have dispersed them and
that they're weaponized and that, in one case at least, the command and
control arrangements have been established." -- President Bush, Feb. 8,
2003, in a national radio address.
LIE #8: "Our conservative estimate is that Iraq today has a stockpile of
between 100 and 500 tons of chemical weapons agent. That is enough to
fill 16,000 battlefield rockets." -- Secretary of State Colin Powell,
Feb. 5 2003, in remarks to the UN Security Council.
LIE #9: "We know where [Iraq's WMD] are. They're in the area around
Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south, and north somewhat." --
Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, March 30, 2003, in statements to
the press.
LIE #10: "Yes, we found a biological laboratory in Iraq which the UN
prohibited." -- President Bush in remarks in Poland, published
internationally June 1, 2003.
_____FLASHBACK: DID SADDAM "GAS HIS OWN PEOPLE"?_______________
A War Crime or an Act of War?
The New York Times
January 31, 2003
By STEPHEN C. PELLETIERE
ECHANICSBURG, Pa. - It was no surprise that President Bush, lacking
smoking-gun evidence of Iraq's weapons programs, used his State of the
Union address to re-emphasize the moral case for an invasion: "The
dictator who is assembling the world's most dangerous weapons has
already used them on whole villages, leaving thousands of his own
citizens dead, blind or disfigured."
The accusation that Iraq has used chemical weapons against its citizens
is a familiar part of the debate. The piece of hard evidence most
frequently brought up concerns the gassing of Iraqi Kurds at the town of
Halabja in March 1988, near the end of the eight-year Iran-Iraq war.
President Bush himself has cited Iraq's "gassing its own people,"
specifically at Halabja, as a reason to topple Saddam Hussein.
But the truth is, all we know for certain is that Kurds were bombarded
with poison gas that day at Halabja. We cannot say with any certainty
that Iraqi chemical weapons killed the Kurds. This is not the only
distortion in the Halabja story.
I am in a position to know because, as the Central Intelligence Agency's
senior political analyst on Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war, and as a
professor at the Army War College from 1988 to 2000, I was privy to much
of the classified material that flowed through Washington having to do
with the Persian Gulf. In addition, I headed a 1991 Army investigation
into how the Iraqis would fight a war against the United States; the
classified version of the report went into great detail on the Halabja
affair.
This much about the gassing at Halabja we undoubtedly know: it came
about in the course of a battle between Iraqis and Iranians. Iraq used
chemical weapons to try to kill Iranians who had seized the town, which
is in northern Iraq not far from the Iranian border. The Kurdish
civilians who died had the misfortune to be caught up in that exchange.
But they were not Iraq's main target.
And the story gets murkier: immediately after the battle the United
States Defense Intelligence Agency investigated and produced a
classified report, which it circulated within the intelligence community
on a need-to-know basis. That study asserted that it was Iranian gas
that killed the Kurds, not Iraqi gas.
The agency did find that each side used gas against the other in the
battle around Halabja. The condition of the dead Kurds' bodies, however,
indicated they had been killed with a blood agent - that is, a
cyanide-based gas - which Iran was known to use. The Iraqis, who are
thought to have used mustard gas in the battle, are not known to have
possessed blood agents at the time.
These facts have long been in the public domain but, extraordinarily, as
often as the Halabja affair is cited, they are rarely mentioned. A
much-discussed article in The New Yorker last March did not make
reference to the Defense Intelligence Agency report or consider that
Iranian gas might have killed the Kurds. On the rare occasions the
report is brought up, there is usually speculation, with no proof, that
it was skewed out of American political favoritism toward Iraq in its
war against Iran.
I am not trying to rehabilitate the character of Saddam Hussein. He has
much to answer for in the area of human rights abuses. But accusing him
of gassing his own people at Halabja as an act of genocide is not
correct, because as far as the information we have goes, all of the
cases where gas was used involved battles. These were tragedies of war.
There may be justifications for invading Iraq, but Halabja is not one of
them.
In fact, those who really feel that the disaster at Halabja has bearing
on today might want to consider a different question: Why was Iran so
keen on taking the town? A closer look may shed light on America's
impetus to invade Iraq.
We are constantly reminded that Iraq has perhaps the world's largest
reserves of oil. But in a regional and perhaps even geopolitical sense,
it may be more important that Iraq has the most extensive river system
in the Middle East. In addition to the Tigris and Euphrates, there are
the Greater Zab and Lesser Zab rivers in the north of the country. Iraq
was covered with irrigation works by the sixth century A.D., and was a
granary for the region.
Before the Persian Gulf war, Iraq had built an impressive system of dams
and river control projects, the largest being the Darbandikhan dam in
the Kurdish area. And it was this dam the Iranians were aiming to take
control of when they seized Halabja. In the 1990's there was much
discussion over the construction of a so-called Peace Pipeline that
would bring the waters of the Tigris and Euphrates south to the parched
Gulf states and, by extension, Israel. No progress has been made on
this, largely because of Iraqi intransigence. With Iraq in American
hands, of course, all that could change.
Thus America could alter the destiny of the Middle East in a way that
probably could not be challenged for decades - not solely by controlling
Iraq's oil, but by controlling its water. Even if America didn't occupy
the country, once Mr. Hussein's Baath Party is driven from power, many
lucrative opportunities would open up for American companies.
All that is needed to get us into war is one clear reason for acting,
one that would be generally persuasive. But efforts to link the Iraqis
directly to Osama bin Laden have proved inconclusive. Assertions that
Iraq threatens its neighbors have also failed to create much resolve; in
its present debilitated condition - thanks to United Nations sanctions -
Iraq's conventional forces threaten no one.
Perhaps the strongest argument left for taking us to war quickly is that
Saddam Hussein has committed human rights atrocities against his people.
And the most dramatic case are the accusations about Halabja.
Before we go to war over Halabja, the administration owes the American
people the full facts. And if it has other examples of Saddam Hussein
gassing Kurds, it must show that they were not pro-Iranian Kurdish
guerrillas who died fighting alongside Iranian Revolutionary Guards.
Until Washington gives us proof of Saddam Hussein's supposed atrocities,
why are we picking on Iraq on human rights grounds, particularly when
there are so many other repressive regimes Washington supports?
Stephen C. Pelletiere is author of "Iraq and the International Oil
System: Why America Went to War in the Persian Gulf."
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
DonorsChoose. A simple way to provide underprivileged children resources
often lacking in public schools. Fund a student project in NYC/NC today!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/5F6XtA/.WnJAA/E2hLAA/7gSolB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~->
The archives of South News can be found at
http://southmovement.alphalink.com.au/southnews/
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/southnews/
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
southnews-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
*****************************************************************
2 Deutsche Welle: Nukes Overshadow EU-Iran Trade Talks
[http://dw-world.de
15.01.05 | 02:16 UTC
The EU and Iran have once again begun discussing a trade
agreement. But it isn't easy: Iran is still suspected of
developing nuclear weapons.
At the start of a meeting in Brussels between the EU and Iran
this week, officials from both countries had to feel each other
out, to see what, if anything, could be salvaged from trade talks
broken off in June 2002.
The result of this week's meeting was an agreement to come
together again in two months' time. A potential trade accord is
seen by the EU as a reward for Tehran, should the country keep
the reins of its nuclear weapons development program pulled
tightly in.
Meanwhile, Iranian officials on Thursday only allowed UN weapons
inspectors restricted access to a military compound the United
States suspects of being connected to a secret program for
developing atomic weapons.
Mutual threats
In late November, after much high-profile discussion and debate,
the UN International Atomic Energy Commission (IAEA) in Vienna
determined that Iran was complying with an agreement to stop
enriching uranium, which could be used for developing nuclear
weapons.
[U.N. nuclear inspectors at the headquarters of the
International Atomic Energy Agency in Vienna]
"As long as Iran does not pursue its atomic weapons program, it
can count on improved relations with the EU," said EU
Commisioner for Foreign Relations Benita Ferrero Waldner on
Tuesday in Brussels.
In December, Iranian Foreign Minister Kamal Charrasi had said
the atomic program would only be suspended as long as trade
talks with the EU showed progress.
Restricted access
Nonetheless, on Thursday Iranian officials limited the access of
weapons inspectors to a military compound in Parchin, Iran. Iran
accused the UN weapons inspectors of spying during the
inspection, Reuters news service reported.
"We are vigilant" the head of the atomic program talks, Hussein
Musawian, told the Iranian news agency Mehr. Inspectors were
allowed onto the grounds of the compound but not into any
buildings.
In terms of the EU-Tehran trade talks, one of the goals is to
eventually lay down a legal basis for a relationship between
Teheran and Brussels, which has not existed since the Shah fell
from power in 1979. Iran is one of the few countries in the
world that has no cooperation agreement with the EU.
The trade agreement is aimed at encouraging Iran to undertake
reforms, with the eventual integration of Iran into the World
Trade Organization an ultimate goal. On a purely economic basis,
the country is well capable of WTO entry, EU officials say. But
until now, the United States had blocked that entry on political
grounds.
Trade accord
As part of the trade accords, already low import duties from
Iran into the EU should be made permanent, and if possible
lowered. For its part, the EU expects tariff reductions and the
granting of more legal security to investors.
Because of its relatively strong economic growth and need for
investment, Iran is an interesting market for the European
Union, experts say. European firms currently deliver machinery,
vehicles and chemicals to Iran. Oil companies are interested in
exploiting Iranian oil and gas fields. Volkswagen is bringing a
small car out on the Iranian market; the parts will be made in
Brazil but assembled in Iran.
The United States is distrustful of the trade talks; Washington
has repeatedly expressed doubts that Iran has permanently
stopped its atomic weapons program. And Teheran has already
broken promises made during talks in the autumn of 2003.
Moderate course
After Iran's Islamic revolution, the United States broke ties
with Iran; US President George W. Bush named it as part of the
"Axis of Evil" due to its support of terrorist groups and the
suspected atomic weapons development. The European Union, on the
other hand, has long taken a more moderate course with Teheran,
claiming the 70 million Iranians are needed for geostrategic
stability in the turbulent region.
In parallel talks with the EU commission, Great Britain, France
and Germany have been talking with Iran since mid-December, over
an agreement to stop uranium enrichment. Should the IAEO atomic
energy commission agree that Iran has been secretly working on
closed-circuit atomic energy, the EU said the talks will come to
a halt.
But for now, EU officials said, the plan is to continue talks
at bimonthly meetings.
Bernd Riegert (jen)
[de:mehr] -->
*****************************************************************
3 BBC: UN nuclear monitors at Iran site
Last Updated: Thursday, 13 January, 2005
[Detail of Parchin complex (photo: DigitalGlobe/Isis)]
The US says satellite images of Parchin point to suspicious
activity (photo: DigitalGlobe/Isis)
United Nations nuclear inspectors have visited a military site in
Iran which the US says may be linked to a secret nuclear weapons
programme.
They went to the Parchin base near Tehran, to see whether nuclear
material had been tested there.
According to US experts, satellite images of the site suggest
that some buildings may be used to test nuclear bomb components.
Tehran denies the claim and insists its nuclear activities are
peaceful.
Speaking ahead of the visit by International Atomic Energy Agency
(IAEA) officials, Hossein Mousavian of Iran's nuclear
negotiations team said the inspectors would only have partial
access to the site.
"We are watchful. We have allowed inspections into our military
installations but we will not allow any espionage or the theft of
information from our military sites," he said, according to the
Mehr news agency.
"It is not necessary for the inspectors to enter the
installations. They are authorised to take samples outside (the
buildings) using their equipment."
The IAEA has not reported any restrictions during the visit. Its
spokesman, Mark Gwozdecky, would only say that the team had taken
environmental samples.
Trade talks
Iran maintains that its nuclear programme is strictly civilian,
and that it is not developing atomic weapons.
But the US suspects Tehran has a covert nuclear weapons
programme, and wants the IAEA to take Iran to the UN Security
Council for possible sanctions.
US officials increased the pressure after the publication of
satellite images of the Parchin site by the Institute for Science
and International Security last September.
A senior American delegate at the Vienna-based IAEA said it
"clearly shows the intention to develop weapons".
The European Union resumed trade talks with Iran on Wednesday, 18
months after they were halted over Tehran's nuclear programme.
Negotiations restarted after Iran agreed in November to suspend
the enrichment of uranium.
*****************************************************************
4 IPS-English NORTH-SOUTH KOREA: U.S. congress team in Seoul
Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2005 14:57:47 -0800
LA CR AE HD
NORTH-SOUTH KOREA: U.S. congress team in Seoul after trip to Pyongyang
Att.Editors: The following item is from the Emirates News Agency (WAM)
SEOUL, Jan. 14 (WAM) - A six-member U.S. congressional delegation led by
Curt Weldon, a Republican from Pennsylvania who serves as vice chairman of
the House Armed Services Committee, arrived in Seoul on Friday after a trip
to North Korea amid renewed international efforts to revive stalled six-way
talks on the communist country's nuclear arms program.
While in Pyongyang, the nuclear issue dominated the lawmakers' meetings
with high-level North Korean officials, including the country's No. 2
leader, Kim Yong-nam, and its foreign minister, Paek Nam-sun.
Details as to what the U.S. lawmakers discussed with North Korean
officials will likely be forwarded to the South Korean government.
After Seoul, they plan to visit Beijing and Tokyo before returning home.
(WAM)
*****************************************************************
5 Guardian Unlimited: N. Korea Ready to Return to Nuclear Talks
From the Associated Press
[UP]
Friday January 14, 2005 11:31 AM
AP Photo SEL104
By SANG-HUN CHOE
Associated Press Writer
SEOUL, South Korea (AP) - North Korea on Friday told a visiting
U.S. congressional delegation that it would not only return to
six-party nuclear talks but also treat the United States as a
``friend'' if Washington doesn't slander the rule of
totalitarian leader Kim Jong Il.
The unexpected overture came shortly after a bipartisan
congressional delegation concluded talks with senior communist
officials in Pyongyang. The U.S. leaders called the trip an
``overwhelming success'' and said in Seoul that North Korea
appeared ready to negotiate within weeks.
``Our unanimous impression is that the DPRK is ready to rejoin
the six-party process,'' said Rep. Curt Weldon, vice chairman of
the House Armed Services Committee, using the acronym for the
North's official name, Democratic People's Republic of Korea.
The North's official news agency said the communist state told
American lawmakers it ``would not stand against the U.S. but
respect and treat it as a friend'' unless the United States
``slanders'' the North or ``interferes'' in its internal
affairs, KCNA said.
The United States, North and South Korea, China, Japan and
Russia have struggled to arrange a new round of talks aimed at
persuading the North to abandon its nuclear weapons programs.
The three prior rounds, hosted by China since 2003, made no
breakthroughs. The last round was held in June.
North Korea told the American lawmakers that ``the DPRK would
opt for finding a final solution to all the outstanding issues
between the two countries, to say nothing of the resumption of
the six-party talks and the nuclear issue,'' if what the
delegation said really was U.S. policy, KCNA said.
Friday's gesture, although attached with conditions, was highly
unusual, coming after months of harsh anti-American rhetoric.
Weldon, R-Pa., said the focus of the delegation of six American
lawmakers was to get the six-party talks moving again and assure
the North that Washington wished it ``no ill will, to reinforce
the fact of what our president has said, that we do not wish to
have a regime change, that we will not preemptively attack the
North, but we do need to resolve the nuclear issue.''
The delegation met with North Korea's No. 2 leader, Kim Yong
Nam, Foreign Minister Paek Nam Sun and Vice Foreign Minister Kim
Kye Gwan, who is also North Korea's chief representative to
nuclear negotiations.
``I am convinced, as are all my colleagues, that if in fact we
move along the process that we are moving today, the six-party
talks can and will resume in a matter of weeks, as opposed to
months or years,'' said Weldon, who spoke on behalf of his
delegation.
KCNA said North Korea has decided to resume the six-way talks
after closely following what a policy the second Bush
administration would shape.
``And they are looking to see if any other comments would come
out of Washington that would be negative or that would cast a
negative aspect or negative feeling about the DPRK and its
leaders,'' Weldon said.
Weldon's delegation flew from Pyongyang to Seoul earlier Friday
to brief South Korean Foreign Minister Ban Ki-moon, Defense
Minister Yoon Kwang-ung and local lawmakers on its Pyongyang
trip.
North Korea has cited a ``hostile'' U.S. policy as the key
stumbling block to ending the two-year nuclear standoff and
demanded Washington provide a nonaggression treaty and
compensation in return for ending its nuclear programs. Weldon's
group urged North Korea to meet the U.S. demand for a ``total
and complete'' removal of its nuclear programs.
The congressional trip came amid rising hopes that the nuclear
talks could resume after Bush's inauguration.
Besides the Weldon delegation, one led by Rep. Tom Lantos, the
top Democrat on the U.S. House International Relations
Committee, recently met with senior North Korean officials in
Pyongyang.
Washington has reportedly decided to remove one of its harshest
critics of Pyongyang's totalitarian regime, Undersecretary of
State John Bolton, from the next administration.
Bolton took a vehement stand against North Korean leader Kim.
His removal was expected to appease Pyongyang, which has called
him ``human scum'' and refused to accept him as a dialogue
partner.
The nuclear dispute erupted in late 2002 when Washington accused
North Korea of running a secret uranium enrichment program in
violation of international nonproliferation accords and cut off
free oil shipments. North Korea denied the claim, quit the
Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty and restarted its mothballed
plutonium weapons program.
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2005
*****************************************************************
6 BBC: N Korea ready for nuclear talks
Last Updated: Friday, 14 January, 2005
[Yongbyon nuclear plant]
The US and allies wants the North's nuclear programme dismantled
North Korea is willing to restart stalled talks on its nuclear
programme, the official KCNA news agency has said.
The announcement came hours after a visit by a high-level US
Congressional delegation said serious negotiations could begin
again within weeks.
Three rounds of inconclusive talks have been held since 2003, but
Pyongyang did not attend a fourth round of talks scheduled for
September last year.
It said it was waiting for the new US administration to take
shape.
Analysts believe the North was holding off in the hope a
Democratic president would be elected.
But KCNA said on Friday it would work to resolve outstanding
issues with Washington.
"The DPRK [North Korean] side expressed its stand that the DPRK
would not stand against the US but respect and treat it as a
friend unless the latter slanders the former's system and
interferes in its internal affairs," the agency said.
Progress
The statement came following a four-day visit to Pyongyang by US
Congressmen, led by Curt Weldon.
Mr Weldon called his delegation's visit to North Korea an
overwhelming success.
The Congressman held lengthy meetings with top officials,
including the number two in the hierarchy, Kim Yong-nam, and the
North's top negotiator, Kim Kye-gwan.
Mr Weldon said Kim Kye-gwan was now much more positive.
"He expressed optimism that as long as the US did not appear or
act in a belligerent manner, they would in fact be prepared to
move through serious negotiations to achieve the ultimate
objective which is the total and complete elimination of the
nuclear capability of [North Korea]," Mr Weldon said.
SIX PARTIES TO KOREA TALKS
China Japa North Korea Russia South Korea US
Mr Weldon said the North Koreans were especially alert to the
makeup of the new foreign policy team in the Bush administration
and to any hostile comments from Washington.
The US last year offered economic help and security guarantees as
an incentive to the North to give up its nuclear programme.
The International Atomic Energy Agency has recently warned North
Korea is amassing a stockpile of fissile material for nuclear
weapons.
Analysts say diplomacy has achieved little in the 27 months since
the Bush administration first challenged North Korea over its
nuclear programme.
*****************************************************************
7 [EMMAS] No WMDs, but Everyone Gets a Pass!
Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2005 10:47:36 -0600 (CST)
http://tinyurl.com/63w2u
No WMDs, But Everyone Gets a Mulligan
Media failures contributed to both the "60 Minutes" fiasco and going to
war on false pretenses. Guess which major announcement this week will
get the most ink?
By Greg Mitchell
(January 12, 2005) -- It's only Thursday, and already it's clear that
yesterday's official announcement that really, for sure -- no kidding
-- there are no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq will get much less
play in the media than the report on the 60 Minutes fiasco released
on Monday. That's odd, since the news stories share one important
element: Neither was exactly a whopping surprise.
Actually, theres something else: Neither scandal would have ever
happened if journalists had done a better job at the outset.
So how did the press react this morning to closing the book on WMDs?
Most major papers I've seen, with several exceptions (such as The
Washington Post and The Dallas Morning News), did not play it on the
front page. The New York Times ran a microscropic item on A16. It did
devote an editorial to the subject, and, after mocking the White House
and TV commentators, the Times acknowledged "our own failures to
deconstruct all the spin and faulty intelligence." Then it went back to
bashing the "fantasies of feckless intelligence analysts" and holding
President Bush strictly accountable for the fact that 40% of Americans
still think WMDs are there.
But everyone was having a tough time explaining their original embrace
of the WMD scenario. On the Jim Lehrer Newshour on Thursday night,
Secretary of State Colin Powell admitted that the evidence on WMDs in
Iraq that he presented to the U.N. was "not correct," but later in the
interview called the same evidence "solid, and it was something that we
could rely on."
No wonder Stephen Colbert, on The Daily Show a few hours later, said it
was Saddam Hussein's fault, for not having the weapons.
While awaiting the fallout from the WMD non-finding finding, the
blogosphere, as usual, rushed forward with some instant commentary. The
blog known as The Poor Man quickly posted a revealing quantitative
analysis yesterday, comparing Rathergate with the Claims of Saddams
WMD by the Media and the White House.
Here are some highlights, which I've slightly revised, with R
standing for Rathergate and "WMD" for Weaponsgate. This is not to
minimize the egregious 60 Minutes failings but to highlight the lack
of accountability for the egregious WMD claims:
***
Investigation recently concluded
R: Yes
WMD: Yes
Number of firings resulting
R: 4
WMD: 0
Use of highly questionable documents
R: Yes
WMD: Yes
Media spread questionable information
R: Yes
WMD: Yes
Central claim completely disproven
R: No
WMD: Yes
Number of wars started partly because of flawed journalism
R: 0
WMD: 1
Cost to American taxpayer
R: $0
WMD: $150 billion, so far
Number of American soldiers killed as a result
R: 0
WMD: 1,357, as of now
Number of Iraqi civilians killed as a result
R: 0
WMD: 10,000 to 100,000
Number of al-Qaeda training camps destroyed as a result
R: 0
WMD: 0
U.S. reputation severely damaged as a result
R: No
WMD: Yes
***
As the day went on, posters at the site made a few necessary additions.
CIA agents outed in effort to prevent or punish disclosure
R: 0
WMD: 1
Resulting government contracts for Halliburton
R: $0
WMD: $10 billion
Apologies issued by CBS: 2+
Apologies issued by the White House: 0
Medals of Freedom Awarded to those who played key role
R: 0
WMD: 3
***
And, I might add...
Key producer unwilling to admit wrongdoing
R: Mary Mapes
WMD: Judith Miller
----------
Greg Mitchell (gmitchell@editorandpublisher.com) is the editor of E&P.
==============
***NOTICE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this
material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a
prior interest in receiving the included information for research and
educational purposes.***
#################################################################
" Social and economic well-being will become a reality only through the
zeal, courage, the non-compromising determination of intelligent
minorities, and not through the mass." Emma Goldman
To SUBSCRIBE/UNSUBSCRIBE to the emmasdance list send email to
with the message subscribe/unsubscribe emmasdance. [No subject is
needed.]
"If I can not dance, I want no part in your revolution." Emma Goldman
#################################################################
*****************************************************************
8 Anchorage Daily News: Military drops idea to arm interceptors with nuclear weapons
OUTLAWED: Missiles at Fort Greely are designed to destroy by
impact alone.
The Associated Press
(Published: January 14, 2005)
WASHINGTON -- The military has scrapped a draft proposal to
study how nuclear weapons might be used on national defense
interceptors, a defense officials said.
"The draft is being revised," said John Cummings, spokesman for
the U.S. Army Space and Missile Defense Command in Huntsville,
Ala. "It was a mistake."
Congress has outlawed research on and development of
nuclear-armed missile interceptors since 2003.
Sen. Ted Stevens, R-Alaska, while a staunch supporter of the
national missile defense system, sponsored the language to
prohibit nuclear weaponry on its interceptors. This year, the
prohibition appeared in the appropriations act for the
Department of Defense, which Stevens oversaw as chairman of both
the Senate Appropriations Committee and its Defense subcommittee.
The Defense Department's Missile Defense Agency has installed
six missile interceptors at Fort Greely in Alaska and plans to
add 10 more this year. The interceptors, also going in at
Vandenberg Air Force Base, Calif., have no explosives on board.
They are designed to strike an incoming enemy missile and
destroy it by impact alone.
The idea of using nuclear weapons keeps popping up, however.
In 2002, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld asked the Defense
Science Board to look at the idea as it explored the most
promising ways to defend the country. That request provoked
Stevens and Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., to craft the
congressional prohibition.
But word didn't spread to all the military strategists who work
on missile defense issues, according to Cummings. He said the
authors of the draft proposal were "unaware that there was
congressional language prohibiting the development ... of
nuclear interceptor technology."
The Space and Missile Defense Command's Lethality Division
announced Dec. 10 that it was looking for a contractor to test
and analyze the ability of various weapons, including nuclear
interceptor concepts, to destroy incoming enemy missiles.
Cummings said the command's contracting office is taking
comments on the request and will issue a final version by
mid-February. Contractors have already identified a number of
errors in the draft, mostly having to do with technical language.
Rick Lehner, spokesman for the Missile Defense Agency in
Arlington, Va., said the Lethality Division was asked to come up
with advanced technology that might be applicable in the future.
"That's one of the things people thought of: Should we consider
nuclear weapons?" he said.
However, even without the congressional prohibition on research
into such ideas, the MDA has long since moved beyond the idea,
Lehner said.
The Anchorage Daily News - Get the whole story every day -
[http://www.adn.com/adn/help2/circ.html]
Copyright © 2005 [http://www.adn.com]
*****************************************************************
9 Daily Press: USS Ike to keep idling
[http://dailypress.com/] [Prudential McCardle]
HAMPTON ROADS, VA. January 14, 2005 9:18 PM
[pdujardin@dailypress.com] 247-4749
NEWPORT NEWS --
The USS Dwight D. Eisenhower has to stay in the shipyard a bit
longer.
The aircraft carrier was set to finish its midlife refueling and
overhaul job at the Northrop Grumman Newport News shipyard next
week, head out for sea trials and rejoin the Navy's fleet after
more than three and a half years in the yard.
But a leak inside an electrical motor that provides power to
nuclear reactor components was discovered Sunday - with a quart
of water found in the motor. But investigating and fixing the
problem, the Navy said, could delay the carrier's departure date
by several weeks.
What caused the leak of water that's supposed to cool the motor
is still unclear - as is how long it will take to fix, said Pat
Dolan, a spokeswoman with the Naval Sea Systems Command. The
issue was discovered when the motor was being brought back online
after routine maintenance.
"The time, cost and extent of repairs will be pinned on the
results of an inspection after partial disassembly of the
component," she said, adding that the investigation already has
begun.
Dolan could not immediately say which component the motor
supplied electricity to but said the leak is "not a reactor
safety issue."
She could not immediately say who manufactured the motor or
whether there are others on the ship.
Shipyard spokeswoman Jerri Fuller Dickseski said the yard now has
the original contract vendor diagnosing the problem. "Until we
get this analysis, we can't speculate about schedule or cost
impact," she said.
The refueling and overhaul job taking place on the Eisenhower
will happen only once in the ship's 50-year life span. Some
experts describe the nuclear refuelings and overhauls as among
the toughest industrial tasks taking place anywhere. It includes
a complete replenishment of the ship's nuclear fuel and a
replacement of thousands of other valves, pumps and motors. The
Eisenhower is the third nuclear powered ship to get the work,
following similar jobs on the USS Enterprise and the USS Nimitz.
Even before the leak, the job already was behind schedule. The
Eisenhower arrived May 22, 2001, and was once supposed to be a
35-month repair job, according to a Navy document provided to
Congress in 2001. The job is into its 43rd month. Some of the
delay had to do with a Navy decision to have the yard work on the
USS Enterprise first while both carriers were getting work done
by the shipyard at the same time, and the Navy needed that vessel
sooner. That set the Eisenhower job back by 10 weeks. Another
week was lost from Hurricane Isabel.
Carla McCarthy, the Ike's public affairs officer, said about
3,000 sailors are assigned to the ship, including about 600 who
are living onboard. They moved aboard last fall, many moving in
from quarters at the old Huntington High School building.
Copyright ©2005 Daily Press
*****************************************************************
10 National Review: Henry Sokolski on Nuclear Proliferation on
[author@nationalreview.com]
January 14, 2005, 9:22 a.m.
Time for a Nuclear Timeout
Mohamed ElBaradei has the right idea.
By Henry Sokolski
Although it went practically unnoticed, last week the White
House's least favorite director general of the International
Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Mohamed ElBaradei, honored President
Bush with the highest form of flattery. Building on a proposal
the president made nearly a year ago to ban the further spread of
unnecessary nuclear factories that can bring nations within days
of having a bomb, ElBaradei proposed a five-year international
moratorium on the further construction of such plants. This,
ElBaradei argued, would be helpful at least to limit what he sees
as an unqualified right of states to develop the "full nuclear
fuel cycle."
Unfortunately, ElBaradei's premise here is a bit off. There is
no unqualified per se right under the Nuclear Nonproliferation
Treaty (NPT) for states to make nuclear-weapons-usable fuels.
Claiming that all states have such right, moreover, will hardly
help in getting them to embrace a moratorium on expanding
whatever capacity they already have to make such materials.
But this aside, ElBaradei's proposal complements Bush's own
proposal and is hard to find fault with. It certainly tracks
economic reality (there is no clear profit right now in building
more nuclear fuel-making capacity). It also buys the world time
to reevaluate the effectiveness of the current set of nuclear
rules (something critically needed after the Dr. A. Q. Khan's
proliferation to Libya, Iran, and North Korea of everything one
might need to covertly make a bomb). It undermines the
legitimacy of trouble states like Iran, who are trying to
complete "peaceful" nuclear facilities that could quickly be
converted into bomb plants. Finally, it's uncomplicated and
involves a minimum of sacrifice: No treaty making is required;
all that's needed is to put off spending on unnecessary nuclear
projects that are already financial question marks.
In the U.S. there are at least two such ventures. The first is a
private-industry scheme to build a large centrifuge enrichment
plant in Ohio by the end of the decade. The United States
Enrichment Corporation (USEC), which took over what were
previously U.S. government-owned enrichment operations, wants to
upgrade their existing services, which already supply fresh
low-enriched reactor fuel to America's 100-odd nuclear power
reactors. Because the new centrifuge project is projected to
cost the company over $1 billion, stockholders want more
information before making the dive. To get this, the company is
now pushing to build a much smaller demonstration plant.
The only serious domestic competition to USEC is from a Dutch
firm, URENCO. This company is now trying to muscle into the U.S.
market with plans to build a centrifuge enrichment plant in New
Mexico. Both the UNRENCO and the USEC projects require U.S.
licenses, which have not yet been granted. Both are geared to
make money years from now, if at all. Both can wait.
The second planned U.S. nuclear project to make massive amounts
of nuclear-weapons-usable fuel for commercial use is a U.S.
government scheme to convert 34 tons of surplus weapons
plutonium (now in the form of metal) into ceramic powder and mix
it with uranium to make a fuel known as mixed oxide or MOX. The
MOX is to be burned in U.S. civilian reactors and thereby made
too radioactive to be easily stolen. To support this effort, the
Department of Energy is using billions of U.S. taxpayers'
dollars to have a French nuclear firm construct a MOX
fuel-fabrication plant in South Carolina.
Besides being a major money loser, this program is a
bomb-material-monitoring nightmare. The Japanese recently tried
making MOX fuel on a much smaller scale and ended up "losing"
between ten and 70 kilograms of plutonium — enough for between
two and l5 crude bombs. In addition, the IAEA has determined
that it is relatively easy to convert fresh MOX fuel into bombs
(each 220 lbs. of MOX contains one crude bomb's worth of
plutonium). The IAEA lists MOX as being "direct use" nuclear
material — i.e., material able to bring its owners nearly as
close to a bomb as if they had separated plutonium or highly
enriched uranium. The program plans to take 20 or so years to
dispose of all 34 tons of the surplus plutonium. Throughout this
period, the challenges of detecting nuclear theft or loss will
actually be higher than it would be were the plutonium safely
stored. A five-year hold on the effort, which is already way
behind schedule, might give us a better chance to address these
risks.
What else should we do with the extra time? First, persuade
others to follow our example. Japan might revisit its own plans
to open a controversial, unprofitable plutonium-reprocessing
plant at Rokkashomura that would make tons of
nuclear-weapons-usable plutonium annually. Brazil might
reconsider pushing back its construction of an economically
dubious uranium-enrichment plant. The moratorium would also give
Iran another reason to halt its enrichment program and — more
important — for others to take action if it did not.
Second, the U.S., its partners, and the IAEA should use the next
five years to reassess which nuclear activities and materials
can be safeguarded to provide timely warning of attempts to
steal or divert them to make bombs. Certainly, after A. Q.
Khan's proliferation successes (including the sale of a
high-fidelity, Chinese-tested, missile-deliverable
nuclear-weapons design), the amount of time, money, and staff
required to make a bomb have declined. Also, with new
technologies more widely available (e.g., compact
uranium-enrichment centrifuges), what can be hidden from
inspectors' view is greater than it once was.
The question in each case is by how much. Here, we owe it to
ourselves and the future of nuclear power — to say nothing of
the security of others — to find out. Certainly, what the IAEA
can know and what it can adequately safeguard against is less
than we previously thought. This has been made clear by the
cascade of proliferation revelations in Iran, North Korea, and
Libya, and the hair-raising discoveries about missing plutonium
in Japan and unmonitored Pakistani nuclear sales. They're the
reason why Bush last year proposed a time out on the further
spread of nuclear-fuel-making plants and why ElBaradei's
proposal last week is one we should back.
— Henry Sokolski is executive director of the Nonproliferation
Policy Education Center in Washington, D.C., and editor of
Checking Iran's Nuclear Ambitions
[http://www.nationalreview.com/redirect/amazon.asp?j=1584871490]
with Patrick Clawson.
[http://www.nationalreview.com/
*****************************************************************
11 EUbusiness: Estonian wind farm takes off at former Soviet nuke base
[http://www.eubusiness.com/
14/01/2005
On the site where border guards used to keep watch on the
western outpost of the Soviet Union, Baltic European Union
newcomer Estonia is erecting a wind farm to generate clean
electricity.
The wind-swept Pakri peninsula, which juts into the Baltic Sea
60 kilometres (36 miles) west of the capital Tallinn, once
hosted a training centre for Soviet border guards. The nearby
town of Paldiski was a key Soviet nuclear submarine training
ground.
Today, sleek silver arms of the state-of-art wind power turbines
dot the site which was off-limits to civilians throughout the
five decades of Soviet occupation from 1940 to 1991.
The first three windmills of the Pakri Wind Farm have just been
put into operation, with five others to follow before the end of
the month.
When the farm is fully up and running, it is expected to supply
one percent of Estonia's energy needs, and a some 10,000
Estonian households are expected to get electricity from the
farm.
"Paldiski has been associated with the Soviet border guards and
military pollution," said Hannu Lamp, managing director of the
Tuulepargid company which is developing the wind farm.
"From now on, it will have a new side to it, as a clean energy
place."
Tuulepargid is the Estonian subsidiary of Danish-based Global
Green Energy.
The streamlined wind turbines with a hub height of 80 metres
(yards) and rotor diameter of 90 metres, sit on top of the
ragged limestone cliffs that soar from the sea. In one corner of
the site, some ruins of the Soviet border guard barracks have
been preserved as a tourist attraction.
Nearby, a 19th century lighthouse and some more ruins of the
Soviet military installations dot the landscape.
The town of Paldiski, originally established as a naval
stronghold by Peter the Great in the early 18th century, is
pleased that the wind farm is taking shape in the wasteland
between the town and the breathtakingly beautiful tip of the
peninsula.
"We are very positive about the wind farm," says Regina Ress,
spokeswoman for the town.
"It's the complete opposite to what we had in the Soviet time:
green energy versus the nuclear submarine training centre and
other military installations."
Up to 16,000 Soviet soldiers were stationed in Paldiski. The
last of them left in 1994, when the nuclear submarine centre was
decommissioned. Since then, the austere town of 3,800 residents
has struggled with its Soviet military legacy.
In addition to changing the face of Paldiski, the Parki Wind
Farm is setting a precedent in the region in the carbon
pollution quota market.
Under the Kyoto Protocol's implementation project, 0.5 million
tons of reduced greenhouse gas emissions will be sold to
Finland.
"It's among the very first wind power projects anywhere where
the economic feasibility is achieved through the sale of CO2
reductions under the joint implementation scheme of the Kyoto
Protocol," Lamp says.
On January 1, the EU opened a market for trading in carbon
dioxide and other gases which are the main culprits for global
warming.
The total investment cost of the Pakri project is 24 million
euros.
The wind farm owner, Pakri Tuulepark, is a subsidiary of
Norway's Vardar energy group.
Most of Estonia's energy is generated using oil-shale fueled
power plants, which are big pollutants.
With an expected annual production of 56 GWh (GigaWatt hours),
the Pakri wind farm will meet about one per cent of Estonia's
net electricity consumption, and thus contribute to achieving
Estonia's target of providing 5.1 percent of its electricity
needs from renewable sources by 2010.
Developers have already made plans for building more wind farms
on other former Soviet military installations in Estonia.
Text and Picture Copyright © 2005 AFP. All other copyright ©
2005 EUbusiness Ltd. All rights reserved. This material is
intended solely for personal use. Any other reproduction,
publication or redistribution of this material without the
written agreement of the copyright owner is strictly forbidden
and any breach of copyright will be considered actionable.
EUbusiness © Copyright EUbusiness Ltd 2005. Privacy Statement |
*****************************************************************
12 A4NR January 2005 / Committee to Bridge the Gap / Bad Day at
Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2005 15:11:46 -0800
January 13th, 2004
Dear Readers,
PBS is doing a special on nuke security tomorrow, featuring Diablo
Canyon. Also, below information about that, is a note from Joel Hirsch at
Committee to Bridge the Gap with a little something we can all do to try to
pressure the NRC to get realistic about the dangers. I've also collected
some information about Kalpakkam in India, and an interesting essay by
Robert F. Kennedy, Jr..
Sincerely,
Russell Hoffman
Concerned Citizen
Carlsbad, CA
1) Watch This Tomorrow: PBS SPECIAL ON NUKE SECURITY (2 emails)
2) DO THIS TODAY: Petition by the CBG for NRC to upgrade the DPT at our
NPPs ASAP
3) Of History and a Barely Escaped Nuclear Horror By J. Sri Raman
4)) Nature: A Real Moral Value by RFK Jr.
5) Listen to this author on the Internet (subscription required)
6) Contact info for the author of this newsletter
=============================================
Watch This Tomorrow: PBS SPECIAL ON NUKE SECURITY:
=============================================
At 07:40 AM 1/13/2005 -0800, beckers@thegrid.net wrote:
>Hi Russell,
>
>As long as you are announcing can you mention that tomorrow evening
>(Friday Jan 14th) PBS NOW will air a program on nuclear insecurity and NRC
>secrecy featuring the Diablo Canyon nuclear plant.
>
>Thanks
>
>
>Rochelle
At 08:32 PM 1/13/2005 -0800, newsletters@a4nr.org wrote:
>
>A4NR January 2005
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>NOW is the time to join a statewide effort to prohibit license renewals
>for California's nuclear plants. NOW is the time to say "no more nuclear
>waste on California's coast". NOW is the time to speak out for the future
>of our children. Join the Alliance for
>Nuclear Responsibility and make our state safer NOW.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>PBS NOW to Spotlight SLO: Security at Nation’s Nuclear Power Plants
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Read More
>
>On January 14, the PBS program NOW will examine the nationwide struggle to
>increase security at nuclear facilities post-9/11, including the efforts
>of the citizens of the small county of San Luis Obispo, which has taken
>the lead in that struggle via several important legal proceedings.
>
>Show producer and host David Brancaccio recently spent a day interviewing
>Rochelle Becker, former Project Manager for nuclear safety and security
>issues for the San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace. Becker is now the
>Executive Director for the Alliance for Nuclear Responsibility.
>
>NOW with David Brancaccio, replacing retiring host Bill Moyers, will air
>locally at 8 p.m. on January 14, 2005, on KCET:
>http://a4nr.org/newsevents/pbsnowjan142005
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>License Renewals for California's Nuclear Plants Must be Prohibited
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Nuclear waste dumps have recently been expanded on earthquake active
>California’s coast. This federal action was adopted without a safe and
>permanent solution to high-level radioactive waste. It is irresponsible
>for California to continue to allow production of high-level radioactive
>waste which could severely impact the health, safety, environment and
>economy of our state. This is not a legacy California can responsibly
>leave to our children and grandchildren:
>http://a4nr.org/articles/articlenukewaste
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Will Nuclear Waste Transports be safe?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>In California there were 1,880 fatal semi-truck wrecks from 1994 through
>2001, 490 occurred on interstates. There were 4,264 train wrecks in
>California from 1990 through 2001 including 1,319 derailments and 233
>collisions.
>
>On January 7, 2005 a train in South Carolina carrying Chlorine gas
>crashed
>into a parked train. Eight residents in the nearby community of
>Graniteville, South Carolina died from exposure, 240 sought treatment and
>thousands were evacuated:
>http://a4nr.org/articles/transportaccidents
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Growing Costs of Nuclear Power Makes Renewable Energy More Attractive
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>FULLERTON, CA--(MARKET WIRE)--Jan 10, 2005
>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:
>http://a4nr.org/articles/renewables
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>San Onofre Emergency Operations Inaccessible Due to Road Flooding
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>On January 9, 2005, at about 1945 PST, the access road to the SONGS MESA
>facilities became flooded after several days of rain. The San Onofre
>Emergency Operations Facility (EOF) is located at the MESA and because of
>the flooding, is inaccessible to passenger vehicles. While the EOF itself
>is operable, in the event of an Emergency at San Onofre, SCE would direct
>EOF emergency responders to the alternate EOF located in Irvine,
>California. SCE is reporting this occurrence to the NRC in accordance with
>10CFR50.72(b)(3)(xiii).
>
>###
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Current Articles
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Some of our most recent articles
> * Nuclear Costs Rise
> * In the last few months costs to continue operation of nuclear energy
> have risen - is this really an option for California's energy future?
> * Read more
> * California Must Limit Nuclear Waste on Coast
> * Without a solution to the storage of high-level radioactive waste it
> would be irresponsible for California to allow license renewals for
> California's nuclear plants
> * Read more
> * Meet the Alliance Board
> * The Alliance is rapidly building a diverse and cross-disciplinary
> board.
> * Read more
> * Chernobyl Fallout based on SONGS
> * A replay of the fallout pattern from Chernobyl, but centered on San
> Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, and with a Northwest wind.
> * Read more
> * A4NR official filing
> * The Alliance is now a statewide 501c4 organization
> * Read more
> * Is Nuclear Waste Transport Safe?
> * First train accident of 2005
> * Read more
> * Chernobyl Fallout based on Diablo Canyon
> * A replay of the fallout pattern from Chernobyl, but centered on
> Diablo Canyon, and with a Northwest wind.
> * Read more
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>What you can do to help?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>There are several ways you can help the Alliance...
> * How To Help
> * To help the Alliance, come to a4nr.org and make a donation, join our
> mailing lists, or become a Supporter.
> * Read more
>
>----------
>You subscribed to this newsletter or were added from a list of our
>friends. You may change your preferences at...
>http://a4nr.org/newsletters/a4nrMonthly/subscribers/00137mA9oM/portal_form/Subscriber_editForm
>You may subscribe to our other newsletters in the panel on the left side
>of most of our pages at a4nr.org
===============================================
2) DO THIS TODAY: Petition by the CBG for NRC to upgrade the DPT at our
NPPs ASAP:
===============================================
At 08:34 AM 1/13/2005 -0800, wrote:
>Russell,
>
>Please go to
>http://ruleforum.llnl.gov/cgi-bin/uploader/ctbg_prm_public?st= and
>register your comment in relation to Committee to Bridge the Gap's
>petition to upgrade the DBT's at nuclear facilities. It only takes a
>few minutes. Thanks. -- Joel
============================================
3) Of History and a Barely Escaped Nuclear Horror By J. Sri Raman
============================================
Of History and a Barely Escaped Nuclear Horror
By J. Sri Raman
t r u t h o u t | Perspective
Thursday 13 January 2005
Chennai, India - "Off the coast of Mahabalipuram, in Tamilnadu, south
India, the discovery of a complex of submerged ruins has sparked an
investigation into their origin. Local lore has long held that the area
once boasted seven magnificent temples, but that six of these were
swallowed by the sea. The seventh, and only remaining temple, still stands
on the shore.
"Stories passed from one generation to the next tell of a large,
beautiful city that once occupied the area. The legends say the ancient
metropolis was destroyed by the gods who were jealous of its beauty, and
sent a flood to bury it beneath the waves."
This is an excerpt from an article titled "New Underwater Finds Raise
Questions about Flood Myths" by Brian Handwerk, in prestigious National
Geographic News. The article was published on May 28, 2002 - over two and a
half years before the tsunami disaster of December 26, 2004.
Mahabalipuram (or Mamallapuram) lies just eight kilometers north of
Kalpakkam, the venue of a nuclear complex. Kalpakkam is an hour's drive
from Chennai, capital of the State of Tamilnadu, India's worst-hit tsunami
target.
History says that sea waves engulfed the original Mahabalipuram and
six of its magnificent rock temples probably sometime between the eighth
and tenth centuries AD. What are the chances that the sea will swallow the
Kalpakkam site in a destructive surge of a future date?
After the December disaster, the question should not quite sound
contrived or far-fetched. R. Ramesh of the Doctors for Safe Environment,
which has been asking uncomfortable questions about Kalpakkam, does not
stop with harking back to this piece of relatively recent history.
He also notes that Indonesia, where the disaster originated, has
experienced 179 tsunamis of comparable destructiveness from 2000 BC to 2001
AD. Volcanic activity in Indonesia's vicinity in August 1883 unleashed a
tsunami onslaught of the order we have just witnessed.
None of these tsunamis could possibly have been a patch on the nuclear
nightmare that we have providentially escaped - that is, the fallout that
would have compounded the other consequences of the calamity, if Kalpakkam
had met the fate of the submerged temples or suffered even lesser damage. A
few more monster waves might have repeated the history of Mahabalipuram -
and with much more horrendous results.
Does all this mean that the tsunami has left Kalpakkam entirely
unscathed? No. After an initial near-silence, or an impatient dismissal of
all doubts, India's nuclear establishment has come out with a statement of
egregious irrelevance. The statement seeks to rationalize the
establishment's indifference to the issues raised.
The history-based apprehensions may sound alarmist to the Nuclear
Power Corporation of India Limited (NPCIL). And, it may successfully make
them sound so, as well, to many others. It, however, has not cared to
answer questions of a more immediate kind, either.
The statement begins with the sage observation: "Man has to live with
natural calamities. Wisdom lies in effectively meeting the challenges of
such situations and ensuring safety of human life and property." The NCPIL,
however, adduces no further proof of its wisdom than the fact that the
tsunami has not washed Kalpakkam away. It does not even consider the
"worst-case scenario," which is what wise nuclear safety should be all about.
The statement does not specify the amount of spent fuel, present in
the two pressurized heavy water reactors in the complex, estimated by
outside experts at 150-250 tons. The authorities are silent about the fate
the fuel. Nor is any word forthcoming about radioactive wastes generated
during the shutdown operations.
Official lips are sealed also about the damage done to the pump house
used for cooling the condenser by the tsunami-caused rush of seawater. If
the damage is repeated, the pump house may become hard to repair and
revive. In an extreme instance, which few will rule out after the tsunami
experience, this can lead to consequences including a "core melt," the
ultimate nuclear accident.
As objectionable as the official refusal to answer questions is the
attitude that accompanies it. The nuclear establishment and a media that
swears by "national interests" make it appear that only traitors can demand
transparency in such matters. The unconcealed assumption is that such
questions run directly counter to the country's "development." The attitude
stems from a "development" strategy that has no place for the ordinary
people's interests, such as public health.
A Japanese journalist, in Chennai to cover Kalpakkam, asked me the
other day whether India, with its burgeoning population, did not need
nuclear power. Apologists of our nuclear establishment have been asking
this question for long. A counter-question to them: why then, after 50
years of India's nuclear power program, less than three per cent of the
country's power needs are met by nuclear plants?
Is the answer unlinked to the perception of India's peace movement
that a significant part of the country's nuclear power program has served
as a cover for a nuclear weapons program?
-------
© Copyright 2005 by TruthOut.org
=============================================
4) Nature: A Real Moral Value by RFK Jr.:
=============================================
Nature: A Real Moral Value
By Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.
AlterNet
Tuesday 11 January 2005
http://www.truthout.org/docs_05/011305X.shtml
http://www.alternet.org/envirohealth/20937/
Despite the rejection of some of Bush's worst environmental
initiatives, the White House still hasn't learned that it's sailing
against the public tide.
As President Bush prepares his plans for a second term, he should
remember that the name on the Oval Office door isn't the only thing that
will stay the same. Another is America's broad, bipartisan consensus
about conservation, health and environmental stewardship. The vast
majority still believe in strong laws to keep our air and water clean,
our families healthy and our beautiful landscapes preserved.
To protect nature is to follow a moral path, but ultimately we do it
not for the sake of trees and animals, but because our environment is
the infrastructure of our communities. If we want to provide our
children the same opportunities for dignity and enrichment as those our
parents gave us, we've got to start by protecting the air, water,
wildlife, and natural treasures that connect us to our national
character. Therein lie the values that define our community and make us
proud to be Americans.
It's worth noting that President Bush largely avoided mentioning his
environmental record during the campaign because it made him more
vulnerable in the eyes of most voters. All the more reason then to be
wary of his administration claiming a false mandate to continue pursuing
its hostile environmental agenda.
Consider the words of EPA Administrator Mike Leavitt, who told
reporters a few days after Bush's re-election that the administration's
agenda has been "validated and empowered" by the voters.
A mandate on the environment? Nothing could be further from the truth.
When people were given the opportunity to vote on a purely
environmental issue, as they did this year in ballot initiatives around
the country, they almost always voted overwhelmingly in favor of
protecting the environment.
By a more than two-to-one ratio, voters in Washington state approved a
ballot initiative to prevent more waste from being dumped at the federal
Hanford nuclear site, the nation's most contaminated federal facility.
The decision will require cleanup of the 586-square-mile site before any
additional waste is stored there. That is, if this common-sense measure
survives a legal challenge by the Bush Justice Department.
In Montana, a conservative state that went for Bush, voters upheld a
ban on using cyanide, a toxic chemical, in open pit mining. In Colorado,
another "red" state, voters approved a requirement that utilities must
generate 10 percent of their electricity from renewable sources of
energy, like solar and wind. And let's not forget the revolt of
ranchers, anglers and hunters - particularly out West - who expressed
outrage and bitter disappointment over the Bush administration's
destructive public lands policies.
While the presidential contest was not a referendum on the
environment, this election clearly demonstrated that protecting our
health, environment and natural heritage was, is and always will be
strongly supported by the American people.
Unfortunately, this message may be muddled back inside the Beltway.
Despite the rejection in Congress of some of the Bush administration's
worst initiatives, including Arctic Refuge drilling and
industry-friendly air pollution and energy plans, the White House still
hasn't learned that it's sailing against the public tide.
All indications are that Bush's second term will proceed as the first
with respect to energy, the environment and efforts to auction off our
natural landscapes at fire-sale prices. And they won't wait for
Inauguration Day to continue rewarding corporate polluters with special
exemptions, rule changes and loosened laws.
In the face of recent rhetoric about an alleged mandate, it's clear
the challenge is greater than ever. But the important thing is that the
fundamental politics of the environment did not change with this
election. To the contrary, the forces that have worked to protect our
communities remain firmly in place.
There is strong bipartisan support for a safer, cleaner approach -
particularly in the U.S. Senate and among the nation's governors. And
the fight won't just be about holding the line; in fact, we will see
increasing efforts to move forward on pressing problems like mercury
contamination, water pollution, ocean restoration and perhaps most
importantly, global warming.
As the nation moves forward in tackling our environmental challenges -
and we must - it's important to remember that all faiths teach us to
protect our environment. In that sense, we can consider safeguarding the
water we drink, the air we breathe, the wildlife and wild places we
cherish, and the natural heritage owed to our children as the most
important of the moral values that reportedly weighed heavily in this
year's presidential race.
-------
Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. is a senior attorney for the Natural Resources
Defense Council, and author of "Crimes Against Nature."
-------
=============================================
5) Listen to this on the Internet (subscription required):
=============================================
Earth News Hour IV
with Meria Heller and Mark R. Elsis
http://meria.net/
(Note: This author was the guest this morning (Thursday, January 13, 2005))
Bad Day at San Onofre:
http://www.animatedsoftware.com/environm/onofre/2005/sce_memo/sce_memo_2004.html
===============================================
6) Contact info for the author of this newsletter:
===============================================
*************************************************
** THE ANIMATED SOFTWARE COMPANY
** Russell D. Hoffman, Owner and Chief Programmer
** P.O. Box 1936, Carlsbad CA 92018-1936
** (800) 551-2726
** (760) 720-7261
** Fax: (760) 720-7394
** Visit the world's most eclectic web site:
** http://www.animatedsoftware.com
*************************************************
IF YOU RECEIVED THIS EMAIL IN ERROR AND/OR DO NOT WISH TO RECEIVE ANY MORE
EMAILS FROM US FOR ANY REASON, PLEASE CONTACT RUSSELL HOFFMAN AT:
rhoffman@animatedsoftware.com
MailTo:rhoffman@animatedsoftware.com?Subject=Unsubscribe-me-please .
Please be sure that "Unsubscribe-me-please" appears in the subject line.
*****************************************************************
13 NRC: NRC Enforcement Policy; Extension of Enforcement Discretion of
FR Doc 05-887
[Federal Register: January 14, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 10)]
[Notices] [Page 2662-2664] From the Federal Register Online via
GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr14ja05-93]
Interim Policy AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
ACTION: Policy statement: revision.
SUMMARY: The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is revising its
General Statement of Policy and Procedure for NRC Enforcement
Actions (NUREG-1600) (Enforcement Policy or Policy) to extend the
interim enforcement policy regarding enforcement discretion for
certain issues involving fire protection programs at operating
nuclear power plants.
DATES: This revision is effective January 14, 2005. Comments on
this revision to the Enforcement Policy may be submitted on or
before February 14, 2005.
ADDRESSES: Submit written comments to: Michael T. Lesar, Chief,
Rules and Directives Branch, Division of Administrative Services,
Office of Administration, Mail Stop: T6D59, U.S. Nuclear
Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001. Hand deliver
comments to: 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland, between
7:30 a.m. and 4:15 p.m., Federal workdays. Copies of comments
received may be examined at the NRC Public Document Room, Room
O1F21, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD.
You may also e-mail comments to nrcrep@nrc.gov [nrcrep@nrc.gov] .
The NRC maintains the current Enforcement Policy on its Web site
at
[[Page 2663]] http://www.nrc.gov
[http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/leaving.cgi?from=leaving
FR.html&log=linklog&to=http://www.nrc.gov] , select ``What We Do,
Enforcement,'' then ``Enforcement Policy.'' FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT: Sunil Weerakkody, Office of Nuclear Reactor
Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC
20555-0001, (301) 415-2870, e-mail (SDW1@nrc.gov [SDW1@nrc.gov] )
or Ren[eacute]e Pedersen, Office of Enforcement, U.S. Nuclear
Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, (301) 415-2742,
e-mail (RMP@nrc.gov [RMP@nrc.gov] ).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On June 16, 2004, the NRC published in
the Federal Register a final rule amending 10 CFR 50.48 (69 FR
33536). This rule became effective on July 16, 2004, and allows
licensees to adopt 10 CFR 50.48(c), a voluntary risk-informed,
performance-based alternative to current fire protection
requirements. The NRC concurrently revised its Enforcement Policy
(69 FR 33684) to provide interim enforcement discretion during a
``transition'' period.
The interim enforcement discretion policy includes provisions to
address (1) noncompliances identified during the licensee's
transition process and, (2) existing identified noncompliances.
In accordance with the current Enforcement Policy, for
noncompliances identified as part of the transition to 10 CFR
50.48(c), the enforcement discretion period begins upon the
receipt of a letter of intent from the licensee stating its
intention to adopt 10 CFR 50.48(c) and it would remain in effect
for up to two years. Furthermore, when the licensee submits a
license amendment request to complete the transition to 10 CFR
50.48(c), the enforcement discretion will continue until the NRC
completes its review of the license amendment request.
The second element of the interim enforcement discretion policy
provides enforcement discretion for licensees who wish to take
advantage of the new rule to resolve existing noncompliances.
One of the criteria that must be met to exercise this discretion
is that the licensee must submit a letter of intent to adopt 10
CFR 50.48(c) within 6 months of the effective date of the final
rule. Therefore, the current deadline for the letter of intent to
allow discretion for existing noncompliances is January 16, 2005.
As a result, if a licensee submits a letter of intent on or
before January 16, 2005, (in order to meet the second discretion
element) the enforcement discretion for noncompliances identified
during the licensee's transition process (the first discretion
element) would remain in effect until January 15, 2007.
By letter dated July 7, 2004, the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI)
(ADAMS Accession ML042010132) requested that NRC extend the
deadline for the letter of intent from January 16, 2005, to
December 31, 2005. According to the NEI letter, the primary basis
for this request is to accommodate the licensee planning and
budgeting for transition to 10 CFR 50.48(c). The NRC considered
NEI's request in light of possible safety implications, the NRC's
regulatory philosophy to provide incentives for licensees to move
to risk-informed, performance-based fire protection requirements,
and the NRC's need to put long standing fire protection issues on
a closure path.
When the NRC issued the interim enforcement discretion policy,
the NRC chose to limit the time allowed to submit a letter of
intent to 6 months for existing noncompliances because the NRC
wanted to prevent undue delays in either restoring compliance to
10 CFR 50.48(b) or establishing compliance to 10 CFR 50.48(c).
The NRC did not consider the challenges imposed on the licensees
in budgeting and planning. After receiving NEI's request to
extend the time allowed for the letter of intent by one year, the
NRC reevaluated potential safety concerns associated with a one
year extension to existing noncompliances.
The NRC concludes that granting NEI's request does not adversely
affect public health and safety because: Enforcement discretion
does not apply to the risk- significant issues, which under the
Reactor Oversight Process would be evaluated as Red; Enforcement
discretion does not apply to issues that would be categorized as
Severity Level I; The licensee is required to adopt compensatory
measures until compliance is either restored to 10 CFR 50.48(b)
or achieved per 10 CFR 50.48(c), and Licensees potentially would
be identifying and addressing improvements to existing programs.
In addition to allowing licensees time for budgeting and planning
to adopt 10 CFR 50.48(c), this extension will also allow
licensees to consider the draft Regulatory Guide (RG) and the
probabilistic risk assessment (PRA) and fire modeling tools in
their decision. This RG and the PRA were issued for public
comment in October 2004. The fire modeling tools will be issued
for public comment in Summer 2005.
Paperwork Reduction Act This policy statement does not contain
new or amended information collection requirements subject to the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) Existing
requirements were approved by the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB), approval number 3150-0136. The approved information
collection requirements contained in this policy statement appear
in Section VII.C. Public Protection Notification The NRC may not
conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to,
collection of information unless it displays a currently valid
OMB control number.
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act In accordance
with the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of
1996, the NRC had determined that this action is not a major rule
and has verified this determination with the Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs of OMB.
Accordingly, the proposed revision to the NRC Enforcement Policy
reads as follows: General Statement of Policy and Procedure for
NRC Enforcement Actions * * * * * Interim Enforcement Policies *
* * * * Interim Enforcement Policy Regarding Enforcement
Discretion for Certain Fire Protection Issues (10 CFR 50.48) * *
* * * B. Existing Identified Noncompliances * * * * * In
addition, licensees may have existing identified noncompliances
that could reasonably be corrected under 10 CFR 50.48(c). For
these noncompliances, the NRC is providing enforcement discretion
for the implementation of corrective actions until the licensee
has transitioned to 10 CFR 50.48(c) provided that the
noncompliances meet all of the following criteria: (1) The
licensee has entered the noncompliance into its corrective action
program and implemented appropriate compensatory measures, (2)
The noncompliance is not associated with a finding that the
Reactor Oversight Process Significance Determination Process
would evaluate
[[Page 2664]] as Red, or it would not be categorized at Severity
Level I, (3) The licensee submits a letter of intent by December
31, 2005, stating its intent to transition to 10 CFR 50.48(c).
After December 31, 2005, as addressed in (3) above, this
enforcement discretion for implementation of corrective actions
for existing identified noncompliances will not be available and
the requirements of 10 CFR 50.48(b) (and any other requirements
in fire protection license conditions) will be enforced in
accordance with normal enforcement practices.
Dated at Rockville, MD, this 11th day of January, 2005.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Annette L. Vietti-Cook, Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. 05-887 Filed 1-13-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
*****************************************************************
14 NRC: Sunshine Act Meeting Notice
FR Doc 05-890
[Federal Register: January 14, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 10)]
[Notices] [Page 2664] From the Federal Register Online via GPO
Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr14ja05-94]
AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
DATE: Week of January 17, 2005.
PLACE: Commissioners' Conference Room, 11555 Rockville Pike,
Rockville, Maryland.
STATUS: Public.
ADDITIONAL MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: Week of January 17, 2005
Tuesday, January 18, 2005 9:55 a.m. Affirmation Session (Public
Meeting) (Tentative). a. System Energy Resources Inc. (Early Site
Permit for Grand Gulf Nuclear Site), Docket Number 52-009, Appeal
by National Association for the Advancement of Colored
People--Claiborne County, Mississippi Branch, Nuclear Information
Service, Public Citizen, and Mississippi Chapter of the Sierra
Club from LBP-04-19. (Tentative). b. Louisiana Energy Services,
L.P. (National Enrichment Facility) (Tentative).
*The schedule for Commission meetings is subject to change on
short notice. To verify the status of meetings call
(recording)--(301) 415- 1292. Contact person for more
information: Dave Gamberoni, (301) 415- 1651.
* * * * * The NRC Commission Meeting Schedule can be found on the
Internet at:
http://www.nrc.gov/what-we-do/policy-making/schedule.html
[http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/leaving.cgi?from=leaving
FR.html&log=linklog&to=http://www.nrc.gov/what-we-do/policy-makin
g/schedule.html] . * * * * * The NRC provides reasonable
accommodation to individuals with disabilities where appropriate.
If you need a reasonable accommodation to participate in these
public meetings, or need this meeting notice or the transcript or
other information from the public meetings in another format
(e.g. braille, large print), please notify the NRC's Disability
Program Coordinator, August Spector, at (301) 415-7080, TDD:
(301) 415- 2100, or by e-mail at aks@nrc.gov [aks@nrc.gov] .
Determinations on requests for reasonable accommodation will be
made on a case-by-case basis.
* * * * * This notice is distributed by mail to several hundred
subscribers; if you no longer wish to receive it, or would like
to be added to the distribution, please contact the Office of the
Secretary, Washington, DC 20555 (301) 415-1969). In addition,
distribution of this meeting notice over the Internet system is
available. If you are interested in receiving this Commission
meeting schedule electronically, please send an electronic
message to dkw@nrc.gov [dkw@nrc.gov] . Dated: January 11, 2005.
Dave Gamberoni, Office of the Secretary.
[FR Doc. 05-890 Filed 1-12-05; 9:32 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-M
*****************************************************************
15 Forbes.com: The Silence of the Nuke Protesters
Christopher Helman, Chana R. Schoenberger and Rob Wherry,
01.31.05
Atomic power is making a comeback, and you hear only muffled
squawks from the usual opponents. Could that have something to
do with the price of oil? Or maybe global warming?
Sandra Lindberg and her husband, Samuel Galewsky, intended to
start a ruckus. She, a theater professor at Illinois Wesleyan
University, and he, a biology prof at Millikin University,
entered the Vespasian Warner Public Library one night in April
2003 to discuss a proposal by Exelon Corp. to add a brand-new
nuclear reactor to its existing plant in Clinton, Ill.
Lindberg and her group, No New Nukes, drew inspiration from
three decades of protests. Like other towns where an outraged
public defeated plans for new plants, Clinton, she hoped, would
reject this one. No new reactors had been proposed in the U.S.
since the Three Mile Island disaster. Outcry over the proposed
repository for radioactive waste at Nevada's Yucca Mountain
showed that America wanted nothing to do with nuclear power.
Or so she thought. By the time of the second meeting, in
December, the town--once split 50-50 on the new reactor--now
overwhelmingly supported the project. Economics, not
environmentalism, seemed to be swaying this rural community.
With unemployment at 8%, Exelon, Dewitt County's largest
employer, said that if the plant were built there would be 3,200
construction jobs, 600 new full-time positions to operate the
plant and a big jump in the county's tax take. By the time
Galewsky finally rose to speak out against the plant, it was
late and the room was almost empty--an outcome that could have
been foretold. With backing from the industry's powerful lobby,
the Nuclear Energy Institute, Exelon had spent weeks meeting
with leaders and heading off the very concerns about health,
safety and the environment that Lindberg hoped would galvanize
the crowd against the plan.
Hot Spots
The U.S. has the largest fleet, but 19 countries get more of
their total juice from nukes. An up-andcoming player: China.
COUNTRY % OF NUCLEAR POWER COUNTRY TO TOTAL OUTPUT
Lithuania 80%
France 78
Slovakia 57
Belgium 55
Sweden 50
Ukraine 46
South Korea 40
Slovenia 40
Switzerland 40
Bulgaria 38
Armenia 35
Hungary 33
Czech Republic 31
Germany 28
Finland 27
Japan 25
Spain 24
U.K. 24
Taiwan 22
U.S.A. 20
Russia 17
Canada 13
Argentina 9
South Africa 6
Romania 9
Mexico 5
Netherlands 5
Brazil 4
India 3
China 2
Pakistan 2
Source: World Nuclear Association.
Yes, nuclear power is back, after a quarter-century of suspended
animation. The industry has avoided the kind of direct
confrontation that might arouse the wrath of an American public
that still doubts the safety of reactors and is spooked about
terrorism. Over the last five years fans of atomic power have
quietly lined up the support of federal and municipal
governments and have cozied up to General Electric and
Westinghouse Electric (now part of the British BNFL Group) in
service to an ambitious agenda: building perhaps 5 new reactors
by 2015, a dozen by 2020 and 50 by midcentury.
The U.S. nuclear construction industry was presumed dead. It is
anything but. If oil prices stay high, if people worry about
carbon dioxide causing global warming, if the Middle East stays
violent, nuclear power stands a good chance of making a huge
comeback in this country.
Six weeks before the last Clinton library meeting, Marilyn Kray,
an Exelon vice president, had gathered 11 executives from the
largest nuclear operators and reactor vendors at a private room
in Olives, a tony Washington, D.C. restaurant three blocks from
the White House. As the dominant player, with 17 of the nation's
103 commercial reactors, Exelon of Chicago took the lead in
discussing the future of the industry. (The company recently
launched a $27 billion bid to buy PSE&G, a deal that would give
it 3 more nuclear reactors and customers in Illinois,
Pennsylvania and New Jersey.) Sitting next to Kray was Dan R.
Keuter, her counterpart at Entergy, the number two operator. As
diners nibbled their salads, the two led them through a 23-page
report. Kray asked, Why not band together to help each other
build new plants--and usher in a new dawn of nuclear power?
Two meetings followed in conference rooms at the
Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport. The result was
a consortium called NuStart Energy--comprising utilities with
30.5 million residential customers and $97 billion in annual
revenues, as well as GE and Westinghouse. Its goal is to choose
two of five sites by September, then go after the permits. By
2007 NuStart expects to see certification of GE's reactor design
and to have its financing, at $1.5 billion per plant, in
place--so a utility could put a plant out for bid the following
year. On that schedule groundbreaking should be in 2010.
Assuming construction goes well, the first new reactor could be
hooked up to the grid five years later. By then there will be
nothing stopping this consortium, and a dozen more plants may be
starting to go up.
Fifteen years ago no one even considered building new reactors.
There was still a bad hangover from the Three Mile Island
meltdown in 1979 and the Chernobyl explosion in 1986. The
economics of the business stank. Far from being "too cheap to
meter," as promoters predicted at the dawn of atomic power a
half-century ago, nuclear energy was a lot more expensive than
energy from coal and natural gas. Many small nuclear-power
operators couldn't even turn a profit on their old reactors.
A big problem was the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, known for
being unpredictable and fatally slow. In 1997 it had 14 plants
on its "watch list" and fined others for such trivial non-safety
violations as recording maintenance records on the wrong form.
Howard Bruschi, former chief technology officer at Westinghouse,
recalls that a regulator asked him to provide additional specs
on an exhaust fan for a men's locker room.
It's usually a mistake to attack the bureaucrats that run your
life, but at a certain point the nuclear power industry decided
it didn't have much to lose. The utilities complained to Senator
Pete V. Domenici (R-N.M.) and the industry's patron saint on
Capitol Hill. In 1998 he faced down NRC chief Shirley Ann
Jackson and gave her an ultimatum: Fix the agency or see its
funding cut by $50 million a year. Jackson (now president of
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute) concedes that shutting down so
many plants was a mistake, but insists that reforms Domenici
takes credit for spurring were already in the works for two
years. She says the new set of risk-based regulations--which
focus on safety, not men's room fans--"was my baby."
Sidebars
The Ancient Archrivals
Stopping The Bad Guys
-
[http://www.forbes.com
*****************************************************************
16 JS Online: State will reconsider Kewaunee plant sale
[http://www.jsonline.com/bym/news/]
Input is sought on deal’s new terms
By THOMAS CONTENT
tcontent@journalsentinel.com Posted: Jan. 13, 2005
The state Public Service Commission agreed Thursday to take a
second look at whether to approve the $220 million sale of the
Kewaunee nuclear plant to a Virginia-based company.
The commission voted unanimously to accept a request from the
owners of the plant and Dominion Resources Inc. of Richmond,
Va., to reconsider its November decision rejecting the sale.
Because of changes in the deal proposed late last month by
Dominion and the Wisconsin utilities, the commission agreed to
accept legal filings from the utilities and the customer groups
that oppose the sale.
The plant is owned by Green Bay-based Wisconsin Public Service
Corp. and Madison-based Wisconsin Power &Light Co. They want to
reduce the operating risks associated with running an aging,
single-reactor plant during a period when national energy
companies are acquiring nuclear reactors.
The companies say customers will be protected from nuclear
operating risks through 2013 because of a power-purchase
agreement that will guarantee the sale of Kewaunee’s electricity
to the two state utilities until then.
Customer groups opposed to the sale have described the plan as
an example of piecemeal deregulation of the state’s power
plants, and they say the risks after 2013 offset the gains to
customers. Groups also have concerns about the commission’s
ability to enforce conditions of the sale that Dominion has
agreed to in the event it later sells the plant.
Burnie Bridge, the commission’s chairwoman, said that Dominion
and the utilities have tried to respond to concerns raised by
the commission in November.
“I have no idea as I sit here today whether they in fact meet
the intent of that,” Bridge added. “But I do think that these
issues are of sufficient import that we need to take them up and
decide them in a very deliberate way.”
Bridge said the commission might allow lawyers for each side to
take the unusual step of presenting oral arguments to the
commission after the legal briefs are filed - most likely by the
end of February.
From the Jan. 14, 2005, editions of the Milwaukee Journal
[http://www.jsonline.com/services]
Journal Sentinel Inc. is a subsidiary of Journal Communications
*****************************************************************
17 Las Vegas SUN: Abraham pushes more nuclear power plants
Yucca continues to be a challenge, outgoing energy secretary says
By Suzanne Struglinski and Benjamin Grove
SUN WASHINGTON
BUREAU
WASHINGTON -- Outgoing Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham today
said his four-year tenure brought progress to the government's
plan to put nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain, but Nevada's
continued legal challenges could lead to additional delays.
"Obviously because of the litigation it does put doubt into the
timetable," Abraham said after a farewell policy speech at the
National Press Club in Washington. "It's an issue that continues
to be a challenge."
But in his speech, Abraham said department officials were "well
on our way toward fulfilling the government's obligation to the
commercial nuclear power industry, and more importantly to the
ratepayers that have been paying into it."
In his speech, Abraham also urged critics and supporters of
nuclear power to set aside their long-standing disagreements and
to work together to forge compromises that pave the way for a
new generation of nuclear power plants in the United States.
A nuclear power plant has not been built in this country for
more than two decades, in part due to costs, regulatory issues
and public opposition.
The issue of how best to dispose of nuclear waste has also been
considered an obstacle to new plant construction. The nuclear
industry for years has been goading the federal government to
make good on its legal obligation to construct a national waste
repository at Yucca Mountain.
Abraham, who will step down as soon as the Senate confirms his
replacement, would not speculate on what lies ahead for the
repository. Yucca faces several hurdles, including budget
shortfalls and an unresolved radiation health safety standard,
set by the Environmental Protection Agency at 10,000 years but
thrown out by a federal court last year.
The department missed its most recent self-imposed project
deadline in December when it did not submit an application for a
license to construct Yucca. Licensing could take three to four
years and construction has not begun, but department officials
are clinging to an ambitious goal of opening the repository as
early as 2010.
Abraham's audience today was primarily members of the
Generation IV International Forum, government and nuclear
industry representatives from the United States and other
countries that have nuclear power.
Abraham will be remembered by Yucca watchers as the energy
secretary who, in 2002, finally deemed Yucca safe after 20 years
of site study. President Bush approved the site on Abraham's
recommendation.
Abraham said he was pleased that "after years of debate with no
firm action, the United States moved ahead with a clear plan to
deal with high-level nuclear waste."
"I believe we are on the right path -- a path that is based on
sound science and a path that I believe will successfully meet
the regulatory tests ahead."
Abraham was a Yucca advocate in his six years as a Republican
senator from Michigan and has been a champion of nuclear power
during his time at the department. He announced his resignation
in November.
Bush nominated Samuel Bodman, now deputy treasury secretary, as
his successor. Bodman's Senate confirmation hearing is next week.
Asked if approving Yucca was on his list of top five
accomplishments, Abraham laughed and told a group of reporters:
"I will write the book and then you guys can pay to see that."
He said he has no specific plans yet for his post-cabinet
career, saying he will spend a few months with his family and
evaluate options.
"I've been in politics for 22 years. I don't think I could
totally separate myself from it," he said. "I have not made a
decision at all."
During his speech, Abraham said he intended "to continue to
play a role in some way in this policy debate" over new nuclear
plants.
In the audience for Abraham's speech was former Nuclear
Regulatory Commission Chairman Richard Meserve, who said the
construction of new nuclear plants was likely soon. The NRC is
responsible for licensing and regulating plants and Yucca.
"It's getting more and more real," said Meserve, who is now
president of the Carnegie Institution.
Meserve said the NRC's new licensing procedures, which include
an early site permit program, allow for a more efficient process
for plants to obtain agency approval. He said the complex
regulatory process and the costs of developing a next-generation
nuclear power plant -- in the hundreds of millions of dollars --
have been the major hurdles to construction of new U.S. plants.
But the nuclear industry, emboldened by Bush administration
support that may include government subsidies, has proposed
ambitious new goals for new plants, including a "Vision 2020"
plan calling for up to 50 new plants by that year.
Three energy companies, Exelon, Entergy and Dominion, have
filed for early site permits for new plants that could be
constructed next to existing plants.
Meserve said the issue of nuclear waste and the long-delayed
Yucca Mountain repository were not obstacles to constructing
more plants.
"Regardless of what happens with Yucca Mountain, you can store
the material safely," Meserve said. "It's a solveable problem."
One nuclear power critic today said it was "tragic" if Abraham
was trying to make his advocacy for nuclear power part of his
legacy. Public Citizen analyst Michele Boyd said Abraham's two
biggest arguments for new plants -- the economic and
environmental advantages of nuclear power -- were the biggest
arguments against new plants.
The industry has no safe solution to the waste problem, she
said. And the industry is asking for significant government
subsidies at taxpayer expense to jump-start its new plant
proposals, she said.
"There is no reason to pursue nuclear energy except for
corporate interest," Boyd said.
Boyd called industry talk of being close to constructing new
plants "propaganda." Among other obstacles, public anxiety
rooted in the disasters at Three Mile Island and Chernobyl still
haunted the public, she said.
"People don't want nuclear power plants in their backyards,"
she said.
*****************************************************************
18 Guardian Unlimited: British Energy to rejoin London market
Terry Macalister
Friday January 14, 2005
The Guardian [http://www.guardian.co.uk]
The country's biggest nuclear power generator, British Energy,
expects to relist its shares on the London Stock Exchange on
Monday but a privatisation row in another part of the atomic
industry refuses to die.
British Energy, based in Scotland, was taken off the equity
market as part of a strategy to push through a Ł1bn financial
restructuring last autumn but always planned to come back once
that debt-for-equity swap was complete.
The company still has to have its rescue plan endorsed by the
high court in Edinburgh today but there is optimism that this
will go through without a hitch.
"We don't expect any appeals against the plan," said a source
close to the creditors yesterday as the unofficial "grey market"
share price ended the day close to 300p, giving BE a value of
about Ł1.7bn.
Minority shareholders led by the Polygon hedge fund previously
tried to halt the restructuring, saying it unfairly favoured
bondholders, but they backed down.
Meanwhile, a dispute over a shake-up at British Nuclear Fuels Ltd
continued yesterday. It started at the weekend with media reports
that the government was looking at selling off parts of BNFL -
owner of Sellafield - to either Bechtel Corporation or Lockheed
Martin of America. The Department of Trade and Indus try insisted
the stories were untrue. "There are no plans to sell it," a
spokeswoman said last night.
But Dai Hudd, national secretary of the Prospect union
representing 6,000 BNFL scientists and engineers, said he had
sought his own denials from both government and BNFL and been met
with a "resounding silence". He said his members were worried and
he is seeking a meeting with the trade and industry secretary,
Patricia Hewitt.
Special report The nuclear industry
Graphics
The Mox ships' journey around the world (pdf)
[http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-files/Guardian/documents/2002/09
/17/nuclear_ship.pdf]
Nuclear map of Britain
US nuclear map
Useful links
British Energy [http://www.british-energy.com/]
Department of Trade and Industry [http://www.dti.gov.uk/]
British Nuclear Fuels Ltd
[http://www.bnfl.co.uk/website.nsf/default.htm]
Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament [http://www.cnduk.org/]
Greenpeace [http://www.greenpeace.org/homepage/]
HSE nuclear glossary [http://www.hse.gov.uk/nsd/ilrwglos.htm]
UK atomic energy authority [http://www.ukaea.org.uk/]
National Radiological Protection Board [http://www.nrpb.org.uk/]
Friends of the Earth
[http://www.foe.co.uk/campaigns/climate/press_for_change/dump_nuc
lear/index.html]
World Nuclear Association [http://www.uilondon.org/]
World Nuclear Transport Institute [http://www.wnti.co.uk]
[UP]
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2005
*****************************************************************
19 St. Petersburg Times: Meanwhile, back in Chernobyl -
#1035, Friday, January 14, 2005
By Helen Womack
SPECIAL TO THE ST. PETERSBURG TIMES Ukraine has been a happening
place since Ruslana, dressed as a warrior, won the Eurovision
Song Contest earlier this year. Now that the Orange Revolution
has put Ukraine squarely on the map, tour operators are
expecting a boom this summer.
Kiev, or Kyiv, as the Ukrainians say, is a gorgeous panorama of
golden-domed churches. If you go to the Kyiv-Pechersk Cave
Monastery and then take in the adjacent World War II memorial
complex with its giant silver statue of the grieving Mother, you
can see Ukrainian history from the 11th to the 20th century in a
single sweep. As for the night life, well, this autumn there was
no need to go in search of clubs, as the main thoroughfare, the
Khreshchatik, was one continuous orange street party.
But what to do with that extra free day? Despite the
distractions of contemporary Kiev, I couldn't get Chernobyl out
of my mind after coming across a web site written by Yelena, a
biker who zooms down the abandoned roads of the contaminated
Zone and calls herself the Kid of Speed. On her web site,
kiddofspeed.com, Yelena waxes lyrical about the peace of the
countryside, left to nature since the residents were evacuated
following the nuclear power plant disaster on April 26, 1986.
But Yelena detests journalists and refuses to give interviews. I
was stuck until I found a small business run by a former
Chernobyl worker that organizes single- or multiple-day tours to
the Zone. Chernobyl External Services deals mainly with foreign
specialists going to ecological conferences, of course, but it
will also get out the white minibus and roll out the red carpet
for the curious layperson. If 20 people can be found to fill the
bus, then the cost for each individual is only $60.
The firm says that on a short visit to Chernobyl, the danger
from radiation is now no greater than flying in an airplane, and
advertises its guided tour as a "safe adventure." In fact, CES
is not the only company offering trips to the Zone, although the
number of takers among visitors from overseas has evidently not
been great so far. The contaminated air is only one
disincentive: In order to enter the 30-kilometer exclusion zone
that was thrown around the nuclear plant after the accident and
is still in force, visitors also need permission from the SBU,
the Ukrainian successor to the Soviet KGB.
Tour leader Sergei Akulinin works with good humor and military
precision. "See you at the bus in eight-and-a-half minutes," he
joked. Not eight, not nine, but eight-and-a-half.
On the eve of the tour just over two weeks ago, I left Kiev for
Slavutich, the new town that was built for atomic workers after
the accident made their old town of Pripyat uninhabitable. It is
a journey of 186 kilometers to the north. Slavutich, with a
population of 25,000 people, is like a model of the old Soviet
Union, as different Soviet republics helped to build it.
Dinner was in a converted bomb shelter, now a restaurant with
nautical themes called Nautilus.
The wall decorations hinted at the Great Barrier Reef. Trout was
on the menu, not locally caught. The drinking water was bottled.
Accommodation was in the three-star European Hotel, originally
built by Finns to be the town hospital. The tour started at 7
a.m. sharp.
Before the tour began, Sergei took me to the Slavutich Cultural
Center to see its explanatory exhibition and memorial bells. The
diagrams of pipes and turbines could only be of interest to a
specialist, but I was moved by the sight of 30 faces staring
from photographs. These were the first victims who died from
massive doses of radiation immediately after the accident, which
happened because an experiment on the fourth bloc went wrong. On
another wall was the face of Viktor Bryukhanov, the
then-director of Chernobyl, who was made to bear the
responsibility and jailed for 10 years.
"It was not an atomic explosion but a heat explosion," Sergei
made clear. Nevertheless, radioactive dust from the ruined
reactor was carried on the wind over a wide area of Ukraine and
into neighboring Belarus and Russia. The communist authorities
failed to warn the population immediately - indeed, May Day
parades went ahead in Kiev - and it was Sweden that first
alerted the world to the disaster.
The death toll has now run into the thousands, and incidences
of thyroid cancer and leukemia are high in the area. Hundreds of
thousands of people, including Army conscripts, were involved in
the cleanup, and all of these people face the possibilities of
illness and premature death. An exact toll will never be
calculated.
Under pressure from Europe, Ukrainian President Leonid Kuchma
closed the whole power station in 2001. Which was why I was
astonished to start the tour the next morning by commuting to
the mothballed power station on an electric train together with
hundreds of workers from Slavutich. Far from being a ghostly
scene, the power station is a hive of activity, as the workers
have to maintain the metal sarcophagus that seals the fourth
reactor and keep an eye on the other closed blocs.
The route to Chernobyl from Slavutich runs through the
territory of Alexander Lukashenko's Belarus. Because I did not
have a visa to enter the country, I went on the train with all
the sleepy workers, who are not checked by the border guards.
The driver of the white minibus took my luggage over the
Belarussian border and met me with it at the station, which is
back inside Ukrainian territory. I had spent 10 days in Kiev
with the orange protesters, and if Lukashenko was interested, my
rucksack contained nothing but dirty clothes.
The train passed through a landscape of pine forests and
rust-colored marshes. Storks' nests and bunches of mistletoe
decorated the dark skeletons of the deciduous trees.
The workers poured out onto a platform enclosed with corrugated
iron and trudged down a plastic-floored corridor to machines
that checked them for radiation. Then they changed into the
clothes they keep for work - turquoise jackets with black suits
underneath - so as not to spread the contamination back home.
They are happy to work here because the wages at Chernobyl
average $350 per month, which is good pay by Ukrainian standards.
After the dosimeter machine pronounced me clean, I was whisked
off to the Sarcophagus Viewing Center, where you get to watch a
video and see a scale-model of the inside of the wrecked fourth
reactor while looking out the wide glass window at the encased
reactor itself. For some reason, I had expected a dome, but the
sarcophagus, built to last for 30 years, looks more like a roof,
gray as a crow's wing.
In elegant English, tour guide Yulia Marusich explained that
the sarcophagus is unstable and that plans are being drawn up to
replace it, as the plutonium and other elements in the reactor
will be lethal for centuries to come.
Next stop was the ghost town of Pripyat, abandoned in the days
immediately after the accident. The silence was eerie. Sergei
pointed to his old flat in an apartment building at 34 Lesya
Ukrainka. He sighed. "My wife and I used to push our sons' baby
carriage up this alley. Our youth is here." Stray dogs barked.
We thought it wise to move on.
The air smelled sweet after the car fumes of Kiev. Blue jays
flitted in the bushes. In the absence of people, the streets and
countryside around were completely litter-free. The red rose
hips and black wolfberries looked a normal size. Sergei said
that after the accident, monster pinecones had appeared and the
needles of the pine trees had grown the wrong way around, but
that gradually Nature had righted herself.
We drove on to the town of Chernobyl, an old settlement with
little cottages and a white, blue and yellow Orthodox church.
Here, specialists from the Ukrainian Emergency Situations
Ministry work 15 days on and 15 days off, studying and cleaning
up the Zone. We lunched royally in their cafeteria; from the
taste of the food, there was nothing wrong with it.
Mykola Dmitruk, the information officer for the ministry, said
that scientists are still not sure how safe the Chernobyl area
is and that, personally, he does not recommend visits to
ordinary tourists.
"The tour operators include a day at Chernobyl," he said.
"Twenty to 30 people sign up, but when Day Zero comes, most of
them decide to stay in Kiev. We get one or two people coming.
Mostly they have an interest in ecology."
Our last stop was the village of Ilyntsi, once home to 100
people but now nearly deserted except for a few elderly
residents who returned after evacuating to other regions of
Ukraine. Up a lane, some men were cutting wood. In the yard of
one house, clean washing was hanging on a line. We rang the bell
and were invited into the home of Galya Pavlovna.
Weeping, the old woman, originally from southern Ukraine,
explained how she had married for a second time and come to the
Zone with her new husband. Then he had died and she had been
left in what she called an "alien" place with few social
services.
As a parting gift, Pavlovna pressed on me a pillowcase
decorated with Ukrainian embroidery. To my shame, I passed this
gift from the heart, together with myself, through the dosimeter
when I departed. The radiation reading was normal.
To book a trip to Chernobyl through Chernobyl External Services,
contact Sergei Akulinin at chvs@slavutich.kiev.ua
More arts stories:
CHERNOV'S CHOICE | Cool curry | Revolutionary debut | Authorial
views | Here comes the bride | Boris Shtokolov (1930-2005) |
Something to say? Write to the Opinion Page Editor.
E-mail [letters@sptimesrussia.com?subject=Meanwhile, back in
Chernobyl ] or online form:
[Copyright] copyright The St. Petersburg Times 1993-2004
*****************************************************************
20 AccessNorthGa: Southern Co. requests federal funding to study possible sites
for nuclear plant
North Georgia's Newsroom [AccessNorthGa.com]
January 14 , 2005
The Associated Press - ATLANTA
Southern Co. is asking the U.S. Department of Energy to help pay
for a study of possible sites for a new nuclear power plant.
The company applied for $245,000 in funding on Dec. 29, but
Georgia Power spokesman John Sell insisted Thursday that the
proposal is merely for exploratory purposes and does not imply
Southern Co. will build another plant.
Southern Co. already operates three nuclear plants within its
four-state territory. Two of the existing plants are in Georgia,
one near Baxley and the other near Waynesboro. Its other plant
is in Dothan, Ala.
If funding is approved, Southern Co. expects to complete its
study by March and decide later whether to apply for permits
from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The company will examine
potential new sites for a plant as well as the possibility of
building plants on existing sites.
A nuclear power plant has not been licensed in the United States
in nearly 30 years _ a few years before the Three Mile Island
accident in Pennsylvania. But the Bush administration has been
pushing for that to change and has streamlined nuclear licensing.
Despite claims that nuclear-plant technology is better than it
used to be, opponents insist it is still not environmentally
friendly and that the industry has difficulties handling nuclear
waste.
"We're against it," said Georgia Sierra Club spokeswoman Colleen
Kiernan.
___
Copyright 2005 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This
*****************************************************************
21 Xinhua: China's nuclear power construction enters crucial stage - premier
www.xinhuanet.com
www.chinaview.cn 2005-01-14 17:39:50
BEIJING, Jan. 14 (Xinhuanet) -- Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao
said that China's nuclear power construction has entered a
crucial stage, when he inspected Dayawan Nuclear Power Plant in
south China's Guangdong Province recently.
Wen said relevant government departments should establish an
overall plan for their construction, nailing down the scale and
layout of nuclear power projects.
"China should build up a self-reliant nuclear power industry
system," Wen said.
He said that it is necessary to introduce advanced
technology from overseas to improve China's own atomic energy
research and development capacity.
He said all nuclear power projects should be constructed in
theprinciple of putting security and quality first. Relevant
regulations and system should be improved and nuclear accident
emergency system should be built as soon as possible.
The year 2005 was the 50th anniversary of China's foundation
ofnuclear power industry. Wen said that he sincerely appreciated
those working at the front-line of the country's nuclear power
industry.
With Qinshan Nuclear Power Plant (NPP) starting operation in
1991, there have been 9 nuclear power plants in operation in
Chinaby July 2004, whose total capacity reached 7.01 million
kilowatts.
As an important shift in the country's energy development
strategy, China is taking steps to increase the proportion of
nuclear power in its overall energy supply and make it an
important element of energy development in future.
China will generate 36 million kw of nuclear electricity in
2020, accounting for more than 4 percent of its total installed
power generating capacity, a Chinese top official in atomic
energysaid a few months ago. Enditem
Copyright ©2003 Xinhua News Agency. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
22 TheStar.com: Make or break year for nuclear power
Fri. Jan. 14, 2005. | Updated at 05:29 PM
PETE FISHER PHOTO
Ontario Power Generation staff, wearing protective gear, stand in
front of the face of the Unit One nuclear reactor at Pickering.
The ends of dozens of pressure tubes dot the reactor’s face.
$1 billion riding on the revival of Unit One reactor Pickering
tour shows the risks and complexity
JOHN SPEARS BUSINESS REPORTER
It's not much to look at, sitting in the midst of a cavernous
turbine hall at the Pickering nuclear generating station: A
bright yellow metal box, about the size of a Greyhound bus, as
Ontario Power Generation's Scott Berry says.
But cranking the generator inside that box — a 100-tonne magnetic
bar spinning inside 21,336 metres of copper windings — is the
entire focus of Pickering's current billion-dollar nuclear
project.
And it's the entire reason for the existence of the hulking
Pickering plant, which contains eight such bus-sized generators
within a complex that sprawls across 721 metres of Lake Ontario
shoreline.
Five of the generators are up and running, each powered by its
own nuclear reactor.
The successes and crashing failures of the Pickering station have
shaped and broken careers in both business and politics. The
current effort to restart Pickering's Unit One, laid up since
1997, is no different.
If it goes well, and the Unit One generator starts churning out
more than 500 megawatts of power as scheduled next fall, it will
give a boost to Ontario's power system and add to the political
capital of the Liberal government, which approved the project.
It will also add some lustre to the Canadian nuclear industry,
whose recent successes have been abroad rather than at home.
If the project stumbles — as did the restart of Unit Four, a
sister to Unit One — it will cast doubts about the long-term
viability of the entire, aging Pickering station, which in theory
can supply about 10 per cent of the province's power on a day of
moderate demand.
A technical or financial failure will also sharpen questions
about whether nuclear technology in general, and Canada's version
of it in particular, is right for Ontario.
The big question for expert and laymen alike is: Why on earth
does it cost nearly $1 billion to retune and restart a laid-up
reactor?
The four workers crouching on top of the reactor wearing
full-body protective rubber suits could give some answers, if you
could only talk to them.
But visitors have a hard time talking or hearing anyone inside
the reactor because of the clumsy, filtered breathing masks they
wear.
One of the first things the workers might mention is just how
cramped the space is inside the reactor silo.
The reactor takes up much of the lower space. Permanent catwalks
run around the perimeter of the silo, leading to platforms at
various levels.
But what little free space there is, is absolutely crammed with
custom-built scaffolding. It's needed to give workers access to
all parts of the reactor, but it also occupies space itself and
means there's endless clambering up and down, and squeezing
through small spaces.
Pickering, Ontario's oldest nuclear facility, has an added
inconvenience: The presence of 16 boilers inside the silo.
A nuclear reactor is essentially a huge heating kettle. Uranium
fuel encased in tubes running through the reactor core heats
heavy water, which runs through boilers that heat conventional
water into steam.
Steam then drives conventional turbines — the kind you'd find in
a coal- or gas-fired generating station — which then turn the
crank of the big generators.
At Pickering, the boilers are inside the reactor silo itself.
There's no essential reason for them being there. In more modern
plants, the heated heavy water is piped to boilers outside the
reactor building, which means the boilers are not sitting in a
potentially "hot" radioactive environment that requires workers
to wear special equipment and follow the strictest nuclear work
practices.
But at Pickering, any work on the boilers means welders and
pipe-fitters must suit up in clumsy protective gear with
breathing filters, and follow special nuclear procedures not
needed on a conventional worksite.
Those procedures start from the time they check in for work,
where they pass through a security screening area that reads
their palm print. There's also a sniffer station that puffs air
past anyone entering the secure zone, seeking explosives.
Next up is a full body scan checking for radiation, before
workers pull on protective boots, suits and breathers if they're
entering the reactor itself. That's done through a special
airlock that keeps the reactor building sealed under low air
pressure to retain any radioactive particles that might be
floating in the air.
Every time workers leave a potentially "hot" area of the plant
and enter a less hazardous area, they must line up to be scanned
for radioactive contamination. That's a few more minutes of
unproductive time.
The reactors remain highly radioactive because when they were
shut down, OPG decided to leave the uranium fuel inside. That was
partly because they expected the reactors to be restarted without
much delay, and partly because there were inadequate storage
facilities at the time for radioactive fuel.
Had the reactors been emptied of fuel, refurbishment would be far
less complex.
The security, health screening and dressing times all reduce time
spent actually on the job. (OPG has tried to blunt that impact by
moving workers to a four-day week with longer shifts so workers
spend a lesser percentage of their day entering and exiting.)
The tight space inside the reactor presents added problems. At
times, chunks of pipe or equipment that may be nearly 10 metres
long and three wide may have to be manoeuvred into the reactor
core.
Sometimes, that means tearing down big chunks of scaffolding
inside the reactor, manhandling the new equipment into place,
then rebuilding the scaffolding to give access back to the
workers.
All the work is done wearing full-body protective equipment.
Each worker also wears a device that records the radiation to
which he or she is exposed. In a 40-minute tour of the reactor
area, a group of reporters each picked up a dose of 0.8 millirems
of radiation.
That's the equivalent of about one day's exposure to normal
background radiation on the earth's surface. You'd get about the
same dose flying 775 kilometres in an aircraft, or eating 80
bananas.
A chest X-ray, by contrast exposes you to 7 millirems, a dental
X-ray to 1 millirem. Nuclear workers are allowed a maximum yearly
dosage of 5,000 millirems, though OPG tries to keep its staff
well below the maximum.
Not visible inside the reactor building itself are the controls
that will one day run its operations.
The control room is outside the "hot" area, but there's plenty
going on here, too.
A new emergency shutdown system has been installed in the two
restarted units. The control panels for Units One and Four each
have a whole new array of displays to control and monitors to run
the shutdown system, which drops rods into the reactor core to
halt the reaction.
Extensive rewiring is being carried out to connect the new
systems but also to make the cables travelling throughout the
facility more robust. In the worst case, a severe accident could
release clouds of radioactive steam throughout the station.
Wiring and control equipment must be encased in insulation or
other protection strong enough to withstand the hot, wet,
radioactive conditions.
All these conditions, while difficult, were known to OPG when
they embarked on planning the Pickering refit a year after four
units were laid up.
And yet, the costs grew from the initial estimate of $780 million
to restart all four reactors, to $1.3 billion to restart just
one, Unit Four.
Richard Dicerni, OPG's acting chief executive, insists that the
problems that infected the Unit Four restart have been fixed.
They were, he told reporters following a tour of the plant,
largely problems of dealing with complexity.
Engineering assessments weren't carried out before the project
started. That meant plans were constantly changed, and over-all
co-ordination dissolved.
Quality control was haphazard as well. For example, cable
splicing was done poorly, but the low quality wasn't discovered
quickly.
"We had to go back and redo and tremendous number," says senior
vice president Bill Robinson.
This time around, he says, there's far tighter monitoring so that
problems are caught early and corrected before they become
endemic.
Dicerni and Robinson say they're on track to start up the Unit
One reactor in June.
Testing and commissioning all the operating and safety systems
will take several months, so commercial operation will not be
before October.
Then it will be time to turn attention to the final two
mothballed units at Pickering. Dicerni says OPG is already
working on a business case for restarting the two units, but it's
not complete.
Options include restarting both reactors, leaving them idle, or
hiring an outside contractor to refurbish them, Dicerni said.
"We are obviously keeping a close eye on Unit One" as the options
are assessed, he said.
There's another reason. Pickering's currently operating units
reach the end of their normal operating lives starting in 2009.
If Unit One is a success, refurbishing them becomes a more
plausible option for Ontario.
If not, the province will face the long-term choice of embarking
on a future with a different type of nuclear technology — or no
nuclear technology at all.
*****************************************************************
23 ThisisLondon: British Energy poised for comeback
thisislondon.co.uk
James Quinn, Daily Mail,
14 January 2005
THE value of embattled nuclear generator British Energy could
soar to Ł1.8bn when it rejoins the London Stock Exchange on
Monday. When it delisted in October, the nuclear giant was worth
just Ł90m.
Shares in the restructured firm were pre-trading yesterday in
the 315p-320p range. A share price of 315p would result in a
Ł1.8bn value, said UBS analyst Andrew Wright.
The restructuring - subject to court approval today - may bring
some relief to the firm's 230,000 small shareholders. BE's Ł1bn
debt-for-equity swap left investors with just 2.5% of the
shares.
British Energy's relisting prospectus revealed that creditors
including Deutsche Bank and secretive US hedge fund manager
Brian Stark would hold more than 3% of the new shares.
Seven BE bosses could share in a bonus bonanza of at least Ł25m
in three years' time. Chief nuclear officer Roy Anderson is set
to top the payouts with a possible Ł9.89m.
BE acknowledged the indicative market value but warned that
early trading could be volatile.
*****************************************************************
24 NRC: NRC Seeks Public Input on Brunswick Nuclear Plant Environmental Issues for
License Renewal
News Release - Region II - 2005-00
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
Office of Public Affairs, Region II
No. II-05-002 January 14, 2005
CONTACT: Ken Clark (404) 562-4416
Roger D. Hannah (404) 562-4417 E-mail: opa2@nrc.gov
[opa2@nrc.gov]
The U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff will hold two
public meetings Thursday, Jan. 27, in Southport, N.C., on the
environmental review of Progress Energys application to renew
the operating licenses for the two Brunswick Nuclear Plant
reactors near Southport. The public is invited to attend and
comment on environmental issues the NRC should consider in its
review of the proposed license renewal.
The meetings will be at the Southport City Hall at 201 E. Moore
Street. The meeting room is on the second floor and the building
has no elevator, so it is not handicapped accessible. However,
the NRC staff will try to make arrangements to accommodate
anyone who wishes to attend and participate in the meeting.
There will be two similar sessions, one in the afternoon from
1:30 p.m. until 4:30 p.m., and one in the evening from 7:00 p.m.
until 10:00 p.m. In addition, the NRC staff will host informal
discussions one hour prior to each meeting to answer questions
and provide additional information about the process. However,
formal comments on environmental issues cannot be accepted
during the informal sessions.
For planning purposes, those who wish to present oral comments
at the meeting are encouraged to contact Richard L. Emch Jr. of
the NRC by telephone at 1-800-368-5642, Extension 1590, or by
email at BrunswickEIS@nrc.gov [BrunswickEIS@nrc.gov] . People
may also register to speak before the start of each session.
Individual comment time may be limited by the time available.
The meetings will include an overview and NRC staff presentation
on the environmental process related to license renewal, after
which members of the public will be given the opportunity to
present their comments on what environmental issues the NRC
should consider during its review.
Under NRC regulations, the original operating license for a
nuclear power plant is issued for up to 40 years. The license
may be renewed for up to an additional 20 years if NRC
requirements are met. The current operating licenses for the
Brunswick plants two units will expire on September 8, 2016, for
Unit 1, and December 27, 2014, for Unit 2. Progress Energy
submitted its application for the two units license renewal on
October 20, 2004.
The application is available for public review at the William
Madison Randall Library, 601 S. College Road, Wilmington, N.C.
It is also available in the NRC Public Document Room at NRC
Headquarters, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike,
Rockville, Maryland, on the Internet at
www.nrc.gov/reactors/operating/licensing/renewal/applications/bru
nswick.html.
An existing NRC document, Generic Environmental Impact Statement
for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, (NUREG-1437), assesses
the scope and impact of environmental effects that would be
associated with license renewal at any nuclear power plant site.
The NRC staff is gathering information at these meetings for a
supplement to the generic environmental impact statement that
will be specific to Brunswick. It will contain a recommendation
regarding the environmental acceptability of the license renewal
action.
At the conclusion of the information-gathering process, the NRC
staff will prepare a summary of conclusions and significant
issues and will send a copy to interested persons who
participated in the scoping process. The summary will also be
available for public review at the William Madison Randall
Library, and accessible electronically at
www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html.
The NRC staff will then prepare a draft environmental impact
statement supplement for public comment and will hold a public
meeting to solicit comments. After consideration of comments
received on the draft, the NRC will prepare a final EIS
supplement.
Members of the public may also submit written comments on the
scope of the Brunswick-specific supplement to the generic
environmental impact statement. Comments should be submitted by
March 11, 2005, either by mail to the Chief, Rules and
Directives Branch, Division of Administrative Services, Mail
Stop T-6-D-59, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington,
D.C., 20555-0001, or by email to: BrunswickEIS@nrc.gov
[BrunswickEIS@nrc.gov] .
Last revised Friday, January 14, 2005
*****************************************************************
25 NRC: NRC Staff to Meet with Pacific Gas &Electric Co. To Discuss Results of Engineering
Team Inspection
News Release - Region IV - 2005-00
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
Office of Public Affairs, Region IV
No. IV-05-002 January 14, 2005
CONTACT: Victor Dricks
Phone: 817-860-8128
E-mail: [opa4@nrc.gov]
Nuclear Regulatory Commission officials will meet with
representatives of Pacific Gas & Electric Co. on Tuesday, Feb.
15, to discuss the results of the agencys engineering team
inspection at the Diablo Canyon nuclear plant. Diablo Canyon is
located near San Luis Obispo, Calif., and is operated by Pacific
Gas & Electric.
The engineering team inspection is part of an effort by the NRC
to improve its Reactor Oversight Process by consolidating
several engineering inspections into one comprehensive effort
involving about 700 inspection hours, said Bruce Mallet, NRCs
Region IV administrator. Five inspectors spent three weeks
conducting a very comprehensive review and this meeting will
provide the public with an opportunity hear about our findings
and ask questions.
The meeting will be held at the Embassy Suites Hotel, 333
Madonna Road, San Luis Obispo, from 6 to 9 p.m. The public is
invited to observe the meeting and NRC staff will be available
for comments and questions from the public before the meeting
adjourns.
Last revised Friday, January 14, 2005
*****************************************************************
26 NRC: Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Schedules Hearings on Proposed Uranium Enrichment Plant in New
Mexico
News Release - 2005-01
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
Office of Public Affairs Telephone: 301/415-8200
Washington, DC 20555-0001 E-mail: opa@nrc.gov
No. 05-010 January 14, 2005
The Nuclear Regulatory Commissions Atomic Safety and Licensing
Board (ASLB) will begin evidentiary hearings Feb. 7 in Hobbs,
N.M., on a proposed uranium enrichment plant to be built in Lea
County. Saturday, Feb. 12, will be set aside for members of the
public to make brief statements.
During the hearings, the ASLB will hear evidence on four
environmental contentions regarding the proposed National
Enrichment Facility to be built by Louisiana Energy Services
near Eunice, N.M. These contentions concern impacts on ground
and surface water, water supplies, waste storage and the need
for the facility.
Members of the Licensing Board are G. Paul Bollwerk, III,
Chairman; Dr. Paul B. Abramson and Dr. Charles N. Kelber.
The evidentiary hearings will begin at 9:30 a.m. on Monday, Feb.
7, and continue daily until concluded. They will be held at the
Lea County Event Center, 5101 Lovington Highway, Hobbs, N.M.
While these hearings will be open to the public, parts of the
sessions regarding each of the contentions may be closed due to
discussions that may involve sensitive information.
On Saturday, Feb. 12, from 10:00 a.m. to noon the ASLB will
convene at the Eunice Community Center, 1115 Avenue I, in
Eunice, N.M., to hear statements from the public. A second
session will be held from 2:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m., if there is
sufficient interest. Members of the public who are not a party
or representative of a party to the hearings may make oral
statements no longer than five minutes regarding the
environmental contentions on the proposed facility.
Persons wishing to speak at the Feb. 12 sessions are strongly
advised to register in advance both with the NRC Secretary and
with the Board. Based on registrations received by noon EST on
Feb. 3, the Board may decide whether Saturday sessions will be
held.
Written requests to make oral statements at the Feb. 12 sessions
should be submitted to Office of the Secretary, Rulemakings and
Adjudications Staff, by fax to (301) 415-1101, or e-mailed to
hearingdocket@nrc.gov [hearingdocket@nrc.gov] . Requests should
also be sent to the Board by fax to (301) 415-5599, or e-mail to
ksv@nrc.gov [ksv@nrc.gov] and gpb@nrc.gov [gpb@nrc.gov] .
Members of the public attending any of the ASLB sessions are
strongly advised to arrive early to allow time to pass through
any security measures that may be employed. Attendees are also
requested not to bring any unnecessary hand-carried items, such
as packages, briefcases, backpacks or other items that may need
to be examined individually. During the sessions, signs no
larger than 18" by 18" will be permitted, but may not be
attached to sticks, held up, or moved about in the rooms.
Last revised Friday, January 14, 2005
*****************************************************************
27 [du-list] Paying the Price - Public Meeting on Iraq
Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2005 14:59:05 -0800
Paying the Price - Saving the Children of Iraq!
Public Meeting
Over One Million Iraqi Children died, in the silent Holocaust that was the
UN imposed Sanctions regime between the years of 1991-2003!
Paying the Price - Saving the Children of Iraq, is going to be looking at
the lives of the ordinary Iraqi people and their families during the
Sanctions era, along with the work of those heroic people and organisations
such as CARE International, which was headed by Margaret Hassan and the
Human Relief Foundation, who through war and the social destruction of an
entire country, continued to go back to Iraq and help the ordinary Iraqi
people in their daily struggles against poverty, starvation and the loss of
an entire generation.
Paying the Price - Saving the Children of Iraq are two special public
meetings that will be addressed by award winning, free-lance journalist Ms.
Felicity Arbuthnot, a devoted campaigner for the Iraqi people, who through
television documentaries, radio shows, endless speaking tours around the
world and through newspaper articles - managed to expose to the people in
the Western world, the true destructive nature, that this policy has had on
a part of the world, that is heralded as: "the cradle of civilisation".
Paying the Price - Saving the Children of Iraq!
Speaker Ms. Felicity Arbuthnot
Manchester Meeting!
Date: Wednesday 26th January Time: 7-30pm
Venue: The Friends Meeting House, Mount Street, Manchester
(behind the Central Reference Library)
Liverpool Meeting!
Date: Thursday 27th January Time: 7-30pm
Venue: The CASA Club, 29 Hope Street, Liverpool
(ten minutes from the Lime Street Train Station).
Organised by the Iraq Solidarity Campaign (UK),
Sponsored by the Middle East Cultural Association.
For more information please call: 0161 882 0188 / 07946 783 801
E-mail: MCR_Coalition@yahoo.co.uk
Postal Address: Iraq Solidarity Campaign, C/o Bridge 5 Mill, 22a Beswick
Street, Ancoats, Manchester, M4 7HR, the UK.
---------------------------------
How much mail storage do you get for free? Yahoo! Mail gives you 250MB!
Get Yahoo! Mail
[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/
*****************************************************************
28 NRC: Petition denial for ICN Worldwide Dosimetry
[Docket No. PRM-20-25]
FR Doc 05-778
[Federal Register: January 14, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 10)]
[Proposed Rules] [Page 2577-2580] From the Federal Register
Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr14ja05-18]
Sander C. Perle, ICN Worldwide Dosimetry; Denial of Petition for
Rulemaking
AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
ACTION: Petition for rulemaking; Denial.
SUMMARY: The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is denying a
petition for rulemaking submitted by Sander C. Perle, ICN
Worldwide Dosimetry (now Global Dosimetry Solutions, Inc.)
(PRM-20-25). The petitioner requested that the NRC amend its
regulations to require that any dosimeter, without exception,
that is used to report dose of record and demonstrate compliance
with the dose limits specified in the Commission's regulations be
processed and evaluated by a dosimetry processor holding
accreditation from the National Voluntary Laboratory
Accreditation Program (NVLAP) of the National Institute of
Standards and Technology; the definition of ``Individual
monitoring devices'' (individual monitoring equipment) be revised
to mean any device used by licensees to show compliance with the
Commission's regulations; and ``electronic dosimeters and
optically stimulated dosimeters'' be added as additional examples
of individual monitoring devices.
ADDRESSES: Copies of the petition for rulemaking, the public
comments received, and the NRC's letter to the petitioner are
available for public inspection and/or copying in the NRC Public
Document room, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland. These
same documents are also available on the NRC's rulemaking Web
site at
[http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/leaving.cgi?from=leaving
FR.html&log=linklog&to=http://ruleforum.llnl.gov] . For
information about the interactive rulemaking Web site, contact
Carol Gallagher, (301) 415-5905, e-mail: [CAG@nrc.gov] .. The
NRC maintains an Agencywide Document Access and Management System
(ADAMS), which provides text and image files of NRC's public
documents. These documents may be accessed through the NRC's
Public Electronic Reading Room on the Internet at
[http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/leaving.cgi?from=leaving
FR.html&log=linklog&to=http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html]
.
If you do not have access to ADAMS or if there are problems in
accessing the documents located in ADAMS, contact the NRC Public
Document Room Reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or
by e-mail to [pdr@nrc.gov] . Note: Public access to documents,
including access via ADAMS and the PDR, has been temporarily
suspended so that security reviews of publicly available
documents may be performed and potentially sensitive information
removed.
However, access to the documents identified in this Federal
Register continues to be available through the rulemaking Web
site at
[http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/leaving.cgi?from=leaving
FR.html&log=linklog&to=http://ruleforum.llnl.gov] , which was not
affected by the ADAMS shutdown. Please check with the listed NRC
contact concerning any issues related to document availability.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Torre Taylor, Office of Nuclear
Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: (301) 415-7900;
e-mail: [tmt@nrc.gov] .
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Petition On May 5, 2003 (68 FR
23618), the NRC published a notice of receipt of a petition for
rulemaking filed by Sander C. Perle, ICN Worldwide Dosimetry (now
Global Dosimetry Solutions, Inc.). The petitioner requested that
the NRC amend its regulations to require that any dosimeter,
without exception, that is used to report dose of record and
demonstrate compliance with the dose limits specified in the
Commission's regulations be processed and evaluated by a
dosimetry processor holding accreditation from NVLAP; the
definition of ``Individual monitoring devices'' [in 10 CFR
20.1003] (hereafter, ``10 CFR Section'' referred to as Sec. )
(individual monitoring equipment) be revised to mean any device
used by licensees to show compliance with Sec. 20.1201; and
``electronic dosimeters and optically stimulated dosimeters'' be
added as additional examples of individual monitoring devices in
the definition of ``Individual monitoring devices.'' The
petitioner stated that the current wording of Sec.
20.1501(copyright)) precludes testing and accreditation
requirements for an electronic dosimeter. The petitioner also
stated that today's electronic dosimeters use multiple
microprocessors that include many complex user input parameters
that ultimately affect the final dose and/or dose rate reported.
The dose determined from an electronic dosimeter is a
``processed'' dose. The electronic dosimeter requires that the
licensee program the dosimeter to respond to various spectra,
based on the calibration and other licensee set parameters.
According to the petitioner, the NRC's position is that, because
the current Sec. 20.1501(c) does not appear to include
[[Page 2578]] the definition of an electronic dosimeter, nothing
prohibits a licensee from using an electronic dosimeter to
establish a dose of record. The petitioner states that the NRC's
philosophy is that the NRC onsite inspector can assess the
validity of the electronic dosimeter quality assurance program.
The petitioner believes that the NVLAP onsite assessor [the NVLAP
onsite assessor who inspects the facility requesting
accreditation] is the most appropriate individual to assess a
facility's quality assurance program, and to determine if the
electronic dosimeter is capable of measuring and reporting
accurate and precise dose results for workers in a specific
radiation work environment, as the NVLAP onsite assessor does for
all other NVLAP accredited whole body dosimeters.
The petitioner also stated that the current wording of Sec.
20.1501(c) precludes testing and accreditation requirements for
an extremity dosimeter (finger or wrist dosimeter). The
petitioner states that because Sec. 20.1201, Occupational dose
limits for adults, specifies a dose limit, including the annual
limits to the extremities, which are a shallow dose equivalent of
50 rems (0.5 Sv) to the skin or to an extremity, it would seem
logical that the dosimeter used to make this dose determination
should be accredited through the same process as a whole body
dosimeter. The petitioner indicated that NVLAP has accredited
[processors of] extremity dosimeters per American National
Standards Institute (ANSI) standard N13.32-1995, ``Performance
Testing of Extremity Dosimeters,'' for the past 8 years. The
petitioner believes that there is no reason to continue to
exclude [processors of] extremity dosimeters from required NVLAP
accreditation.
The petitioner believes that requiring NVLAP accreditation [for
the use] of electronic dosimeters provides an unbiased
third-party evaluation and recognition of performance, as well as
expert technical guidance to upgrade laboratory performance.
NVLAP accreditation signifies that a laboratory has demonstrated
that it operates in accordance with NVLAP management and
technical requirements pertaining to quality systems; personnel;
accommodation and environment; test and calibration methods;
equipment; measurement traceability; sampling; handling of test
and calibration items; and test and calibration reports. NVLAP
accreditation does not imply any guarantee (certification) of
laboratory performance or test/calibration data; it is solely a
finding of laboratory competence.
Public Comments on the Petition The notice of receipt of the
petition for rulemaking invited interested persons to submit
comments. The petition was docketed as PRM-20-25. The petition
was published in the Federal Register on May 5, 2003 (68 FR
23618), for a 75-day comment period. The comment period closed on
July 21, 2003. NRC received nine comment letters from utilities,
industry, the public, and a State radiation control program. NRC
also received three comment letters from the petitioner, in
response to public comments NRC received regarding the petition.
Six commenters recommended that NRC deny the petition, three
commenters supported the petition, but with substantial changes,
and three comments were received from the petitioner responding
to comments that the NRC received on the petition. The majority
of the commenters opposed the petition. Two commenters agreed
with the intent of the petition; however, they had concerns with
the proposed regulatory language. Several commenters noted that
the proposed revision would require NVLAP accreditation [of
processors] for all dosimeters, including dosimeters that are
used as backup dosimeters. [Note that the terms ``secondary'' and
``backup dosimetry'' are used by the commenters. NRC does not
have a definition for ``secondary'' or ``backup dosimetry.'']
Some commenters indicated that electronic dosimeters are control
devices for real-time exposure information and should not be
subject to NVLAP accreditation for the processor.
The concern is that licensees might then issue only one NVLAP
accredited dosimeter and remove the redundancy now in place with
wearing a second dosimeter.
Cost was a major issue with the commenters. One commenter
believes the proposed revision could force a licensee to hire a
third party to oversee and implement its use of electronic
dosimeters. Others commented that NVLAP testing costs would at
least double. Some commenters believe that the cost of
accreditation does not warrant the benefit of having all
dosimeters evaluated by a NVLAP accredited dosimetry processor.
Several commenters believed that the proposed revision would
impose additional burden that is unnecessary and unjustified.
One commenter questioned the petitioner's statement that
electronic dosimetry is processed. One commenter questioned the
availability of a viable standard for electronic dosimetry upon
which to base NVLAP testing.
Regarding the petitioner's proposed change to require NVLAP
accreditation for processors of extremity dosimetry, one
commenter indicated that the current standard for extremity
dosimetry, ANSI/ Health Physics Society (HPS) N13.32-1995,
``Performance Testing of Extremity Dosimeters,'' is undergoing a
major revision, and that NRC should defer any rulemaking on this
issue until the revision of this standard is completed.
One commenter believes that the proposed revision represents a
backfit requirement and that it would impose new requirements on
licensees with an additional burden to revise programs and
procedures, and to provide training. Many commenters believe that
the current programs for monitoring and recording occupational
radiation dose are adequate to assure protection of worker health
and safety and did not believe the petitioner provided
information to the contrary. One commenter did not believe that
the petition described a regulatory problem or issue in the
current program and that the proposed revision only provided an
enhancement to the regulations. One commenter stated that:
``There are certain situations where NVLAP accreditation is not
available for all neutron fields. * * * the proposal would leave
no compliance option for licensees with radiation fields beyond
the standard NVLAP parameters.'' Another commenter indicated that
the proposed revision would empower NVLAP to dictate to the
licensee the categories for which testing would be required.
The petitioner provided three comments in response to public
comments that were submitted to NRC, which are summarized as
follows. The petitioner stated that the intent of the petition is
for the proposed revisions to apply only to the primary
dosimeter, and not to the secondary dosimeter. [Note that the
terms ``primary'' and ``secondary'' are used by the petitioner;
NRC does not have a definition of these terms in its regulations.
The NRC staff understands that the petitioner means the
``primary'' dosimeter as the dosimeter that provides the ``dose
of record'' and that the ``secondary'' dosimeter is the
``backup'' dosimeter.] The petitioner disagreed with a comment
that no compliance options are left for licensees with radiation
fields beyond NVLAP parameters. A facility would test in those
radiation categories that are representative of the radiation
field to which its employees are exposed. The petitioner also
stated
[[Page 2579]] that if the petition was not approved, the
extremity ring or wrist dosimeters would continue to be worn with
no requirement that they be tested under any proficiency testing
program.
Reasons for Denial After reviewing the petition and the public
comments, the NRC is denying the petition. NRC has determined
that the current NRC regulations are adequate to protect worker
and public health and safety. The NRC is denying the petition
because there is insufficient evidence that it solves a
regulatory problem or improves health and safety. The additional
requirements would be an increase in burden for licensees who
have their own accreditation, and for processors, without a
commensurate benefit of increased protection of worker health and
safety. The increase in burden would be from the additional
resources for the NVLAP accreditation process, which includes the
accreditation fee, as well as the staff time to go through the
accreditation process, which includes an on-site assessment of
the facility. The accreditation is renewed every two years, so
this is not a one time cost. This would be an imposed burden with
no additional benefit in health and safety.
Discussion of the specific requests of the petitioner follows.
The NRC is denying the petitioner's request that the NRC amend
its regulations to require that any dosimeter, without exception,
that is used to report dose of record and demonstrate compliance
with the dose limits specified in the Commission's regulations be
processed and evaluated by a dosimetry processor holding
accreditation from NVLAP. The NRC does not agree with the
petitioner that electronic dosimeters are processed. Although not
defined in the regulations, NRC interprets processing to mean a
process, separate from, and independent of, the design of the
dosimeter, that is required to extract dose information from the
dosimeter after exposure to radiation. Processing is necessary
with film or thermoluminescent (TLD) dosimetry to obtain the dose
information. With film or TLD dosimetry, the quality of the
processing is dependent on the competence of the processor, and
not on the dosimeter design. Quality is built into the design of
dosimeters that do not require processing. Additionally, these
devices are calibrated on a routine basis to ensure the device is
responding properly.
The NRC is not aware of any problem with the current calibration
processes, and the petitioner has not provided any evidence of an
existing deficiency in the calibration process. The NRC reviews
licensees' calibration programs during routine inspections.
Subjecting processors to NVLAP accreditation for dosimeters that
do not require processing will not improve the reliability of
these dosimeters.
Regarding the petitioner's request to remove the exception for
NVLAP accreditation for extremity dosimetry, currently allowed in
Sec. 20.1501(c), the NRC agrees in principle that it is a good
idea to include extremity dosimeters that require processing in
the requirement for NVLAP accreditation for processors. However,
the ANSI and HPS standard for extremity dosimeters, ANSI/HPS
N13.32-1995, ``Performance Testing of Extremity Dosimeters,'' is
undergoing a major revision. The petitioner has provided no
evidence that there is a current health and safety problem and
much of the industry is voluntarily obtaining NVLAP accreditation
for processing of extremity dosimetry.
Consequently, the NRC believes it is premature to remove this
regulatory exception. Therefore, NRC is not taking regulatory
action on this issue.
Granting the petitioner's request to revise the definition of
``Individual monitoring device'' in Sec. 20.1003 to add ``used
by licensees to show compliance with Sec. 20.1201'' would result
in unintended requirements. There are many devices used to show
compliance, such as alarming ratemeters, chirpers, and lapel air
samplers. The petition, if granted, would result in a requirement
that users of essentially all listed types of dosimeters would go
through a process that is accredited by NVLAP. Many individual
monitoring devices do not require processing to obtain the dose
information, such as alarming ratemeters, chirpers, etc., and
NVLAP accreditation will not improve the reliability of the
devices. The petitioner also proposed adding two more examples,
electronic dosimeters and optically stimulated dosimeters, in the
definition of ``Individual monitoring device.'' The current
examples in the definition of ``Individual monitoring device''
are not meant to be all inclusive, and adding two more examples
will not add any safety value and does not justify a rulemaking.
This petition must also be evaluated with respect to NRC's
backfitting requirements. Backfit is defined, in part, as the
modification of, or addition to, the procedures or organization
required to design, construct or operate a facility; any of which
may result from a new or amended provision in the Commission
rules or the imposition of a regulatory staff position
interpreting the Commission rules that is either new or different
from a previously applicable staff position (See Sec. Sec.
50.109, 70.76, 72.62, and 76.76). The NRC requires backfitting
only when it determines that there is a substantial increase in
the overall protection of the public health and safety or the
common defense and security to be derived from the backfit, and
that the direct and indirect costs of implementation are
justified in view of this increased protection.
The petitioner's proposed action would be considered a backfit
because it would require licensees to modify their procedures and
organization to operate a facility, and the proposed action does
not fall within any of the exceptions in the above referenced
sections of the regulations. The petition, if granted, would
require that any dosimeter that could possibly be used to report
the dose of record and demonstrate compliance with the dose
limits specified in the NRC regulations be processed and
evaluated by a dosimetry processor holding NVLAP accreditation.
This would require an expansion of the requirements for the
dosimeters with an increased cost and burden to licensees,
without a commensurate benefit in health and safety or the common
defense and security.
After reviewing the proposed actions, NRC believes that the
proposed actions would not pass a detailed backfit analysis.
There is insufficient evidence that the petition, if granted,
would solve a regulatory problem or improve health and safety. No
data were provided by the petitioner, nor did the NRC find any
data, to show that existing regulations are inadequate to protect
health and safety. The increase in cost to licensees, without a
commensurate health and safety benefit or the common defense and
security, does not warrant granting this petition.
In conclusion, there is insufficient evidence that the petition
solves a regulatory problem or improves health and safety. If the
petition were granted, there would be a large increase in burden
to licensees that is unjustified without a health and safety
concern. Therefore, the NRC has determined that existing NRC
regulations are adequate to provide the basis for reasonable
assurance that worker health and safety are protected.
For the reasons cited in this document, the NRC denies this
petition.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 23 day of December, 2004.
[[Page 2580]] For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Ellis W. Merschoff, Acting, Executive Director for Operations.
[FR Doc. 05-778 Filed 1-13-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
*****************************************************************
29 TheDay.com: Cancer Is A Reality, Not A Mere Scare Tactic
, New London, CT
Published on 1/14/2005
Letters To The Editor:
This is in response to Thomas Sheridan's comments made at the
Nuclear Regulatory Commission meeting on Jan.11. ( Long Island
residents want evacuation plan expanded as part of reactor
relicensing, Jan. 12.)
I'd like Mr. Sheridan to know that cancer is not a scare word.
It is a reality of living in Southeastern Connecticut. I have
lived here my whole life and have seen many of my friends and
family affected by cancer or lose their lives to it.
Shame on Mr. Sheridan for thinking that cancer is being used as
a scare tactic when it is a reality of our community. The
facts are at our local cancer community center. The Millstone
plants are very unsafe.
Susan Prentice
Niantic
1998-2005 The Day Publishing Co.
*****************************************************************
30 Bradenton Herald: Steroids cloud Tallevast tests
| 01/14/2005 |
DONNA WRIGHT
Herald Staff Writer
TALLEVAST - Resident Charley Ziegler found out the hard way that
he needs to keep better track of his medicines.
Ziegler's two blood tests for beryllium sensitivity have come
back negative or normal, despite his history of lung disease.
The former employee of Loral American Beryllium Co. in Tallevast
recently learned that one of the medications he was taking -
Prednisone - is a steroid that interferes with test results, and
may have created a false negative.
Now, upon the advice of Manatee County Health Department
Director Dr. Gladys Branic, Ziegler has to wait three more
months to be tested again.
The wait means Ziegler's claim filed with the Department of
Labor for medical benefits and possible compensation to cover
any illnesses related to his beryllium exposure is on hold.
A positive blood test indicates the body has become sensitive or
allergic to beryllium dust and is one of the criteria for a
claim to move forward.
Branic urges any Tallevast resident, former American Beryllium
workers or family members who have signed up for free beryllium
tests to check with their physicians on what medicines they are
taking.
She asks that anyone on a steroid drug who is scheduled for a
beryllium test on Jan. 19 or Jan. 26, call the health department
at 748-7047, ext. 1202, to cancel the appointment.
Examples of commonly prescribed steroids include Prednisone,
Deltasone or Orasone, or the generic cortisone often given as an
injection for painful joints.
Other medications may also compromise the beryllium blood test,
according to Dr. Laurence Fuortes, who runs a beryllium
screening program for the University of Iowa.
Fuortes said medications prescribed for rheumatoid arthritis,
lupus, multiple sclerosis and some chemotherapy treatments can
also interfere with beryllium test results.
He cited Remicade, Enbrel and Humira - drugs used to treat
rheumatoid arthritis and other immune diseases such as lupus.
Other examples include Methotrexate and Imuron, two cancer drugs
that are also used to treat rheumatoid arthritis, Fuortes said.
Ziegler said he answered honestly when health department staff
asked him if he was on steroids before getting a free beryllium
test Dec. 16 at Mount Tabor Missionary Baptist Church in
Tallevast.
He just didn't know at the time that one of the pills he was
taking was a steroid.
Richard Deutsch, a former American Beryllium worker now living
in Indianapolis, also had a negative test result even though
company doctors suspected he might have beryllium disease back
in the 1970s.
Deutsch uses a steroid inhaler that may have affected his test
result, but he didn't learn about the connection until after he
had the test.
James Richmond, a former worker now living in St. Petersburg,
also had a negative test result, even though the symptoms of his
lung disease appear to match those of chronic beryllium disease.
Richmond said he also used an inhaler.
There is some concern about inhalers like Combivent, used to
treat asthma, but those medications alone would not likely be a
major reason for a negative test, Fuortes said.
Inhaled steroids like Combivent are designed to act locally in
the lungs, Fuortes explained. Therefore, patients would need to
take quite a bit of the medicine for it to affect the blood
best.
But cortisone shots, which are designed keep the steroid
medication in the body for a long time, may cause a false
negative, Fuortes said.
Fuortes said researchers are looking at angiotensin converting
enzyme or ACE inhibitors - drugs prescribed to heart patients to
dilate the arteries and veins - as a possible treatment for
beryllium disease.
Examples of ACE inhibitors include Milrinone or Amrinone.
Fuortes said he knows of no research showing that ACE inhibitors
might affect a beryllium sensitivity blood test.
But since those drugs act to inhibit or slow down inflammation,
they might also have the same effect as prednisone, creating a
false negative, Fuortes said.
Bottom line, Fuortes and Branic agree: Before having a beryllium
sensitivity blood test, review your medications with your health
care providers.
Donna Wright, health and social services reporter, can be
reached at 745-7049 or at dwright@HeraldToday.com
[dwright@HeraldToday.com] .
*****************************************************************
31 The Spectrum: Make voices heard about nuclear waste - Opinion
- thespectrum.com
Friday, January 14, 2005
IN OUR VIEW
Perhaps Michael Leavitt's most golden moment as governor of Utah
came when he said, "Over my dead body" in response to a proposal
to store nuclear waste in his state.
Hopefully, he will use his influence at the White House to plant
that seed in the president's ear, because the U.S. Supreme Court
is turning to the administration for advice regarding a lawsuit
brought forward to determine if the state can refuse the
dangerous waste or if the government has exclusive control over
transportation and storage of nuclear waste.
It will, of course, take more than a whispered plea, which is
why we, as Utahns who have already had our fair share of abuse
from nuclear waste, must contact our governor, senators and
representatives to also speak to the president on this issue.
It seems a bit odd that the justices would seek input from the
administration in the first place since the judicial branch was
set up as one of the checks and balances to assure fairness in
our governmental system.
But, you play the hand you're dealt and right now, the court is
looking to the White House for help.
This should be a simple decision. States should have the right
to decide on issues such as these that could have a dramatic
effect on their residents' welfare. If not, those with lesser
populations, such as Utah, and fewer congressional
representatives, such as Utah, can become the 90-pound weakling
on the beach who the bully always kicks sand on, only in this
case, instead of a black eye, the specter of cancer and other
diseases lies in wait.
That is, if we do nothing.
The good thing about Utahns is that they are loyal, trusting,
patriotic people.
The bad thing about Utahns is also that they are loyal,
trusting, patriotic people.
Misplaced trust led to many deaths during the age of nuclear
testing as the fallout drifted downwind from the Nevada Test
Site and into the bodies of our fellow residents who took the
government at its word when it said the clouds of death posed no
threat.
We cannot allow that to happen again.
Contact your representatives and insist that they lobby the
White House to change this dangerous course.
Originally published Friday, January 14, 2005
*****************************************************************
32 BusinessWeek: Perchlorate: Out of the Hot Water?
After a seven-year debate, the perchlorate matter was finally
settled -- or was it?
Perchlorate, a primary ingredient in rocket fuel, has been found
in the water supply of 35 states
(see BW Online, 12/15/04,
"When Water Can Be Bad for Kids"). The U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency and state health agencies have been concerned
about the chemical's health effects, while the Defense Dept. and
contractors, who would be liable for cleaning up water supplies,
have claimed that such concern is overblown. Unable to agree, the
two sides turned to the National Academy of Sciences for help.
The EPA and state health agencies are mandated to set a
"reference dose" -- a safe level that would protect even the most
at-risk human, and that's what they asked the NAS to recommend,
which it now has in a surprising decision on Jan. 10.
The NAS committee recommended a safe dosage level 23 times higher
than what the EPA had come up with in its initial risk assessment
in 2002 -- even though the NAS committee's broader findings
matched many of the conclusions of the EPA and health departments
in California and seven other states that have completed their
own assessments on perchlorate. The result: The EPA and state
health agencies will now reassess their previous recommendations,
and the Defense Dept. -- and its contractors -- may be off the
hook for cleaning up hundreds of contaminated water systems.
UNSTEADY REFERENCE. "The EPA is going to need to go back and
consider their interim guidance," says Bob Hopkins, the
spokesperson for the White House's office of Science & Technology
Policy, which worked with the EPA, Defense Dept., and the NAS
throughout the process. "There's a lot of science [for them] to
digest." State health agencies are rethinking their advisories as
well. "We're going to be reviewing [the NAS] document very
carefully," says Allan Hirsch, spokesperson for the California
Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment. "If necessary
we would revise [California's] public-health goal."
One of the ironies to the whole situation is that few, if any,
perchlorate-related health problems have ever been reported in
the U.S. or elsewhere, and the NAS and EPA reference doses
actually differ by less than one-millionth of a gram. But
sufficient consumption of perchlorate can block iodine uptake to
the thyroid gland, an essential function in the development of
newborns and fetuses.
Arriving at a reference dose can be surprisingly arbitrary. Using
clinical evidence, the scientists find a dose that seems to have
little or no effect on a healthy adult. But they reach the
reference dose by coarsely adjusting for safety's sake --
dividing the dose number by 10 to account for a newborn, for
instance, or dividing by 3 if the study didn't involve many
people. Of course, what constitutes "many people" for example, is
subject to interpretation.
THE FINAL STEP. Because of the subjectivity applied to the
clinical data, the reference doses arrived at by the EPA, the
various states, and the NAS turn out very differently. "On the
big-picture points, the National Academy supported" California's
findings, says Hirsch. "But since our [statistical] methodologies
weren't exactly the same" the NAS study ended up with a number
twice as high as California's.
The EPA still has to translate the reference dose to an
appropriate level in drinking water -- the so-called water level.
That's the final step in regulation, to be completed by August,
2006. And the difference between the EPA's original dose and the
NAS recommendation could determine whether or not hundreds of
water systems are cleaned up, says a regulatory analyst with the
American Water Works Assn.
True, the EPA has a lot of leeway in arriving at the water level,
but if it interprets the NAS dose using the same approach it used
in its own 2002 assessment, it would set a level of roughly 24
parts per billion (ppb). Current advisory levels from the EPA and
the eight states with advisories or public-health goals range
between 1 ppb and 18 ppb.
COMING TO TERMS. Defense contractors like Lockheed Martin (LMT
), Kerr McGee (KMG ), GenCorp's (GY ) AeroJet unit, and American
Pacific (APFC ) had already begun paying for water-supply cleanup
as the result of legal settlements. But if the EPA follows the
NAS recommendation, low-level contamination sites, where
perchlorate has seeped over hundreds of miles to taint a city
water system will likely go untouched, saving the Defense Dept.
and its contractors hundreds of millions of dollars.
The defense industry's response to the NAS recommendation has
been surprisingly low-key, considering how much it stands to
benefit from less-stringent water regulations. "We endorse the
process, and frankly we still need to read the report," says
Patrick Corbett of Kerr McGee. Other contractors were equally
noncommittal.
All eyes now turn to the EPA to see what water level it will set.
The EPA won't comment officially on its regulatory plans, but one
agency official says it's quite possible that the EPA will adjust
its conversion method, which would lead to a lower level than 24
parts per billion.
Defense may need to dip into its coffers to pay for a water
cleanup, but it won't be taking a bath on the costs any time
soon. [ WIDTH=] [ WIDTH=] [Burt_Helm@businessweek.com] is a
reporter for BusinessWeek Online in New York Edited by Patricia
O'Connell
[http://www.businessweek.com/]
[http://www.mcgraw-hill.com] Copyright 2005, by The
McGraw-Hill Companies Inc. All rights reserved. Terms of Use |
*****************************************************************
33 DOE: Health Effects Subcommittee (SRSHES)
FR Doc 05-784
[Federal Register: January 14, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 10)]
[Notices] [Page 2636-2637] From the Federal Register Online via
GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr14ja05-70]
In accordance with section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory
Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463), the Agency for Toxic Substances
and Disease Registry (ATSDR) and the Centers for Disease Control
and Prevention (CDC) announce the following meeting.
Name: Citizens Advisory Committee on Public Health Service
Activities and
[[Page 2637]] Research at Department of Energy (DOE) Sites:
Savannah River Site Health Effects Subcommittee (SRSHES).
Time and Date: 8 a.m.-12:30 p.m., January 25, 2005. Place:
Augusta Towers Hotel & Convention Center, 2651, Perimeter
Parkway, Augusta, GA 30909, telephone 706-855-8100, fax 706-860-
7334.
Status: Open to the public, limited only by the space available.
The meeting room accommodates approximately 50 people.
Background: Under a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) signed in
December 1990 with DOE, and replaced by MOUs signed in 1996 and
2000, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) was given
the responsibility and resources for conducting analytic
epidemiologic investigations of residents of communities in the
vicinity of DOE facilities, workers at DOE facilities, and other
persons potentially exposed to radiation or to potential hazards
from non-nuclear energy production use. HHS delegated program
responsibility to CDC.
In addition, a memo was signed in October 1990 and renewed in
November 1992, 1996, and in 2000, between ATSDR and DOE. The MOU
delineates the responsibilities and procedures for ATSDR's public
health activities at DOE sites required under sections 104, 105,
107, and 120 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA or ``Superfund''). These
activities include health consultations and public health
assessments at DOE sites listed on, or proposed for, the
Superfund National Priorities List and at sites that are the
subject of petitions from the public; and other health-related
activities such as epidemiologic studies, health surveillance,
exposure and disease registries, health education,
substance-specific applied research, emergency response, and
preparation of toxicological profiles.
Purpose: This subcommittee is charged with providing advice and
recommendations to the Director of CDC and the Administrator of
ATSDR pertaining to CDC's and ATSDR's public health activities
and research at this DOE site. The purpose of this meeting is to
provide a forum for community, American Indian Tribal, and labor
interaction, and to serve as a vehicle for communities, American
Indian Tribes, and labor to express concerns and provide advice
and recommendations to CDC and ATSDR.
Matters To Be Discussed: Agenda items include a presentation on
Radiation Epidemiology from the National Center for Environmental
Health (NCEH), CDC, and a Subcommittee discussion on the Advanced
Technologies and Laboratories International, Inc., final report.
Agenda items are subject to change as priorities dictate.
Inability to confirm attendance of quorum prevented publication
15 days prior to the meeting.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Phillip Green, Executive
Secretary, SRSHES, Radiation Studies Branch, Division of
Environmental Hazards and Health Effects, National Center for
Environmental Health, CDC, 1600 Clifton Road, NE. (E-39),
Atlanta, Georgia 30333, telephone (404) 498-1800, fax (404)
498-1811.
The Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, has been
delegated the authority to sign Federal Register notices
pertaining to announcements of meetings and other committee
management activities for both CDC and ATSDR.
Dated: January 10, 2004.
Alvin Hall, Director, Management Analysis and Services Office,
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
[FR Doc. 05-784 Filed 1-13-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4163-18-P
*****************************************************************
34 Bryan-College Station Eagle: A&M won't make bid for Los Alamos
[http://www.theeagle.com/] |
Updated December 10, 2004 0:32 AM
By BRETT NAUMAN
Eagle Staff Writer
The Texas A&M University System has abandoned its interest in
running Los Alamos National Laboratory after finding problems
with the facilitys federal management contract, a system
official said Thursday.
The A&M System will no longer pursue the five-year contract to
run the troubled laboratory for the U.S. Department of Energy,
said Lee Peddicord, the systems vice chancellor for research and
federal relations.
The decision comes a month after the A&M System was passed over
in its bid to manage the Idaho National Laboratory, a nuclear lab
expected to develop the technology to meet the worlds energy
demands in the second half of the century.
The system had teamed up with a group of corporations in a bid
to run the Idaho facility. The Energy Department instead awarded
the management contract to Ohio-based Battelle Energy Alliance,
Peddicord said.
Los Alamos, which was established to develop the first atomic
bomb during the Manhattan Project, is the nations largest
nuclear laboratory. Its management has come under fire because of
security problems, including the loss of several computer discs
and top-secret data.
Implementing the systemic changes needed at Los Alamos would
have been difficult for the A&M System to accomplish within the
five-year time frame established by the management contract,
Peddicord said.
There were just so many potential down sides with the situation
at Los Alamos, Peddicord said. Everything together suggests
its a place with a lot of problems.
Though the A&M System will not manage the facility, the
University of Texas System said in a written statement that it
will continue to weigh whether to pursue the contract.
The University of California System has managed Los Alamos since
World War II. But the Energy Department was highly critical of
the current management as the security problems emerged and
decided to open the facilitys management to other universities
and corporations.
The A&M Systems optimism about running Los Alamos began to wane
in August when defense contractor Lockheed Martin Corp. bowed out
of the competition to run the laboratory, Peddicord said.
Lockheeds move made system officials realize the tremendous
risk and difficulty involved in running Los Alamos, he said,
though system officials had not decided against managing the
facility at that point.
When the Energy Department announced the Los Alamos management
contract would be for five years, with an option for a 10-year
extension, it became apparent that risks of running the facility
outweighed the rewards, Peddicord said.
If the Energy Department were to change its current management
and operations contract, the system would again consider making a
bid to run Los Alamos, Peddicord said.
But even if the five-year contract term were extended to 10
years, it would not necessarily persuade system officials to
respond with a proposal, Peddicord said.
" Brett Naumans e-mail address is [bnauman@theeagle.com] .
© 2000 - 2005 The Bryan - College Station Eagle
*****************************************************************
35 ABQjournal: UT Chancellor to Recommend University Not Pursue LANL Contract
Albuquerque Journal newspaper.
Friday, January 14, 2005
Albuquerque Journal--> By Adam Rankin and Mark Oswald
Of the Journal
The chancellor of the University of Texas is recommending
that the school not bid on the contract to operate Los Alamos
National Laboratory.
Michael Warden, a spokesman for the University of Texas
system of campuses, confirmed Thursday night that UT chancellor
Mark G. Yudof will announce his recommendation against a LANL
bid today.
Yudof's recommendation will go to the UT Board of Regents
at a Feb. 18 meeting, Warden said.
"The board will still have to approve it," Warden said.
"However, I can say I think the regents will give great weight
to the chancellor's recommendation."
Warden said he couldn't say much about Yudof's reasons for
coming down against seeking the $30-million-a-year contract to
run the Los Alamos lab.
"He said there are a number of factors that have resulted
in him coming to that conclusion, and he will articulate those
at the meeting on Feb. 18," Warden said.
The federal Department of Energy has put the LANL operating
contract out for bid for the first time ever following years of
security and management problems at the nuclear weapons lab. The
University of California has run LANL since it was created for
the Manhattan Project to develop the atomic bomb during World
War II. The current contract expires in September.
The UT regents voted in February 2004 to spend up to
$500,000 to prepare a possible bid for the LANL contract. There
was speculation that the Texas school might have the inside
track because of the influence of President Bush, a Texan and
former Texas governor.
But UT officials in August expressed reservations about
pursuing the contract after Lockheed Martin Corp., a potential
bidding partner with UT, announced it would not compete to take
over LANL.
Also, anti-nuclear and peace activists have urged UT to
stay away from the New Mexico weapons lab.
Texas A University, which also had expressed interest in
the LANL bidding, already has dropped out of the competition.
John Pruett of UT Watch, a group opposed to a bid by the
University of Texas, had heard about Yudof's recommendation
Thursday afternoon.
"It's great news to us," said Pruett, a UT senior.
"In general, the university shouldn't be involved in the
development of nuclear weapons," Pruett said. "Our university's
time and resources could be spent on better science than
developing nuclear science."
Asked for comment about the UT developments, Chris
Harrington, a spokesman for the University of California, said,
"UC has always said that we are going to continue to prepare as
if we are going to compete regardless of what the competitive
field looks like."
The UC regents still haven't made a final decision on
submitting a bid to continue operating LANL. Harrington said the
UC regents will get an updated report on the California school's
preparations for the contract competition next week.
Other entities that have expressed interest in the LANL
contract include Northrop Grumman Technical Services Inc., Burns
and Roe Enterprises, Computer Sciences Corp. and Titan Corp.
[Get Copyright Clearance] Copyright 2005 Albuquerque
Journal
*****************************************************************
36 Tri-City Herald: DOE urged to reopen FFTF negotiations
This story was published Friday, January 14th, 2005
By Annette Cary Herald staff writer
The Government Accountability Office has ruled in favor of a
team of Tri-City contractors who protested the award of a $235
million contract to SEC Closure Alliance to dismantle Hanford's
Fast Flux Test Facility.
The GAO sustained the protests filed by FFTF Restoration Co., a
team formed by Federal Engineers &Constructors and Nuvotec, both
of Richland. EPW Closure Services, led by Environmental Chemical
Corp., of Burlingame, Calif., also filed protests, but GAO
denied them.
GAO has recommended that the Department of Energy reopen
negotiations on the contract but released no further information
to clarify or explain.
FFTF Restoration Co. was waiting for a copy of the GAO decision
Thursday, said Lori Ramonas, Nuvotec vice president for
strategic communication.
The team's protest focused on schedule, costs and environment,
safety and health issues, she said. But company officials did
not know what argument the GAO had found convincing.
DOE will review the GAO decision and determine the most
appropriate course of action, said Erik Olds, spokesman for DOE
in Richland.
The contract to finish shutting down the research reactor, then
dismantle it, was awarded by DOE to SEC Closure Alliance in
September. The team is lead by SEC Federal Services of Safety
and Ecology Corp., or SEC, of Knoxville, Tenn.
Fluor Hanford has been doing the work, but DOE decided to open
bidding on continuation of the project only to small businesses.
Transition of the work from Fluor to the SEC Closure Alliance
was halted in October when both the other finalists for the
contract filed protests with GAO.
SEC Closure Alliance also had little information Thursday on the
GAO decision, which it characterized as sustaining certain
aspects of the FFTF Restoration Co. protest.
The alliance "remains optimistic relative to the outcome of this
next phase of the procurement," said Anne Smith, a spokeswoman
for SEC.
When Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham awarded the contract, he
said the alliance offered the best value to the taxpayer. SEC's
proposal called for completing the work by 2011.
In addition to SEC, the alliance includes Los Alamos Technical
Associates, Parallax, Hart Crowser, Areva and Resource
Consultants.
FFTF Restoration Co. also filed a protest with the Small
Business Administration, accusing SEC Closure Alliance of
questionable practices to circumvent the 500-employee size limit
set for the small business contract.
The Small Business Administration ruled against the protest, but
FFTF Restoration Co. is appealing.
SEC has had trouble at the DOE nuclear site closest to its
headquarters. It was suspended from bidding on similar cleanup
work at the Oak Ridge, Tenn., site after dripping radioactive
waste down a state highway in May.
A 600-gallon tank, which still held some radioactive waste, was
known to be dripping after it was loaded into a dump truck to be
hauled to a disposal station.
After strontium 90 was discovered on the highway and two access
roads, they were closed and repaved.
Bechtel Jacobs, which holds the environmental management
contract at Oak Ridge, is working with SEC to qualify it to
again bid on contracts there, said Dennis Hill, spokesman for
Bechtel Jacobs. SEC has said the lessons learned in the incident
would be applied to its work at Hanford's FFTF.
FFTF operated from 1982 to 1992. It's being permanently shut
down after Democratic and Republican administrations concluded
the nation did not have a financially viable use for the
reactor.
Subcontractors on the FFTF Restoration Co. proposal are The Shaw
Group and BNFL.
© 2005 Tri-City Herald, Associated Press &Other Wire Services
*****************************************************************
37 SF Chronicle: University of Texas drops its lab quest
/ Chancellor advising school isn't ready to run Los Alamos
[http://www.sfgate.com/] [kdavidson@sfchronicle.com]
Friday, January 14, 2005
The University of Texas has decided to opt out of a competition
to choose the next manager of Los Alamos National Laboratory,
removing perhaps the biggest threat to the University of
California's continued -- and controversial -- operation of the
lab.
University of Texas Chancellor Mark G. Yudof plans to announce
today that he will advise the system's regents at their Feb. 10
meeting in Austin not to compete for a U.S. Energy Department
contract to run the nuclear weapons lab, Yudof's spokesman told
The Chronicle late Thursday.
If the regents vote to follow that recommendation, then UC might
be left standing alone by the time the competition for the next
Los Alamos contract formally begins, perhaps in the next few
months. The present contract for running the New Mexico nuclear
lab expires in September 2005.
The University of Texas' big advantage in the forthcoming
competition would have been that it offers the same thing UC
offers: academic managerial practices, huge size and world-class
work in the physical and engineering sciences. Over the years,
many scientists in the nation's UC-run nuclear labs have said
they like the prestige of an academic connection as well as the
more material benefits of such items as university-style
retirement packages.
Texas A, a separate university system within the Lone Star
State, independently dropped out of the competition in December.
A private firm, Lockheed-Martin, has also dropped out.
The UC regents have not yet formally voted whether to compete
for the next contract. UC spokesperson Chris Harrington declined
extensive comment Thursday, emphasizing that "we've been focused
on making sure we have the best bid and proposal ready should
the UC board of regents decide to compete."
UC's management of the lab has been bitterly controversial since
2002, following allegations of financial, managerial, security
and safety debacles. In 2003, the Energy Department and Congress
ordered competitive bidding on future contracts to run Los
Alamos -- where the atomic bomb was born in 1945 -- and certain
other national labs.
A year ago, the University of Texas regents voted to authorize
Yudof to spend up to $500,000 investigating the feasibility of
competing for the Los Alamos contract.
But Yudof spokesman Michael Warden said in a telephone interview
with The Chronicle late Thursday that the chancellor, after
meeting with potential partners who might help the university
run Los Alamos, and "learning more about what all would be
necessary to effectively and efficiently manage one of the
nation's premier national labs," had decided the system would
"not be able to go forward with a proposal."
Asked whether some might perceive the decision to withdraw as a
black eye for the University of Texas, Warden replied: "No, not
at all."
When Yudof makes his formal presentation, Warden said, he "will
probably say is this has been a very rewarding process for us to
go through."
And the university -- which has long wanted a contract to run a
national lab -- hasn't given up hope of doing so someday: "Two
or five years from now, that answer might not be the same,"
Warden added.
John Pruett, leader of an Austin student activist group that had
campaigned against the University of Texas' getting involved in
the nuclear weapons business, was delighted by the news.
"I think we're going to do some celebrating tonight," said
Pruett, a history major and senior at the University of Texas,
Austin.
E-mail the author at [kdavidson@sfchronicle.com] .
Page A - 15
[http://www.sfgate.com/staff/]
Y
*****************************************************************
38 ENN: $303 million remediation contract awarded for DOE's Paducah
Gaseous Diffusion Plant
WASHINGTON (01/12/05) -- The North Wind Paducah Cleanup Company
LLC has been awarded a $302,962,661 small business contract to
perform environmental remediation and waste management activities
at the Department of Energy's Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant in
Paducah, Kentucky. The contract will run through September 30,
2009.
North Wind Paducah Cleanup Company will be responsible for
groundwater and soil remedial actions, removing legacy waste,
decontamination and decommissioning (D&D) facilities, operating
the site waste storage facilities, surveillance and maintenance
activities, as well as other activities. The company takes over
from Bechtel Jacobs Company LLC, whose contract expires March 31,
2005.
North Wind Paducah Cleanup Company, LLC is an 8(a) small
disadvantaged women-owned business.
The Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant, owned by the U.S. Department
of Energy, was constructed in the mid-1950s to manufacture
enriched uranium for commercial and defense use. The plant still
operates through a lease with the United States Enrichment
Corporation, which supplies enriched uranium for commercial use.
Us [capitol@caprep.com]
Environmental News [http://www.caprep.com] 3450 Palmer Dr. #4-264
Cameron Park, California 95682 Telephone: (530) 676-9334 FAX:
(530) 676-9387 Email: capitol@caprep.com [capitol@caprep.com]
Copyright © 2005 Capitol Reports. All Rights Reserved.
*****************************************************************
39 DallasNews.com: UT won't vie to run Los Alamos nuke plant
08:40 PM CST on Thursday, January 13, 2005
By HOLLY K. HACKER / The Dallas Morning News
After months of deliberation, the University of Texas System
apparently won't vie to run Los Alamos National Laboratory, the
nuclear weapons complex in New Mexico.
"We've assessed potential partners and we've assessed the
interest of the system and what it would require," Chancellor
Mark Yudof said Thursday in a meeting with the editorial board
of The Dallas Morning News. "My personal view ... is that we
will not compete for it."
Mr. Yudof said he will make that recommendation to the board of
regents, which has the final say on the matter, when it meets in
February. James Huffines, the board's chairman, said he supports
the chancellor on the matter.
The University of California System has managed Los Alamos since
1943, when it was secretly created to build the first atomic
bomb. The Department of Energy opened the job up to other
bidders in response to recent security and fiscal problems at
the nuclear lab. The UC System's contract expires this fall.
UT System officials had considered making a bid with other
partners.
Ultimately, spokesman Michael Warden said, the chancellor
determined "that the UT System was not going to be able to field
the team necessary to undertake that kind of significant
responsibility."
The Texas A&M University System had also showed interest in the
job. But officials there decided in December not to bid. They
said it would be hard to make all the changes needed at Los
Alamos in five years the length of the contract.
E-mail hhacker@dallasnews.com [hhacker@dallasnews.com] This text
The Dallas Morning News
*****************************************************************
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:
*****************************************************************