***************************************************************** 01/28/05 **** RADIATION BULLETIN(RADBULL) **** VOL 13.21 ***************************************************************** 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 Guardian Unlimited: Scientist: Gulf War Stopped Iraqi Nukes 2 [EMMAS] So Hersh was right 3 Guardian Unlimited: Can Straw tread softly while US turns its eye on 4 Guardian Unlimited: German Leader Urges Diplomacy With Iran 5 Guardian Unlimited: Germany Encourages Diplomacy With Iran 6 Guardian Unlimited: S. Korea to Stop Calling North Main Enemy 7 INSIDE JoongAng Daily: Chung: Aid comes after nuclear accord 8 US: Guardian Unlimited: Plutonium Plant Nears Agency's Approval 9 US: SF Chronicle: Contractors hunker down / Prime contracts for defe 10 US: Chattanoogan.com: Sen. Lamar Alexander: Need For Comprehensive E 11 US: Salt Lake Tribune: White Mesa Utes cry 'environmental racism' 12 US: BJJ: Nelson pushes for nuclear carrier at Mayport - 13 US: CNN: Ashcroft: Nuclear terror greatest threat 14 [DU-WATCH] Now Available online - World Uranium Weapons 15 UN Atomic Watchdog Warns Anew On Nuclear Weapons Falling Into Terror 16 FT.com: Europe - Nuclear clouds NUCLEAR REACTORS 17 US: Nuclear reactors must be protected to 9/11 standards 18 US: [NukeNet] Safety Culture Eroding at Salem and Hope Creek 19 US: NRC: NRC Reschedules Public Meeting on Environmental Impacts of 20 Bellona: Russian nuclear industry earned $3.5 billion on export in 2 21 US: NRC: Atomic Safety and Licensing Board; Department of Energy (Hi 22 US: SFBV: A dangerous gamble: Nuclear power, earthquakes and tsunami 23 US: St. Joseph News-Press: Cooper released from oversight 24 US: DECATUR DAILY: Waste, shame to can Browns Ferry plant 25 St. Petersburg Times: Four Hunger Strikers Fall Ill - 26 US: DECATUR DAILY: Browns Ferry Unit 1 on track, NRC head says 27 Rediff: No tsunami effect on nuclear plant NUCLEAR SAFETY 28 NRC: Company Agrees to Additional Corrective Actions at Puerto Rico 29 US: The Spectrum: Utah officials attack Pentagon study 30 US: BBC ON THIS DAY | 28 | 1968: Radiation alert following B-52 cras 31 Bellona: Relatives of Kursk submarine crew appeal to European Court 32 ITAR-TASS: Customs service seizes depleted uranium in Russia region 33 Mos News: Russian Customs Seize Depleted Uranium on Kazakhstan Borde NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE 34 US: The Australian: Let them eat yellowcake 35 The Australian: US critics reject our deal on N-waste 36 Las Vegas RJ: Berkley urges withholding bonus pay for Yucca work 37 Platts: Debate on waste management planned in France 38 Las Vegas SUN: DOE unveils details of above-ground storage plan 39 US: Salt Lake Tribune: One count against Goshutes' Leon Bear dropped 40 US: Deseret news: Utah leaders adamant on blocking toxic waste NUCLEAR WEAPONS US DEPT. OF ENERGY 41 Guardian Unlimited: Report: 'Missing' Lab Disks Didn't Exist 42 Guardian Unlimited: U. of Calif. Loses $5.8M Over Los Alamos 43 AFP: Egypt admits failing to report nuclear research to UN watchdog 44 Las Vegas Business Press: Test site research contributes to global w OTHER NUCLEAR ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** FULL NEWS STORIES ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** 1 Guardian Unlimited: Scientist: Gulf War Stopped Iraqi Nukes From the Associated Press [UP] Friday January 28, 2005 4:01 AM AP Photo OSLO101 By DOUG MELLGREN Associated Press Writer OSLO, Norway (AP) - A scientist considered the father of Iraq's nuclear program said Thursday that his nation would have developed atomic weapons in the early 1990s had Saddam Hussein not ordered the invasion of Kuwait. The invasion sparked the U.S.-led Operation Desert Storm in 1991, which drove Iraq out of Kuwait and marked the end of Baghdad's nuclear and biological weapons program, said Jafar Dhia Jafar, the scientific head of Iraq's nuclear weapons program. ``By the end of 1990, about 8,000 people were involved directly or indirectly in the nuclear program,'' said Jafar, presenting his new Norwegian-language book, ``Oppdraget'', which means The Assignment, describing the program. ``We were three years away, give or take a year,'' said Jafar, who fled Iraq during the U.S.-led invasion in 2003. In the book, Jafar describes being picked up in 1981 after 18 months in jail and brought to see Saddam, who, standing behind a desk in military uniform, instructed him to build an atomic bomb. ``From today, that is our goal,'' Jafar recalled Hussein saying. The British-educated scientist, with a doctorate in physics from the University of Birmingham, said the quest for nuclear weapons began with Israeli warplanes bombing the legal Iraqi nuclear reactor at Tuwaitha, near Baghdad, where he had worked, in June 1981. ``It was not illegal because it did not violate the NPT (the nonproliferation of nuclear weapons treaty),'' he said. He said the program became top secret in 1986, when nuclear efforts moved beyond the terms of the treaty. Jafar said Iraq sought to build all industrial and technological equipment needed to develop weapons on its own, sometimes importing equipment through oil or other industries. Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2005 ***************************************************************** 2 [EMMAS] So Hersh was right Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2005 22:34:05 -0600 (CST) (The Nation) http://www.thenation.com/blogs/outrage?pid=2151 Annals of National Secrecy 01/26/2005 @ 09:58am Last week in The New Yorker, Seymour Hersh broke one of his most revelatory stories to date, alleging that the Pentagon is running secret intelligence missions free from Congressional restraints on the CIA. According to Hersh, these "black reconnaissance" operations--as the Pentagon calls them--are now active in as many as ten countries in the Middle East and South Asia, including Iran. In an effort to infiltrate terrorist organizations, the teams are doing CIA-type work without CIA restrictions or Constitutional checks. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld began lobbying for the secret teams over two years ago, winning authorization through a series of questionable legal interpretations and Presidential executive orders. "It's a finesse to give power to Rumsfeld--giving him the right to act swiftly, decisively, and lethally," a Pentagon advisor told Hersh. "It's a global free-fire zone." Instead of denying the existence of the secret teams outright, the Pentagon and its attack dogs struck back with an extraordinary smear campaign. "Mr. Hersh's article is so riddled with errors of fundamental fact that the credibility of his entire piece is destroyed," wrote Pentagon spokesman Lawrence DiRita in a sharply worded statement. Washington Times columnist Tony Blankley accused Hersh of espionage. Former White House speechwriter (and "Axis of Evil" originator) David Frum said Hersh had endangered US lives. Michael Ledeen, a tireless Iranian conspiracy theorist, called the article "plain crazy," and "classic Hersh incoherence." Richard Perle--who famously dubbed Hersh "the closest thing American journalism has to a terrorist" in March 2003--told Charlie Rose: "It was a typical Sy Hersh piece. That is to say it was full of inaccuracy." But then, the Washington Post confirmed Hersh's allegations in a front-page story last Sunday. According to Pentagon officials and documents, the Defense Department has indeed created a new espionage arm--the Strategic Support Branch--reinterpreting US law to give it the broadest possible powers with the least possible oversight. The new unit has existed in secret for two years and includes the Gray Fox forces mentioned by Hersh--operating in Iraq, Afghanistan and other undisclosed countries, likely including Iran. The Pentagon is even recruiting "notorious figures" whose identities would embarrass the US government if disclosed. The next day, The New York Times and CNN ran follow-up confirmations and DiRita quickly changed his tone. "It is accurate and should not be surprising that the Department of Defense is attempting to improve its long-standing human intelligence capability," DiRita said in a classic non-denial denial. John McCain called for Senate Armed Services Committee hearings. And Senator Chuck Hagel worried that the Pentagon had once again concentrated too much power in too few hands. "That's when a country gets into a lot of trouble, when you brush back the Congress and you don't have oversight and you don't have cooperation, and I see too much of that out of this Pentagon," Hagel said. So Hersh was right. Now the Pentagon owes Congress an explanation, while Mssrs. DiRita, Blankley, Frum, Ledeen and Perle owe Hersh an apology. ################################################################# " 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 ################################################################# ***************************************************************** 3 Guardian Unlimited: Can Straw tread softly while US turns its eye on Iran? Simon Tisdall Friday January 28, 2005 The Guardian When the foreign secretary, Jack Straw, met Condoleezza Rice in Washington this week, he did not ask whether the US had plans to use military force against Iran. And the new secretary of state did not offer to tell him. "The issue was not raised once by either side," Mr Straw said afterwards. "It was not on the table." His lack of curiosity seems odd given recent reports, privately confirmed by US officials, that special forces commandos operating inside Iran had identified targets for future air strikes. But this "ask me no questions and I'll tell you no lies" approach to the post-Iraq special relationship may suit Mr Straw. He has invested considerable personal effort in building links with Iran. He hopes groundbreaking EU diplomatic negotiations to curb its nuclear ambitions will succeed. And it is evident that, seared by the Iraq experience, the foreign secretary does not want Britain to be sucked into another US-driven Middle East conflict. Mr Straw has said repeatedly that he can "envisage no circumstances in which military action would be justified" against Iran. That contrasts uncomfortably with this week's refusal by Tony Blair, echoing George Bush, to rule out the use of force. A senior European official based in London said yesterday: "It is clear that Straw wants to make plain to Blair that he will not support another adventure if he is still in government. But Blair is less prudent. If Blair is saying implicitly that we must keep all our options open, that will encourage the neo-con hardliners in Washington just like in Iraq. "I'm not even sure the military option, or international sanctions, would be a deterrent. Everyone forgets that the [1981 Israeli] attack on Iraq's Osirak reactor did not prevent Saddam [Hussein] building a nuclear arsenal - it may strengthen the ayatollahs, not weaken them. They will say to Iranians, 'See, the west is threatening us.' It will provide them with a sort of glue." While stressing diplomacy for the time being, Ms Rice and other senior US officials do not expect the EU-Iran negotiations to succeed. Addressing the Senate last week, Ms Rice showed no interest in reviving bilateral relations frozen since the 1980 hostage crisis in Tehran. Iran's past attempts at rapprochement have been rebuffed. Diplomats say Washington's likely next step, no later than this autumn, will be to seek UN security council sanctions. If sanctions fail to change Iran's attitude, or are blocked, President Bush will look to the Pentagon. Mr Straw's non-question about US intentions might be better put to the defence secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, or to the US vice-president, Dick Cheney. They have not always confided in Ms Rice, and, unlike her, they would certainly know the answer. Washington has been agog this week over revelations that Mr Rumsfeld secretly bypassed the CIA and created new "battlefield intelligence units" to work alongside the special forces. They have been silently operating for at least two years. This is exactly the sort of capability that the American investigative reporter, Seymour Hersh, said was used inside Iran. Mr Rumsfeld, known for his wry humour, slipped the project past congressional budget overseers by calling his spies "human augmentation teams". Mr Cheney also effectively pre-empted Ms Rice (and Mr Bush) on inauguration day. In case she was unclear about which of her "six outposts of tyranny" mattered most, Mr Cheney declared Iran to be "right at the top of the list". And, waspishly, he suggested that the Israelis, who say the nuclear threat is imminent, might "act first". Iran is watching these machinations with alarm and bemusement. Iran's president, Mohammad Khatami, observed that the US already had enough problems without creating more. "We hope that one day they come to their senses," he said on Wednesday. But he added that he thought this unlikely. As Mr Straw surely knows, the die is not yet cast in Washington. Opinion remained ambivalent, the European official said. As usual, opposing factions are at work. "They want relations with Iran, but not that Iran. But military threats are the wrong way to achieve change. If there is to be regime change, it has to arise from inside. On this we need a strong international consensus." [UP] Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2005 ***************************************************************** 4 Guardian Unlimited: German Leader Urges Diplomacy With Iran From the Associated Press [UP] Friday January 28, 2005 1:31 PM AP Photo VM109 By JONATHAN FOWLER Associated Press Writer DAVOS, Switzerland (AP) - Politics made an appearance at the World Economic Forum Friday as German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder urged diplomacy in the standoff with Iran over nuclear enrichment and Israel's Shimon Peres said there was ``magic'' on the mountain in Middle East peace talks. Speaking to hundreds of people at the annual meeting of top business executives and politicians, Schroeder - who steadfastly opposed the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq - said it was imperative Iran not develop nuclear weapons. ``This is a hotbed region already,'' he said. ``The last thing we need is another military conflict.'' The United States and several other countries fear Iran is seeking to enrich uranium to weapons grade, such as that used in nuclear warheads. Iran insists it only wants to make low-grade enriched uranium for nuclear fuel. ``We are most decidedly in favor of the fact that Iran completely gives up use of military power forever, if at all possible, but this is a target that has to be achieved through diplomatic means,'' Schroeder said to applause. Together with France and Britain, Germany has led diplomatic efforts to persuade Tehran to end nuclear activities that could be used to make weapons - an aim Iran denies. Washington wants the matter referred to the U.N. Security Council, and has refused to rule out military strikes. Ties between Berlin and Washington were strained by Schroeder's vehement opposition to the U.S.-led war in Iraq in 2003, but the two governments have since moved to repair relations. ``I'm not taking anything away from my original position,'' said Schroeder. ``But the question about what one thought about the war in Iraq is history.'' ``We have a vested interest in the democratization and stabilization of Iraq,'' similar to countries that joined the U.S.-led coalition that ousted Saddam Hussein, he said. Germany is training Iraqi security forces in the United Arab Emirates, and helped broker a deal among major creditors to write off much of Iraq's debt, capping a U.S. push. Germany also is a key player in efforts to stabilize Afghanistan and the Balkans, Schroeder said. ``Reproaching Germans for not doing their job - that's wrong,'' Schroeder said. With much of this year's forum focusing on ways to cut poverty, Schroeder said he favored proposals made by British Prime Minister Tony Blair. Brit Jacques Chirac, who earlier said governments should raise billions of dollars through taxes on international financial transactions, plane tickets or fuel used by airliners and oceangoing vessels. ``We should look at financial flows in which there's nothing but hot air and speculation,'' Schroeder said. ``We should consider a tax on purely speculative financial transaction.'' He slammed ``speculation'' on oil prices. ``Poor countries have been heavily affected'' by record prices, he said. ``Those who produce oil should show responsibility for the lack of development in poor countries because of these prices.'' Israeli Vice Premier Shimon Peres said that the Middle East peace ``magic has returned to the mountain'' because of a fresh approach by Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and newly elected Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas. ``I feel that we are again approaching a new age,'' Peres said, noting he had attended 10 previous annual meetings in Davos, high in the Swiss Alps, many of which were devoted to Israeli-Palestinian peace efforts. In 1994 Peres negotiated with the late Palestinian leader Yasser in round-the-clock talks that both sides hailed as inspired by the mountain, a reference to Thomas Mann's novel, ``The Magic Mountain,'' which is set in Davos. ``The magic has returned to the mountain,'' Peres said in a panel discussion between Israeli and Palestinian leaders. He said he was encouraged by the election of Abbas in ``a convincing democratic way.'' But, he said, ``what surprised me is the implementation'' of changes to foster peace talks. ``In a few days he changed the whole atmosphere in the Middle East,'' Peres said. Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2005 ***************************************************************** 5 Guardian Unlimited: Germany Encourages Diplomacy With Iran From the Associated Press [UP] Friday January 28, 2005 8:16 PM AP Photo VM109 By ALEXANDER G. HIGGINS Associated Press Writer DAVOS, Switzerland (AP) - The threat of military action to stop Iran's nuclear ambitions became a central theme Friday at the World Economic Forum, with Germany's leader warning that the Middle East cannot abide another war, a clear message to the United States that is being increasingly echoed throughout Europe. ``This is a hotbed region already,'' German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder, one of the leading opponents of the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, said to a round of applause. ``The last thing we need is another military conflict.'' In another discussion at the annual meeting of government and business leaders, Israeli Vice Premier Shimon Peres said he was encouraged by the election of Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas in ``a convincing, democratic way.'' He added that peace talks with the Palestinians could enter a ``new age.'' Germany has been working with Britain and France to persuade Iran to forgo nuclear activities that could be used to make atomic weapons. Iran maintains it is only enriching uranium enough to create nuclear power - not weapons. The United States has demanded that Iran be hauled before the U.N. Security Council, and has refused to rule out military strikes against the country unless it stops enriching uranium. ``We are most decidedly in favor of the fact that Iran completely give up use of military power forever, if at all possible, but this is a target that has to be achieved through diplomatic means,'' Schroeder said. U.S. Senator Christopher Dodd said that military use should be the last resort. ``The military option - while I wouldn't take it off the table - has to be far from the mind of the administration's thinking,'' he said. Another preoccupation of the meeting was Iraq's elections, scheduled for Sunday. Afghan Foreign Minister Abdullah said he hoped the vote would improve security. ``I have no doubt that if the elections in Iraq are successful, they will have a lasting impact,'' Abdullah said. Much of this year's forum has focused on reducing poverty - a theme addressed by British Prime Minister Tony Blair and French President Jacques Chirac at the opening of the five-day conference Wednesday. Schroeder said he supported Chirac's idea of raising development aid by taxing international financial transactions. ``We should look at financial flows in which there's nothing but hot air and speculation,'' Schroeder said. ``We should consider a tax on purely speculative financial transactions.'' He also said oil-producing countries that have reaped windfall profits because of high oil prices should use some of that money to offset the burden the prices place on poor countries. ``Those who produce oil should show responsibility for the lack of development in poor countries because of these prices,'' he said. Actress Sharon Stone interrupted a discussion of funding the war on poverty by pledging $10,000 to buy mosquito nets that would help Africa battle malaria. She challenged the audience to join her, and in a few minutes had accumulated promises of $1 million. Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2005 ***************************************************************** 6 Guardian Unlimited: S. Korea to Stop Calling North Main Enemy From the Associated Press [UP] Saturday January 29, 2005 12:16 AM By BO-MI LIM Associated Press Writer SEOUL, South Korea (AP) - South Korea's Defense Ministry said Friday it will stop calling North Korea its ``main enemy'' in defense guidelines, a symbolic change apparently aimed at reducing tension between the decades-old archrivals. The decision is subject to approval by the full Cabinet next week. The revised Defense White Paper to be released next Friday will refer to North Korea as posing a ``direct military threat,'' ministry officials said. The symbolic change will not influence South Korea's defense readiness against the North, the ministry said. ``The fact remains that North Korea is our main enemy,'' a ministry spokesman said, speaking on customary condition of anonymity. South Korea began calling North Korea a ``main enemy'' 10 years ago, after North Korea threatened to turn Seoul into a ``sea of fire'' in a dispute over the North's nuclear weapons program. North Korea has remained a mortal enemy of South Korea since the 1950-53 Korean War ended in a truce, not a peace treaty, leaving the Korean Peninsula technically at war. Their border is the world's most heavily armed. North Korea has cited the ``main enemy'' terminology as a key example of what it calls South Korean hostility and has refused to start a military dialogue on easing tensions. Critics, however, have condemned South Korea's changing attitude as coddling the Pyongyang regime, which is suspected of building nuclear weapons in defiance of international pressure while suppressing human rights of its hunger-stricken people. South Korea has not released its annual defense white paper for four years, partly because of the controversy over whether to continue calling North Korea a ``main enemy.'' The main opposition Grand National Party have accused President Roh Moo-hyun and his predecessor, Kim Dae-jung, of pampering North Korea. The opposition and Roh's ruling Uri Party also disagree over whether to abolish the National Security Law, by which people convicted of sympathizing with communism can get a lengthy prison term. Uri says the law is outdated and should be repealed. The opposition says the 57-year-old law should only be amended. The Koreas have moved toward better ties since holding a historic summit in 2000. Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2005 ***************************************************************** 7 INSIDE JoongAng Daily: Chung: Aid comes after nuclear accord January 29, 2005 KST 18:09 (GMT+9) January 29, 2005 ¤Ń South Korea will begin large scale economic assistance to the North as soon as Pyeongyang gives up its nuclear weapons programs, Seoul's top North Korea policymaker said yesterday. Chung Dong-young, minister of unification and chief of the National Security Council, spoke at a symposium in Berlin hosted by the South Korean Embassy in Germany and Free University of Berlin. Mr. Chung said as soon as inter-Korean talks resume, Seoul will launch an agricultural cooperation project by providing food, fertilizers and agricultural tools. "When a resolution is finished on the nuclear problem, we will further provide other assistance including energy support," Mr. Chung said. He said North Korea must not wait any longer in resolving the crisis, urging a return to the negotiation table. joongangdaily.joins.com Copyright by Joins.com, Inc. Terms of Use | ***************************************************************** 8 Guardian Unlimited: Plutonium Plant Nears Agency's Approval From the Associated Press [UP] Friday January 28, 2005 9:46 PM By H. JOSEF HEBERT Associated Press Writer WASHINGTON (AP) - The government moved a step closer Friday to gaining approval to dispose of 34 tons of weapons-grade plutonium by turning it into a less dangerous fuel for commercial power reactors. The staff of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission recommended that the commission approve licenses for building a plant at the federal Savannah River complex in South Carolina where the plutonium would be processed into a mixed-oxide (MOX) fuel. Some environmentalists and nuclear nonproliferation advocates have opposed the conversion plans, arguing plutonium should not be used to make commercial reactor fuel and that, instead, the weapons-grade material should be encased in glass and buried. While the NRC staff acknowledged a severe accident at the proposed facility could cause additional latent cancer fatalities among workers and the public, it said ``the likelihood of such an accident occurring is expected to be very low, highly unlikely.'' ``The overall benefits of the proposed MOX facility outweigh its disadvantages and cost,'' the NRC staff concluded in a final environmental impact report on the proposed project. The commission is expected to decide in the coming months whether to issue a construction license - and later, an operating permit - for the facility. The conversion to mixed-oxide fuel is a key part of the Bush administration's effort to safeguard the tons of excess weapons-grade plutonium held by both the United States and Russia and reduce the risks of the material being obtained by terrorists or a rogue state. Under an agreement with Russia, the United States plans to blend 34 tons of U.S. plutonium no longer needed for warheads with depleted uranium so it can no longer be used in a bomb and can be used in a commercial power reactor. Russia would also build a conversion plant for 34 tons of its excess plutonium. The Energy Department had hoped to begin building the conversion plant at Savannah River later this year, but construction has been held up because of complications that have delayed construction of a facility in Russia. Tom Clements, an adviser to Greenpeace International on nuclear issues, called the NRC staff report ``woefully inadequate'' and criticized its dismissal of health and environmental risks should there be a release of radiation. ``They have to plan for the eventuality that there is some kind of accident,'' said Clements. ``Basically the have just waved it off as something being acceptable.'' The NRC staff report said the primary benefit of the conversion program would be the reduction in the amount of excess plutonium under storage. It concluded that converting the material to a reactor-suitable mixed-oxide fuel is safer than continued storage of surplus plutonium. The report said the routine operation of a conversion plant and proposed support facilities would pose virtually no radiological risk to people or the environment within 50 miles of the complex. But it acknowledged an accidental release of radioactive tritium from a plutonium disassembly facility to be built as part of the project could cause between three and 100 additional latent cancer fatalities, with higher estimates if contaminated food is eaten. ``However, it is regarded as highly unlikely that such an accident would occur and the risk to any population, including low-income and minority communities, is considered to be low,'' concluded the NRC staff report. --- On the Net Nuclear Regulatory Commission http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/nuregs/staff/sr1767 Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2005 ***************************************************************** 9 SF Chronicle: Contractors hunker down / Prime contracts for defense work up $21.7 billion Friday, January 28, 2005 The Department of Defense awarded $230.7 billion in prime contracts in fiscal 2004, $21.7 billion more than in fiscal 2003, the government said Thursday. Lockheed Martin Corp., with $20.7 billion in contracts, leads the list of the 100 companies receiving the largest dollar volume of prime contract awards. The Boeing Co. is second with $17.1 billion and Northrop Grumman Corp. is third with $11.9 billion. Bechtel Corp., based in San Francisco, is 15th on the list, with $1.7 billion in contracts. Bechtel projects include chemical demilitarization, biological weapons proliferation prevention and nuclear weapons safety, and space and missile defense projects. Bechtel, whose reconstruction work in Iraq has made it the Bay Area's most visible defense contractor, moved up from 22nd place on the 2003 list, when it contracted for $910.3 million worth of business with the Pentagon. Danielle Brian, the executive director of a watchdog group that has monitored defense spending trends for decades, the Project on Government Oversight, in Washington, said the report is "more of the same with less oversight.'' "This is a huge jump,'' she said of the increased spending during the last fiscal year. "There is more and more money being spent, in some cases on more critical functions, and there is less oversight.'' While there has been an increase in spending, Congress has become more complacent and "it's harder and harder for auditors get to the nuts and bolts of what is being spent,'' said Brian. Tenth on the list is Humana Inc., the health benefits provider. It is the recipient of $2.4 billion in contracts. A Defense Department spokesman, Glenn Flood, said Humana establishes clinics and other health care facilities and provides related services and logistics on military bases, but not with its brand, and therefore its presence is less obvious than other defense contractors. Lockheed Martin, headquartered in Bethesda, Md., has some 8,500 employees in the Bay Area, 7,000 of whom are at the Lockheed Martin Space Systems Co. in Sunnyvale. Many of these workers are involved with the design, production and integration of satellites for communications, remote sensing and navigation. Lockheed Martin also topped the list in 2003. Halliburton Co., sixth in 2004 and seventh in 2003, was awarded $8 billion in contracts. The company has been criticized for poor record-keeping on its Iraq reconstruction work, and the company's Iraq contracts were a major debate topic during the presidential race because Vice President Dick Cheney was chief executive of the Houston energy services company before becoming President Bush's running mate. Fluor Corp., an engineering, procurement and construction company in Aliso Viejo (Orange County), also working in Iraq, received $549.9 million and is 52nd on the list. Parsons Corp. in Pasadena, an engineering and construction company doing work in Iraq, is in 34th place with $809 million. Builder Perini Corp. of Framingham, Mass., working in Iraq, is in 59th place with $444.5 million. Perini Corp. is partially owned by the investment firm of California Sen. Dianne Feinstein's husband, Richard Blum, who controls Perini shares through his investment firm, Blum Capital Partners. Another of Blum's investments, the San Francisco engineering firm URS Corp., is in 36th place on the list, having received $803.8 million. Top contractors The Department of Defense has listed the 100 top contractors it awarded grants to in fiscal 2004, for a total of $230.7 billion. San Francisco's Bechtel is No. 15. The top 10 recipients are: 1. Lockheed Martin Corp., $20.7 billion 2. Boeing Co., $17.1 billion 3. Northrop Grumman Corp., $11.9 billion 4. General Dynamics Corp., $9.6 billion 5. Raytheon Co., $8.5 billion 6. Halliburton Co., $8 billion 7. United Technologies Corp., $5.1 billion 8. Science Applications International Corp., $2.5 billion 9. Computer Sciences Corp., $2.4 billion 10. Humana Inc., $2.4 billion 15. Bechtel Corp. $1.7 billion Source: Department of Defense Page C - 1 The San Francisco Chronicle] ***************************************************************** 10 Chattanoogan.com: Sen. Lamar Alexander: Need For Comprehensive Energy Policy - 1/28/2005 - Opinion - As a member of the Senate Energy Committee, I recently took part in the nomination hearing for Dr. Samuel Bodman to be the new Energy Secretary. I am proud to say that he is an excellent choice. His education, experience and management credentials provide a strong foundation for leading one of the nation’s most important and complex organizations. Our nation’s energy policy has reached a major crossroads. If we continue down the current path, we will continue to depend on foreign sources of energy, prices will continue to rise, and our environment will continue to be polluted. High energy prices and polluted air pose threats to American jobs and our health. We can choose another path, however. Unlike some issues we debate in Washington, there are some relatively clear solutions to our energy problems - solutions driven by advances in science and technology, American ingenuity and a healthy dose of common sense. President Bush has repeatedly challenged Congress to enact a comprehensive energy policy. Despite the best efforts of Energy Committee Chairman Sen. Pete Domenici (R-NM) and others, we have so far failed to act. Both energy and clean air legislation have been bogged down in the Senate. Looking ahead to this Congress, I intend to work hard with my colleagues to enact bipartisan clean energy legislation. Clean energy and clean air are absolutely linked, and so I intend to continue to be active in the clean air debate. The Department of Energy has a critical role in providing leadership on energy and environmental policy. As Energy Secretary, I hope that Dr. Bodman will: 1. Actively support our national laboratories. According to the National Academy of Sciences, nearly half of our nation’s economic growth since World War II can be attributed to advances in science and technology. We cannot take our leadership role in this area for granted; our best secret weapons for job-growth are our national laboratories, university and industry research institutions. We must continue to invest in research that fuels technological advances at institutions such as the Oak Ridge National Laboratory in Tennessee. This means increasing fundamental research in the physical sciences leading to next generation materials such as superconductors capable of carrying considerably more electricity with less loss. Energy legislation approved in both the House and Senate last year contained language to authorize a doubling in funding for the Department of Energy’s Office of Science. Supporting national labs also means investing in clean energy technologies such as hydrogen and fusion energy and establishing world-class computational tools capable of modeling such diverse things as molecular interactions and global climate change. To that end, in 2004 the president signed legislation authorizing DOE to pursue “Leadership Computing in the Department of Energy.” With bipartisan support, Congress appropriated additional funds in both FY-2004 and FY-2005 to fund this project. The department should also continue to develop and operate world-class user facilities such as the Spallation Neutron Source, a facility which lays the foundation for the long-articulated but elusive dream of creating “materials by design” – creating a new form of metal or plastic, for example, for some specific purpose. 2. Actively advocate nuclear energy and practical solutions to nuclear waste storage. Nuclear power plants generate 20 percent of the nation’s electricity but nearly 70 percent of the “emissions-free” electricity produced annually in this country. I am proud, as the chairman of the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) Congressional Caucus, that TVA is leading the way by restarting the Browns Ferry nuclear plant. In 2007, it will become the first new nuclear plant to come on-line in decades. TVA and other utilities should also be encouraged to develop advanced nuclear plants. We need to create the right policy environment so they can do so. On the issue of nuclear waste, DOE needs to take a clear position on the future of Yucca Mountain and stand behind it. TVA ratepayers have paid almost $700 million into Yucca Mountain with no tangible return to date. This is equivalent to a 2-year rate increase of 8 percent – the same as the highly controversial TVA 2003 rate hike. Put another way, $700 million is just under the cost of installing clean air technology at Kingston and Bull Run, the two TVA coal-fired plants closest to the Great Smoky Mountains National Park. 3. Support national policies that promote coal, but require coal plants to quickly install emissions control technology or utilize technologies such as coal gasification. In the coming months, DOE has a critical role in the interagency review of the administration’s clean air programs. While I support the President’s framework for clean air, I support initiatives that go farther, faster than President Bush’s plan. The vast majority of our state is in non-attainment with federal air quality standards, and the Great Smoky Mountains National Park is the most polluted national park in the country. DOE has a clear choice: to encourage that the proposed Clean Air Interstate Rule be strengthened, weakened or remain the same. While legislation is the best answer and is being pursued by the Senate, I strongly encourage DOE to strengthen the Clean Air Interstate Rule as it goes through the interagency review process. The nation also needs coal gasification to be commercialized as soon as possible. In addition to cleaning our own air, once commercialized, it can be deployed in other developing nations with growing energy demands such as China. DOE has a critical role in helping to bring this technology to the world marketplace. Polluted air is the problem; clean energy is the solution. 4. Provide leadership on the natural gas crisis – so manufacturing jobs stay here in the U.S. In October 2004, I convened a roundtable of the largest employers in Tennessee representing about 750,000 Tennessee jobs - farmers, chemical companies, the automobile and hotel industries, and our universities - to discuss their growing concern about natural gas prices. During the last four years, U.S. natural gas prices have gone from the lowest in the industrialized world to the highest. Our farms and large industries were built to operate on $2 to $3 mmBtu natural gas prices. Today's price of $6.50 shutters barns and could ship 1 million jobs in the chemical industry overseas. As a result, I intend to be very active legislatively on this issue. Addressing high natural gas prices is important to keeping our industries competitive so that manufacturing jobs stay in the United States. DOE and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission should quickly license the new pipeline proposal from Alaska, support new and improved liquid natural gas and pipeline infrastructure and urge greater conservation of natural gas at home. DOE can help encourage a balanced discussion on natural gas supply issues. Those are four priorities I hope Dr. Bodman will take on as Energy Secretary. We’ve found ourselves stalled at this energy crossroads for some time now. Getting America through it will require strong leadership. Once confirmed, I look forward to working with Dr. Bodman as he takes on these critical challenges. news@chattanoogan.com (423) 266-2325 ***************************************************************** 11 Salt Lake Tribune: White Mesa Utes cry 'environmental racism' Article Last Updated: 01/28/2005 01:59:11 AM Hearing: Tribal leaders complain that a pipeline for moving tailings would obliterate 8 cultural sites By Lisa Church Special to The Tribune The Department of Energy is taking comment through Feb. 18 on how to deal with a tailings pile near Moab. (Lisa Church) MOAB - Members of the White Mesa Ute community have filed a complaint accusing the Department of Energy of engaging in "environmental racism" by keeping a site that borders the southeastern Utah town on its list for possible relocation of a radioactive tailings pile that now sits on the banks of the Colorado River. During a public hearing Thursday, Ute tribal leaders complained that an 85-mile slurry pipeline proposed for moving the tailings from Moab to International Uranium Corp.'s White Mesa Mill would pass through lands containing more than 120 cultural sites, obliterating at least eight of them. The complaint, sent Tuesday to Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham, also alleges relocating the 11.9 million tons of tailings to White Mesa threatens the community's sole water supply. "There is nothing reasonable about dumping radioactive tailings and toxic waste on top of ancient, profoundly sacred sites including burials and ceremonial sites," says the complaint filed by a group calling themselves the White Mesa Concerned Community. "It is environmental racism and a violation of federal trust responsibility." Ute Mountain Tribal Council member Terry Knight said if possible relocation sites near Green River and East Carbon were removed from consideration because of their proximity to a residential community, then the 300 residents of White Mesa deserved the same consideration. "It's just another example of what the [federal government's] mentality is for indigenous people," Knight said. Thursday's meeting was the second day of hearings in southeastern Utah over proposals for dealing with the tailings outlined in a November draft environmental impact statement. The document proposes several possible scenarios for the tailings that are currently leaching ammonia and other toxic materials into the Colorado River. The DOE estimates that capping the tailings in place would take seven to 10 years to complete at a cost of about $166 million. The report estimates that relocating the tailings would cost between $329 million $464 million. The slurry pipeline to White Mesa carries the most expensive price tag. The public comment period for the draft EIS ends Feb. 18. This summer, the DOE will issue a final EIS that includes the agency's decision for cleaning up the site. A Wednesday night hearing in Moab drew more than 100 people. About 30 residents, many of whom have fought for 12 years to move the pile, voiced frustration, and urged the DOE to remove the tailings from the banks of the Colorado. Many fear a catastrophic flood would scour away the toxic materials, potentially contaminating portions of Moab and polluting the river, a major source of drinking water for about 26 million people in downstream states. "Our position is that the only acceptable thing to do here is move it," said Grand County Councilman Rex Tanner. Moab resident Steve Russell called the Colorado the "beating heart of the Southwest" and said the current location of the tailings represents "a clear and present danger to the citizens of Grand County and the people of the Southwest." lchurch@citlink.net © Copyright 2005, The Salt Lake Tribune. ***************************************************************** 12 BJJ: Nelson pushes for nuclear carrier at Mayport - 2005-01-28 - The Business Journal of Jacksonville Tony Quesada U.S. Sen. Bill Nelson, D-Fla., has asked Adm. Vern Clark, chief of naval operations, to do what is necessary to move a nuclear-powered aircraft carrier from Norfolk, Va., to Naval Station Mayport. "I urge you to rapidly establish a second nuclear carrier base at Naval Station Mayport and issue the appropriate orders and budgetary guidance necessary to implement such a decision and keep the twelve carrier fleet," Nelson said in a Jan. 27 letter to the Navy's top officer. Nelson's letter is the latest bit of politicking in reaction to the Pentagon's recent proposal to decommission the conventionally-powered carrier USS John F. Kennedy in 2006 as part of a plan to save $60 billion over six years. Nelson and Sen. Mel Martinez, R-Fla., introduced legislation to mandate that the Navy maintain 12 carriers in its fleet. Republican U.S. Rep. Ander Crenshaw of Jacksonville has introduced similar legislation in the House. Nelson said he will continue to push for the 12-carrier bill, but he also argues it is equally in the nation's interest to better disperse its East Coast nuclear carriers. Currently, all five nuclear carriers on the East Coast are stationed in Norfolk, while the five nuclear carriers on the West Coast are spread among bases in San Diego, Bremerton, Wash., and Everett, Wash. Nelson said he thinks many of the cost estimates to make Mayport capable of supporting a permanently-stationed nuclear carrier are exaggerated. He noted that more updated estimates are forthcoming as the city of Jacksonville has commissioned a study on the matter and the Navy is evaluating the cost as well. Nelson said he believes that once the cost is known and the work is authorized, Mayport could be ready for a nuclear carrier in one and a half to two years. © 2005 American City Business Journals Inc. ***************************************************************** 13 CNN: Ashcroft: Nuclear terror greatest threat WASHINGTON (AP) -- The possibility that al-Qaeda or its sympathizers could gain access to a nuclear bomb is the greatest danger facing the United States in the war on terrorism, Attorney General John Ashcroft said Thursday. U.S. officials "from time to time" uncover evidence terrorists are trying to develop nuclear capability, Ashcroft said without providing any specifics. It is not clear whether they have made any progress, but the United States must take the threat seriously, he said in an interview with The Associated Press. "If you were to have nuclear proliferation find its way into the hands of terrorists, the entire world might be very seriously disrupted by a few individuals who sought to impose their will, their arcane philosophy, on the rest of mankind," he said. Ashcroft, 62, is ending four years as the nation's chief law enforcement officer, much of the period devoted to a war on terrorism that began with the attacks of September 11, 2001. He will leave office when his successor, Alberto Gonzales, is confirmed by the Senate and sworn in, possibly next week. Since the 2001 attacks, the staunchly conservative Ashcroft has been vilified by political opponents, civil liberties groups and privacy advocates for pushing controversial counterterrorism policies, which critics say undermine freedoms. They include the Patriot Act, which bolstered FBI surveillance and law enforcement powers in terror cases; increased use of material witness warrants to hold suspects incommunicado for months; and secret proceedings in immigration cases. Ashcroft made no apology for his actions, saying he has enjoyed full support from President Bush. "The president understands that this is almost mission impossible, to keep winning every day," he said. "To be always the winner and never be the loser is a very difficult task. The world is not absent terror. But the United States has been absent terror." His greatest failure, Ashcroft said, was in not fully explaining to the American people early on just how the Patriot Act has helped in that war. Time will prove that the law has not been the threat to the Constitution seen by some, he said. "Rights have not been infringed. Human dignity has not suffered. It's been enhanced and it has not carried a cost or toll on the civil liberties of America," Ashcroft said. More than 375 people have been charged in terror-related prosecutions in the United States since the 2001 attacks, with 195 either convicted or entering guilty pleas. Yet Ashcroft said officials continue to receive reports of "individuals who are sympathizers" with al-Qaeda or other terror groups coming into the United States after meeting with people overseas with links to terrorism or attending events that include "inappropriate extremist or terrorist instruction." "We have to remain on guard. America, as open and free as it is, is going to have to pay a price in terms of understanding and being vigilant about potentials that freedom and openness are associated with," he said. Ashcroft also said the Justice Department deserved praise for handling some 400 corporate malfeasance cases, helping drive the nation's crime rate to 30-year lows and making strides in civil rights prosecutions -- all while dealing with the terror threat. As for his own future, Ashcroft would not reveal detailed plans. But the two-term Missouri governor and one-term senator said flatly, "I don't expect in any way to run for office again." Ashcroft said he would remain in the Washington area, probably make some speeches and take a private-sector job advising corporations on such things as "integrity in the marketplace." He also might work in academia. Copyright 2005 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.This ***************************************************************** 14 [DU-WATCH] Now Available online - World Uranium Weapons Date: Sat, 29 Jan 2005 00:59:09 -0600 (CST) Greetings - Here's a treat. First, a special thank you to Marion Kuepker and David Kraft for making the World Uranium Weapons Conference reader available online at Traprock's website. I am giving you a preview before we publicize it more widely. We have other things coming along - please bear with us as we are traveling and working from the road. The reader's 7 chapters will be available in installments. First, the Introduction and Science Panels are now available. Next week, we'll post the Veterans and Civilian panels, and the following week the rest of the reader - the International Law and Organizations panels, with the concluding chapter on the Cover-up. We are doing it this way to give more attention to each panel than if we just put it all out there at once. If any of you can't wait for the upcoming sections, please send me an email. The conference reader has been available as a book for the past year. The cost of the conference and book were substantial. It is tremendous, I'm sure we all agree, that the conference organizers are making these sections available for free on line. If anyone is moved to help with these costs, please contact Marion or David directly. Here's the link to the reader - http://www.traprockpeace.org/depleted_uranium_hamburg03.html The links to the reader downloads are at toward the top of the page. This is also the page with the audio index of the presentations (thanks, Marion, for providing most of the audio for the library) as well as links to other resources (such as interviews by Sunny Miller) and our photo album of the conference. For more information, see also the conference website at http://www.uraniumweaponsconference.de/ Best to all, Charlie Charles Jenks, attorney at law President of the Core Group Traprock Peace Center 103A Keets Road Deerfield, MA 01342 413-773-5188; fax 413-773-7507 charles@mtdata.com http://www.traprockpeace.org ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> Give the gift of life to a sick child. Support St. Jude Children's Research Hospital's 'Thanks & Giving.' http://us.click.yahoo.com/3iazvD/6WnJAA/xGEGAA/Sj.0lB/TM --------------------------------------------------------------------~-> [Brought to you by HTTP://WWW.STOPNATO.ORG.UK] Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/du-watch/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: du-watch-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ ***************************************************************** 15 UN Atomic Watchdog Warns Anew On Nuclear Weapons Falling Into Terrorist Hands Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2005 10:00:30 -0500 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.0.1 (2004-10-22) on pascal.ctyme.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-16.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FROM_ORG, SPF_HELO_PASS,SP_HAM_EXTREME,SUBJ_ALL_CAPS,WHITE_PHRASE autolearn=ham version=3.0.1 X-Relayfor: YES X-Character-set: iso-8859-1 UN ATOMIC WATCHDOG WARNS ANEW ON NUCLEAR WEAPONS FALLING INTO TERRORIST HANDS New York, Jan 28 2005 10:00AM If terrorists are to be prevented from getting their hands on weapons of mass destruction, the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) must be strengthened, the head of the United Nations atomic watchdog agency has told world leaders, politicians and economists attending this year’s World Economic Forum. The NPT regime “clearly needs reinforcement,” International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Director-General Mohamed ElBaradei told the annual gathering in the Swiss Alpine ski resort of Davos in the latest of several warnings he has given in the past two years on the dangers of the combination of terrorism and the proliferation of nuclear materials. “In recent years, three phenomena – the emergence of a nuclear black market, the determined efforts by additional countries to acquire the technology to produce the fissile material useable in nuclear weapons, and the clearly expressed desire of terrorists to acquire weapons of mass destruction – have radically altered the security landscape,” he said. He emphasized that steps can be taken to reinforce the regime, citing proposals he has made toward building a stronger “collective security framework.” He urged States to act on the steps at the upcoming NPT Review Conference, which convenes in May at UN Headquarters in New York. In a speech last November at Stanford University, California, Mr. ElBaradei called for agreement on benchmarks for non-proliferation and disarmament including adoption by all States of additional safeguards; tightening controls over the export of nuclear materials and technology; and multilateral control over the sensitive parts of the nuclear fuel cycle such as enrichment, reprocessing and disposal of spent fuel. He also urged that States not be allowed to withdraw from the NPT – as the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK) has done – without clear consequences, including prompt review and appropriate action by the Security Council. The international community should also work rapidly to reduce the stockpiles of high enriched uranium and plutonium around the globe, and to strengthen the protection of existing nuclear material and facilities, he said. An essential benchmark would be that a concrete roadmap for verified, irreversible nuclear disarmament, complete with a timetable, and involving not only the NPT nuclear weapon States but also India, Pakistan and Israel, is at last put in place. 2005-01-28 00:00:00.000 ________________ For more details go to UN News Centre at http://www.un.org/news To change your profile or unsubscribe go to: http://www.un.org/news/dh/latest/subscribe.shtml ***************************************************************** 16 FT.com: Europe - Nuclear clouds By Brian Groom Published: January 28 2005 02:00 | Last updated: January 28 2005 The Cour des comptes - France's public sector auditing body - could not have chosen a more sensitive moment to publish a critical report on the huge costs of decommissioning the country's ageing 125 nuclear plants. Worse, it accuses ElectricitĂ©de France of failing to implement a "clear financial strategy" to meet its long-term €48bn decommissioning obligations. This comes as Paris prepares to launch partial privatisation of energy by selling big minority stakes in Gaz de France, Areva nuclear group and EdF. While clearing Areva for covering its €12bn decommissioning bill, the court wants to know how the government intends to address EdF's problems before floating it. This is the last thing Paris needs. It is already struggling to find a compromise with Rome to avoid straining EdF's finances further should it be forced, under an ill considered earlier deal, to buy outright control of Edison, its Italian partner. The decommissioning cloud is even darker than EdF's Italian headaches. The court notes EdF can count on only €2bn of assets to cover its commitments after an extravagant international shopping spree under past management. As EdF is unlikely to get away again with accounting wheezes to limit its nuclear exposure, Paris is in a bind. If it really wants to be transparent, it should tell taxpayers they will ultimately have to foot the bill. © Copyright The Financial Times Ltd 2005. "FT" and "Financial Times" are trademarks of the Financial Times. ***************************************************************** 17 Nuclear reactors must be protected to 9/11 standards Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2005 13:31:43 -0500

 

NEWS FROM NIRS

Nuclear Information and Resource Service News Release

 

For Immediate Release

January 28, 2005

Contact: Linda Gunter, (202) 328-0002

 

Attorneys General Request Increased Defenses at Nuclear Reactors up to 9/11 Prevention Standards

 

WASHINGTON, DC – Eight state attorneys general and more than 850 individual petitioners to date have requested that the federal government significantly raise defenses around the country’s inadequately protected nuclear power stations. The Petition for Rulemaking, authored by the Committee to Bridge the Gap (CBG) and organized by Nuclear Information and Resource Service (NIRS), asks the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to increase site capabilities at U.S commercial nuclear power to repel a minimum of 19 attackers, the same number that operated on 9/11. Attorneys general from Arkansas, Arizona, California, Connecticut, Illinois, New York and Wisconsin, submitted a letter to the NRC calling on the government to boost defenses at reactors. Delaware’s attorney general sent separate supportive comments.

 

 “The interest of terrorists in attacking nuclear power plants is a matter of record,” the attorneys general stated in the letter. “At minimum, the upgraded design basis threat should require defenses against attacks by air, water, or land and by groups at least as large as that involved in the 9/11 attacks. The NRC should upgrade the threat to reflect the realities of 2005.”

 

Specifically, the petitioners want nuclear power stations to erect obstructions to prevent catastrophic damage from an aircraft attack similar to those on 9/11.

 

"It is deeply disturbing that, more than three years after 9/11, nuclear reactors, the nation's most dangerous sites, still have no protection against air attack and must only protect against attackers in far smaller numbers than seen on 9/11," said Daniel Hirsch, President of CBG.  The nuclear watchdog group is the author of the pending Petition for Rulemaking to the NRC supported by the attorneys general.  "It seems a no-brainer that reactors should be protected by 'Beamhenge' shields of I-beams and steel cabling, so that incoming planes crash into the shield not the reactor or spent fuel pool.  Similarly, it isn't rocket science that one should protect reactors against at least as many attackers as we saw on 9/11.  That is what our Rulemaking Petition urges," Hirsch concluded.

 

“Even acknowledging NRC efforts on security upgrades to date, they don’t measure up to the clear and present danger,” said Paul Gunter, Director of the Reactor Watchdog Project for NIRS in Washington, DC. “It is indefensible for NRC to set its regulatory bar below the level of ferocity already demonstrated on September 11th.”

 

The seven attorneys general who signed the letter are: Eliot Spitzer (NY), Lisa Madigan (IL), Richard Blumenthal (CT), Terry Goddard (AZ), Bill Lockyer (CA), Peg Lautenschlager (WI) and Mike Beebe (AR).  Delaware Attorney General M. Jane Brady filed separate supportive comments.

###

For further information contact:

Dan Hirsch, Committee to Bridge the Gap, 831 462 6136

Paul Gunter, NIRS, 202 328 0002

Related documents can be viewed at:

http://www.nirs.org/reactorwatch/security/securityhome.htm

 

 

Linda Gunter is Director of Development and Media Relations at NIRS. She can be reached at: 202-328-0002 ext. 23.

 

 ***************************************************************** 18 [NukeNet] Safety Culture Eroding at Salem and Hope Creek Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2005 13:07:20 -0800

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: [NukeNet] Safety Culture Eroding at Salem and Hope Creek
Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2005 16:48:26 -0500
From: Suzanne Leta <sleta@njpirg.org>
Reply-To: Suzanne Leta <sleta@njpirg.org>
Organization: New Jersey Public Interest Research Group
To: <Undisclosed-Recipient:;> 


NukeNet Anti-Nuclear Network (nukenet@energyjustice.net)
Below are letters to the NRC on recent safety culture problems at Salem and Hope Creek by David Lochbaum (Union of Concerned Scientists) and Dr. Kymn Harvin (former manager and whistleblower at Salem) Exelon took over management at the Salem and Hope Creek plants on the 17th and have already shown a high level of disregard for the safety of the public and its employees.
 
 
Suzanne Leta
Energy Associate
NJPIRG
11 N. Willow St
Trenton, NJ 08608
609 394 8155 x310
sleta@njpirg.org
----- Original Message -----
From: Drkymn@aol.com
To: ARB@nrc.gov
Cc: DJV@nrc.gov ; LLJ@nrc.gov ; jill.lipoti@dep.state.nj.us ; brad.campbell@dep.state.nj.us ; kent.tosch@dep.state.nj.us ; tonya_baker@biden.senate.gov ; valerie.thomas@mail.house.gov ; jim_reilly@carper.senate.gov ; kate.rohrer@mail.house.gov ; michal.freedhoff@mail.house.gov ; george.voinovich@voinovich.senate.gov ; Cindy_Bethell@lautenberg.senate.gov ; jeanne.fox@bpu.state.us.nj ; ken.warren@bpu.state.nj.us
Sent: Friday, January 28, 2005 1:30 PM
Subject: Nuclear Safety Culture Eroding FAST at Salem and Hope Creek

Randy Blough
 
Randy,
 
The "fragile progress" reported last month at Salem and Hope Creek is crumbling before our very eyes.  Without NRC intervention, I predict a "landslide" that will take the site's safety culture to rock bottom.
 
Terminations are happening without following procedures, including the Executive Review Board process designed to prohibit the previously accepted practice of retaliatory firings.  The ERB process was committed to by the licensee in 2004 at public meetings and in docketed letters to the NRC.  Exelon, now "managing" the PSEG Nuclear site, is totally disregarding this commitment.  In recent weeks, people known to be outspoken about safety issues and inappropriate personnel and nuclear safety decision-making, and people unwilling to falsify records have been terminated without justification or review.  In addition, leaders who were serving as the "conscience" of the utility regards SCWE and personnel decisions have been terminated also without the ERB oversight promised to the NRC and the public.   All of these actions, and others, are causing not just a "chilled" work environment, but a nearly frozen one.  If a Synergy survey were taken this month, as promised by PSEG's "improvement plan," I predict it would show the Salem and Hope Creek safety culture to be at an all-time low.   This is more than a "by-product" of an impending merger.   This is willful disregard of promises made to the NRC, of positive SCWE practices, and of the "negative ripple effect" to public safety by further damaging an already weak nuclear safety culture at PSEG. 
 
As you recall, I wrote you pre-emptively on 12/26/04, asking how the NRC would insure the "fragile progress" was not lost and that actions by Exelon would not further erode the site's admittedly weak Safety Conscious Work Environment.  (I have provided a copy of that email at the end of this one).   Your response indicated the licensee PSEG is still responsible for upholding the commitments to the NRC even if another company (in this case, Exelon) is "managing" the site.  Itt seems apparent that the NRC is again allowing the utility to break its promises and further erode a cornerstone of public safety:  a strong safety culture, including a strong Safety Conscious Work Environment.
 
I urge the NRC to intervene NOW. 
 
Issue a Confirmatory Action Letter that compels adherence to commitments made by PSEG to the NRC and to the public.  Stop the retaliatory and unjustified firings.  Take whatever additional steps are necessary to stop a landslide and end the further damage to the Safety Culture at Salem and Hope Creek.   An impending acquisition by Exelon does not give either utility--PSEG or Exelon--the right to further erode the site's weak nuclear safety culture, take actions that further cause employees to be reluctant to speak up about safety concerns, or further jeopardize employee and public safety.
 
 
Nancy Kymn Harvin, Ph.D.

LEADERS WORTH FOLLOWING
cell: 267 312 1252
 
 
email as noted above
12/26/04
Randy,
 
I hope you had a Merry Christmas and wonderful family time.
 
I'd like to talk with you about how the NRC plans to deal with Exelon's management of Salem and Hope Creek, beginning on 1/17/05.   I'd like to understand how the "interface" with the NRC will now work and who--specifically--will be accountable for progress in the areas of SCWE, CAP, PIRS, Work Management, to name a few problem areas.
 
Is Exelon obligated to uphold the "promises" Chris Bakken made.....such as, another Synergy survey in January, quarterly metric publications, action plan items, etc.?
 
My questions stem from a concern I have:  Because of the attention the Salem and Hope Creek units have required since the summer, the PSEG managers accountable for the "improvement plan" presented to the NRC in June have had little time/energy to focus on their action items.  Many have had full-time outage jobs, as have their subordinates.  Therefore, many of the actions are already past due.
 
At the December 2 public meeting, both the NRC and PSEG called progress "fragile."  That progress could easily evaporate if not carefully nurtured.
 
I suspect Exelon will have its own views as to how to improve the SCWE.  It is also likely that many of the managers with improvement deliverables could get "changed out."   Thus, I am concerned about how we can insure consistent attention to the SCWE issues in particular.
 
Exelon, it was announced, is being paid a management fee of $3 million for its services, but has the opportunity to earn up to $12 million in 2005 if certain performance metrics are met.    I am concerned that while Exelon has a strong reputation for cost-efficiency and production gains, it does not have a stellar SCWE reputation.
 
How will the NRC insure Exelon doesn't make such gains at further cost to the SCWE?   
 
As you can imagine, anxiety at the site is again on the upswing.  Chris Bakken has said publicly he doesn't even know if he is staying or going, so you can imagine how others on the management team feel. 
 
In addition, reports are that scores of people have worked 72+ hours for weeks on end---both management and union---and exhaustion levels are high.    This mixed with anxiety and uncertainty increases the likelihood of mistakes and non-conservative decision-making.   >From a stress measurement perspective, the site is once again "off the charts."
 
Knowing all this, what specific  additional steps will the NRC take to ensure safety, to support a smooth and healthy management transition at the site, and to continue to insist on SCWE progress?
 
Please give me a call to discuss all this.
 
Thank you,
Kymn
 
 
Nancy Kymn Harvin, Ph.D.
LEADERS WORTH FOLLOWING
cell: 267 312 1252
 
January 28, 2005

Mr. A. Randolph Blough, Director – Division of Reactor Projects
United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Region I
475 Allendale Road
King of Prussia, PA  19406-1415


SUBJECT: SAFETY CONCSIOUS WORK ENVIRONMENT, OR LACK THEREOF, AT THE SALEM 
AND HOPE CREEK GENERATING STATIONS


Dear Mr. Blough:


Last year, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) took some unprecedented 
steps to compel the licensee to correct safety conscious work environment 
(SCWE) problems at the Salem and Hope Creek nuclear plants. Among these 
steps were the letter dispatched by the NRC in January 2004 to the PSEG 
Chief Executive Officer about SCWE concerns and the subsequent 
identification by the NRC in August 2004 of SCWE problems as a 
cross-cutting performance problem at the plants.

The NRC’s oversight efforts prompted PSEG to take numerous actions to 
remedy the SCWE problems. For example, during the June 16, 2004, public 
meeting between NRC and PSEG, PSEG senior managers (on slide 38 of their 
presentation slides) told you they had established an Executive Review 
Board (ERB) on June 7, 2004. PSEG reinforced its commitment to the ERB in 
a letter dated June 25, 2004, from the PSEG Chief Nuclear Officer to the 
NRC Region I Regional Administrator. Beginning on page 6, PSEG’s Chief 
Nuclear Officer defined several “pillars” established or to be established 
to remedy the SCWE problems. On page 7 under the 4th pillar, PSEG told you 
that it had “Established an Executive Review Board to review PSEG Nuclear 
and Salem/Hope Creek contractor adverse personnel actions to preclude 
retaliation and/or chilling effect”. PSEG told you that the 4th pillar was 
designed “To improve the Management Effectiveness in Detecting and 
Preventing Retaliation and Chilling Effect.”

Lest there be any confusion whether PSEG’s comments during the June 16th 
meeting and statements in the June 25th letter were merely descriptions or 
formal commitments to the NRC, the PSEG Chief Nuclear Officer made it 
explicitly clear in his October 29, 2004, docketed letter to the NRC:

We presented a summary of our action plans at a public meeting on June 16, 
2004.

During that meeting we discussed a number of short-term actions we were 
taking in parallel with the development of our longer-term action plants 
and we stated that we would follow up with a written summary of our 
actions to improve the work environment, the identification and resolution 
of issues, and the work management process. In our follow up June 25 
letter (Reference 3) we restated our actions and commitments made during 
the public meeting. These commitments included implementing, monitoring 
and publishing quarterly metrics to objectively measure the effectiveness 
of our SCWE improvements at Salem and Hope Creek.

In a follow up response letter, dated July 30, 2004, (Reference 4) the NRC 
acknowledged receipt and review of the PSEG action plan and stated that 
the PSEG plan appeared to address the key findings of both the NRC and 
PSEG assessments. The July 30 letter made reference to a July 27 telephone 
conversation with PSEG wherein an additional commitment was agreed upon 
with respect to the quarterly submittals. PSEG Nuclear agreed to include a 
brief description of any significant changes to the PSEG action plan. At 
this time, there have been no substantive changes to the PSEG action plan.

Page 3 of PSEG’s October 29th letter reiterated its commitment to the ERB:

We have focused our efforts on the fair and consistent treatment of 
employees through the creation of an Executive Review Board (ERB). The ERB 
is serving its function of ensuring that proposed personnel actions (e.g,, 
promotions and disciplinary actions) are conducted in a manner consistent 
with PSEG policy. The approval rate for the Board as show improvement 
since the Board’s inception in April.

In fact, a metric for the ERB approval rate was established by PSEG and 
reported to the NRC during the public meetings conducted in June and 
October 2004. The goal for the metric was established by PSEG at 95 
percent.

It was announced in December 2004 that Exelon Corporation intended to 
acquire PSEG and that Exelon would begin managing operations at the Salem 
and Hope Creek nuclear plants beginning in January 2005. This management 
change begged the question of whether Exelon would honor and abide by the 
commitments made to NRC by PSEG. That question seemed to be answered by 
Today’s Sunbeam staff writer Bill Gallo, Jr., in the January 13, 2005, 
edition of his paper:

It was announced in December that Exelon was buying PSEG for $12 billion.
One of the major changes already announced that Exelon was ending a team 
of its nuclear specialists to the Island Monday to oversee operations. One 
of the major staff changes is Bakken’s replacement as chief nuclear 
officer by Bill Levis.
Levis attended Wednesday's meeting as an observer. He said Exelon was 
committed to the safe operation of the plants and backed the safety 
commitments made by PSEG.
“We understand the issue, the commitment being made and our intent to keep 
that commitment,” said Bill Levis who takes over as chief nuclear officer 
at the Island on Monday. “We will stand by them.”
Thus, it appears abundantly clear that PSEG committed to NRC to have an 
Executive Review Board review promotions and disciplinary actions taken at 
Salem and Hope Creek as part of its overall efforts to correct the SCWE 
problems and to notify the NRC of any changes to its action plan. Our 
review of docketed materials in ADAMS failed to reveal any change by PSEG 
or Exelon to the ERB commitment.

It is less clear that the ERB process was followed by Exelon managers, 
including Mr. Levis, as they made personnel changes, including 
terminations, at Salem and Hope Creek.

Therefore, we request that the NRC determine the answers to the following 
questions:

1. Did the Executive Review Board review personnel changes made by Exelon?

2. If yes, did the ERB approval rate meet the stated goal of 95 percent?

3. If not, did PSEG or Exelon notify the NRC of the change to its 
committed action plan?
4. If the ERB did not review the Exelon actions and neither PSEG nor 
Exelon notified NRC of this substantive change to its committed actions, 
why should NRC or the public have any confidence that Exelon will honor 
any of the many other commitments PSEG made last year to keep the NRC from 
shutting down the three troubled reactors?

If the NRC must invoke its allegation or 2.206 petition process in order 
to be able to provide UCS with the answers to these vital questions, then 
by all means do so.


Sincerely,

<Original signed by>

David Lochbaum
Nuclear Safety Engineer
Washington Office

 _______________________________________________________________________ Subscribe/Unsubscribe Here: http://www.energyjustice.net/nukenet/ Change your settings or access the archives at: http://energyjustice.net/mailman/listinfo/nukenet_energyjustice.net ***************************************************************** 19 NRC: NRC Reschedules Public Meeting on Environmental Impacts of Proposed North Anna Early Site Permit for Feb. 17 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. 05-016 January 28, 2005 The Nuclear Regulatory Commission will hold a public meeting Feb. 17 in Mineral, Va., to receive public comment on the draft environmental impact statement for a proposed Early Site Permit (ESP) at the North Anna site in Louisa County, approximately 40 miles northwest of Richmond. The meeting was originally scheduled for Jan. 19; however, it was canceled due to inclement weather. The meeting will be held from 7 p.m. to 10 p.m. at the Louisa County Middle School, 1009 Davis Highway, in Mineral. The meeting will be transcribed. In addition, NRC staff members will host an informal discussion one hour prior to the meeting. NRC staff members will answer questions and explain the ESP process during this informal session, but no official comments on the EIS will be accepted then. If the school closes again on Feb. 17 due to inclement weather, the meeting will be canceled. Members of the public may call the Louisa County school system at (540) 894-5115 for information on the status of the school. The ESP process allows an applicant to address site-related issues, such as environmental impacts, for possible future construction and operation of a nuclear power plant at the site. The North Anna application was filed Sept. 25, 2003, by Dominion Nuclear North Anna, LLC. If approved, the permit would give Dominion up to 20 years to decide whether to build one or more nuclear plants on the site and to file an application with the NRC for approval to begin construction. The NRC staffs preliminary recommendation is that a permit should be issued. The staffs conclusion is based on its independent review of a report submitted by Dominion, taking into account consultations with federal, state, tribal and local agencies and comments from the public. The staffs preliminary conclusions include a finding that there are no environmentally preferable or obviously superior sites, and that any adverse environmental impacts from possible site preparation and preliminary construction activities at North Anna could be redressed. For planning purposes, anyone interested in attending or presenting oral comments at the Feb. 17 meeting is encouraged to pre-register no later than Feb. 14, by contacting Alicia Williamson of the NRC by telephone at (800) 368-5642, extension 1878, or by e-mail at NorthAnna_ESP@nrc.gov. Interested persons may also register to speak within 15 minutes of the start of the meeting. Time for individual comments at the meetings may be limited to accommodate all speakers. Written comments on the draft EIS will also be considered by NRC staff. Comments should be submitted either by mail (postmarked by March 1, 2005) to the Chief, Rules and Directives Branch, Division of Administrative Services, Office of Administration, Mailstop T-6D59, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C. 20555-0001, or by e-mail (sent no later than March 1, 2005) to NorthAnna_ESP@nrc.gov. The draft EIS and related documents are available electronically for public inspection in the NRC Public Document Room, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Md. It is available on the NRCs Web site at two locations: http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/nuregs/docs4comment .html and http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-licensing/esp/north-anna.html. In addition, the Louisa County Library, 881 Davis Highway in Mineral, has agreed to make the draft EIS available for public inspection. At the conclusion of the public comment period on March 1, 2005, the NRC staff will consider and address the comments provided, then issue a final EIS on the environmental acceptability of an ESP at North Anna later in 2005. Last revised Friday, January 28, 2005 ***************************************************************** 20 Bellona: Russian nuclear industry earned $3.5 billion on export in 2004 The head of Russian nuclear agency Alexander Rumyantsev informed about the last year results and mentioned that the export revenues were $0.5 billion higher than in 2003 at a press-conference last year, daily Kommersant reported. 2005-01-28 15:32 According to Rumyantsev, it can be explained by the higher prices for the nuclear fuel and uranium products in 2004. The Russian-American HEU-LEU contract generates a stable annual income equal $450-470m, TVEL corporation earned $1 billion, he added. HEU-LEU contract was signed about 11 years ago and stipulates down-blending of the weapon grade plutonium into the low enrichment uranium, which could be used as fuel at the US nuclear plants. Alexander Rumyantsev complained that no new contracts for nuclear power plants construction abroad has been signed in 2004, but in 2005 China might announce a tender for construction of two reactor units. The head of Rosatom also mentioned that all the technical problems (cracks on the steam generator pipes) at the first reactor unit of Tianwan nuclear power plant, are solved. “The first reactor is practically ready for start-up” he added. Rosatom representatives are hoping to launch the second reactor at the Tianwan nuclear power plant in the end of this year, Kommersant reported. Concerning India, Rumyantsev said there are “factors for delay in the construction schedule” again due to the equipment faults, but it could be solved as well. Cooperation with Iran did not raise big concerns and reactor in Bushehr is to be launched in the end of this year, and connected to the grid in 2006, Rumyantsev said. ”It goes well with foreign cooperation as we manage to build five units simultaneously, but we are building to little home” complained the head of the Russian Nuclear Agency. On December 16, 2004, unit no.3 was launched at the Kalinin NPP. The completion of the resumed reactor’s construction turned out to be more expensive than construction of a new reactor abroad – the price-tag for the new third reactor at the Kalinin NPP reached $1.3 billion. Rosatom specialists have not decided yet which unit should be completed next. There are three unfinished reactors in Russia: the unit no.2 at the Volgodonsk NPP, unit no.5 at the Balakovo NPP, and unit no.5 at the Kursk NPP, Kommersant reported. Publisher: Bellona Foundation, President: Frederic Hauge Information: info@bellona.no, Technical contact: webmaster@bellona.no Telephone: +47 23 23 46 00 Telefax: +47 22 38 38 62 * P.O.Box 2141 Grunerlokka, 0505 Oslo, Norway ***************************************************************** 21 NRC: Atomic Safety and Licensing Board; Department of Energy (High FR Doc 05-1575 [Federal Register: January 28, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 18)] [Notices] [Page 4154-4157] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr28ja05-123] Level Waste Repository: Pre-Application Matters); First Case Management Order (Regarding Preparation of Privilege Logs) January 24, 2005. Before Administrative Judges: Thomas S. Moore, Chairman, Alex S. Karlin and Alan S. Rosenthal The purpose of this order is to promote good management and efficiency in the resolution of documentary privilege disputes during the pre-license application phase of the expected application by the United States Department of Energy (DOE) for a license to construct a repository for high-level radioactive waste (HLW) at Yucca Mountain, Nevada. DOE, the NRC Staff, the State of Nevada (State), other potential parties, interested Indian Tribes, and interested units of local government (collectively Potential Participants) are directed to submit their responses to this order within the times specified below. I. Background On August 31, 2004, this Board granted the motion of the State to strike DOE certification regarding its production of documentary material on the grounds, inter alia, that the gaps in its document production, and the incompleteness of DOE's review of the documents for claims of privilege, showed that DOE had not made all documentary material available as required by 10 CFR 2.1003(a). LBP-04-20, 60 NRC 300 (2004). In that decision, we noted that DOE had claimed approximately one million of its documents were entitled to some form of privilege and yet had not completed its privilege review for several hundred thousand of these documents. 60 NRC at 316, 318. Underscoring the magnitude of the issue, counsel for the State indicated that, given DOE's numerous claims of privilege, ``we're going to be [before the Board] thousands of times asking for documents.'' 60 NRC at 328 n.47. Although our ruling of August 31, 2004 temporarily postponed such privilege disputes, once DOE re-submits and re-certifies its documents, the controversies will begin anew. Even assuming that DOE's pending document production is of the highest quality, it is now clear that thousands of documents in this proceeding (whether [[Page 4155]] from DOE or other participants) will be subject to various claims of privilege and that hundreds, if not thousands, of these claims will be disputed. This threatens to delay the proceeding. But, as we noted in August, ``a full and fair 6-month document discovery period, where all of DOE's documents are to be available to the potential parties and the public, is a necessary precondition to the development of well articulated contentions and to the Commission's ability to meet the statutory mandate to issue a final decision within three years.'' 60 NRC at 315. Mindful of the enormous task that looms before us, it is incumbent on this Board to develop procedures to manage and to resolve efficiently a very large number of privilege disputes. II. Regulatory Structure Development of an efficient plan for managing the privilege disputes in this proceeding first requires an understanding of the scope of the types of privilege claims that are available, and of the existing regulatory and technical structure. A. Scope of Available Privilege Claims As we explained in our August decision, the regulations applicable to the Yucca Mountain proceeding, 10 CFR Part 2, Subpart J, require that DOE and other Potential Participants make ``all documentary material'' available. 10 CFR 2.1003(a)(1); see generally 60 NRC at 311. Documents must be produced electronically and will be placed on the NRC Licensing Support Network (LSN). The full text and an ``electronic bibliographic header'' (Header) is required for all documents except for documents ``(i) for which a claim of privilege is asserted; (ii) which constitutes confidential financial or commercial information; or (iii) which constitute safeguards information,'' where only a Header is required. 10 CFR 2.1003(a)(4)(i)-(iii) (collectively ``privileges'' or ``privileged documents'').\1\ ----------------------------------------------------------------- ---------- \1\ A Header only is also acceptable for a document that is not suitable for image or searchable full text. 10 CFR 2.1003(a)(3). ----------------------------------------------------------------- ---------- The scope of the privileges available under 10 CFR 2.1003(a)(4)(i) is addressed in 10 CFR 2.1006(a), that states: [T]he traditional discovery privileges recognized in NRC adjudicatory proceedings and the exceptions from disclosure in Sec. 2.390 may be asserted by potential parties, interested States, local governmental bodies, Federally-recognized Indian Tribes, and parties. In addition to Federal agencies, the deliberative process privilege may also be asserted by States, local governmental bodies and Federally-recognized Indian Tribes. The regulation specifies that the Board may, in appropriate circumstances, deny claims of privilege, order the document produced, and/or require document production under an appropriate protective order. The exemptions from disclosure specified in 10 CFR 2.390 are those specified in the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552. The regulation sets forth the general rule that NRC must make all records and documents available to the public, and the nine FOIA exemptions from disclosure. These nine exemptions include documents that (1) are properly classified; (2) relate solely to internal personnel rules and practices; (3) are specifically exempted from disclosure by a statute that leaves no discretion on the issue; (4) are trade secrets or privileged or confidential commercial or financial information; (5) are interagency or intra-agency memoranda that would not be available by law to a party other than in litigation;\2\ (6) personnel and medical files, etc.\3\ ----------------------------------------------------------------- ---------- \2\ This FOIA exclusion is related to, but not identical with, the deliberative process privilege. \3\ There is some obvious overlap between the three categories of documents excluded under 10 CFR 2.1003(a)(4)(i)-(iii) and the nine FOIA exclusions. For example, section 2.1003(a)(4)(I) excludes ``confidential financial or commercial information,'' whereas section 2.390(a)(4) (FOIA Exemption 4) excludes ``trade secrets and commercial or financial information obtained from a person and privileged or confidential.'' These are not identical. ----------------------------------------------------------------- ---------- In sum, the Subpart J regulations establish numerous categories of privileged documents with respect to which the person producing them need only provide a ``Header.'' These categories include: (1) The traditional discovery privileges recognized in NRC proceedings (e.g., the attorney work product privilege and the attorney-client communication privilege); (2) Confidential financial or commercial information; (3) Safeguards information; (4) The deliberative process privilege information (for governmental entities); and (5) The nine FOIA exemptions of 10 CFR 2.390(a). For each of these privileges, there are specific elements or requirements that must be met, and the elements vary substantially depending on the privilege. For example, a person claiming that a document is protected under the attorney-client communication privilege generally must establish that the document was (a) to or from an attorney acting in his or her capacity as an attorney; (b) written primarily for the purpose of seeking or providing legal advice; and (c) not shared or disseminated to persons outside of the attorney-client relationship. On the other hand, in order for a document to qualify under the deliberative process privilege the person claiming the privilege generally needs to show that it is pre-decisional, deliberative, and that an appropriately senior agency official personally reviewed and specifically identified the documents as meeting the requirements of the deliberative process privilege.\4\ In order to determine whether a document properly qualifies for a specific privilege, the Board must be provided with the facts showing that the document satisfies all of the elements applicable to the privilege claimed. ----------------------------------------------------------------- ---------- \4\ The descriptions of the elements of the attorney-client communication privilege and the deliberative process privilege are provided to illustrate their differences, and are not to be construed as this Board's final interpretation of the elements of these privileges. ----------------------------------------------------------------- ---------- B. Content of Electronic Bibliographic Headers Turning to the prescribed content of the Headers, they do not appear to provide the parties or the Board with the information necessary to determine whether a given document satisfies the elements applicable to the privilege claimed for it. More fundamentally, the regulations do not require that the Header state that a withheld document is claimed to be privileged, much less the type of privilege claimed.\5\ Similarly, there is no requirement that the person producing the document provide the essential information that would normally be required in a litigation privilege log, i.e., the facts relating to the document that represent the elements of each privilege. ``Bibliographic header'' is defined as ``the minimum series of descriptive fields that a potential party, interested governmental participant, or party must submit with a document or other material.'' 10 CFR 2.1001. But no regulation lists or mandates this ``minimum series of descriptive fields'' or their contents. ----------------------------------------------------------------- ---------- \5\ A person may provide only a Header for a document that (a) is not technically suitable for electronic text display or (b) is claimed to be privileged. See 10 CFR 2.1003(a)(3) and (4). But the regulations and guidance do not require the person to state which of the two reasons justify his or her withholding of the document's text. ----------------------------------------------------------------- ---------- The LSN Administrator and the LSN Advisory Review Panel, neither of which have authority to issue binding regulations, have attempted to fill this gap by issuing guidance. Guidance document ``LSN Baselined Design Requirements'' specifies a ``Recommended Participant [[Page 4156]] Bibliographic Header Field Structure,'' that suggests that each Header include fields for items such as: Addressee name, addressee organization, author name, author organization, comments, descriptors, document date, document type, and title.\6\ The guidance describes the ``comments'' field basically as a catch-all field that can be used to explain (a) whether the document was claimed to be privileged and (b) if so, why.\7\ The guidance document divides the suggested fields into three categories--mandatory, required if available, and optional--and the comments field is listed as ``optional.'' ----------------------------------------------------------------- ---------- \6\ LSN Baselined Design Requirements (June 5, 2001), at 17, Table A, 22-23. \7\ The guidance document states that the ``comments'' field should include ``any information not covered in other fields which the submitter or indexer believes would be of help to identify or retrieve the document, or to further explain any field entry for the document * * * This field may include summaries of documents that are privileged.'' Id. at 17. ----------------------------------------------------------------- ---------- Although the recommended Header fields help identify a document (name of author, date, subject), they do not provide the information necessary to assess whether a document qualifies for any given privilege. For example, although the recommended Header fields include the ``addressee name'' and the ``author name,'' they do not provide the information necessary to determine whether the document qualifies for the attorney-client communication privilege, i.e., (a) whether the addressee or author was an attorney, (b) whether the addressee and author had an attorney-client relationship, (c) whether the document was written for purposes of requesting or providing legal advice, and (d) whether the document was shared or disseminated to persons outside of the attorney-client relationship.\8\ Alternatively, the Header fields provide no information about whether the document might qualify for the deliberative process privilege, such as was it pre-decisional and was it deliberative. ----------------------------------------------------------------- ---------- \8\ Of course the Board, by inspecting the document, might glean some or all of this information. But this misses the point, which is that it is literally impossible for this Board to review individually 100,000 or a million documents to attempt to determine what privilege, if any, the document provider is claiming and whether the document meets the necessary elements. ----------------------------------------------------------------- ---------- In short, even if a person were inclined to follow the optional recommendations of the LSN Administrator's non-binding guidance, the information in the Header fields would be of little assistance in resolving privilege disputes. C. Privilege Logs Privilege logs are the tool employed to manage and to resolve privilege claims. For example, Rule 26(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure states that a party ``may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the claim or defense of any party'' and further provides: When a party withholds information otherwise discoverable under these rules by claiming that it is privileged or subject to protection as trial preparation material, the party shall make the claim expressly and shall describe the nature of the documents, communications, or things not produced or disclosed in a manner that, without revealing information itself privileged or protected, will enable other parties to assess the applicability of the privilege or protection. Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 26(b)(5). The ``privilege log'' is the mechanism whereby a party claiming the privilege ``describes the nature of the documents * * * in a manner that * * * will enable other parties to assess the applicability of the privilege or protection.'' The log is generally a chart, listing each document for which a privilege applies, and providing, in different columns or fields, the information necessary to assess whether the privilege legitimately applies. The Commission's general rules of practice for adjudicatory proceedings support the use of privilege logs. The rules governing Subpart G proceedings are virtually identical to the above quoted provisions of Rule 26. See 10 CFR 2.705(b)(1) and (4). Even in Subpart L proceedings, where discovery is limited to certain mandatory disclosures, the rules require each party to provide a privilege log-- ``a list of documents otherwise required to be disclosed for which a claim of privilege or protected status is being made, together with sufficient information for assessing the claim of privilege or protected status of the documents.'' 10 CFR 2.336(a)(3). Although the regulations for the Yucca Mountain HLW proceeding do not incorporate 10 CFR 2.705 or 2.336 (see 10 CFR 2.1001), privilege logs remain an authorized and necessary tool under Subpart J. This Board, as the pre-license application presiding officer, is required and authorized to resolve privilege claims, see 10 CFR 2.1006(b) and 2.1010(b), and possesses all the general powers of a presiding officer, including the power to manage the process, rule on offers of proof, and avoid delay. See 10 CFR 2.1010(e) and 2.319. Privilege logs will vary from case to case.\9\ In many lawsuits, only a few dozen, or perhaps a hundred documents will be listed on a privilege log. In most cases, only two privileges are asserted--the attorney-client communication privilege and the attorney work product privilege. In these typical cases the privilege logs will be short and relatively simple. In other cases, privilege logs are larger and more complicated. For example, in the tobacco claims litigation involving massive numbers of documents, the court issued a detailed case management plan and procedure for resolving discovery and privilege disputes.\10\ Likewise, in FOIA cases, where there are nine FOIA exemptions, rather than the two traditional privileges, the logs may be more complicated because each type of FOIA exemption has its own sub- elements. See Vaugh v. Rosen, 484 F.2d 820 (DC Cir. 1973). Certainly in any case involving a significant number of privileged documents, it is critical to establish at an early point the information that the privilege log must contain if there is to be any hope that the case is to proceed fairly and expeditiously.\11\ ----------------------------------------------------------------- ---------- \9\ See Robert J. Nelson, The Importance of Privilege Logs, The Practical Litigator, 27, 29 (Mar. 2000). See also Heavin v. Owens- Corning Fiberglass, No. 02-2572-KHV-DJW, 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2265 *1, *24 (D. Kan. Feb. 3, 2004) (describing what a privilege log should include ``at a minimum''); Hill v. McHenry, No. 99-2026-CM, 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6637 *1, *8 (D. Kan. Apr. 10, 2002) (listing requirements of satisfactory privilege log). \10\ United States v. Phillip Morris, Inc., Ninth Case Management Order, 99-CV-2496, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12603 *1 (D.D.C. Mar. 27, 2001). \11\ As one commentator has noted that ``it is in the producing party's interest to provide the absolute minimum amount of information about the document on the privilege log; downplay the potential importance of the document, disguise the weaknesses associated with the privilege or work product claim; and ultimately to delay producing or never produce the document.'' Robert J. Nelson, The Importance of Privilege Logs, The Practical Litigator, 27, 29 (Mar. 2000). To the contrary, it is in the public interest in this case, as well as the interest of sound judicial management, that the privilege logs contain all necessary information, so that privilege disputes can be minimized and promptly resolved. ----------------------------------------------------------------- ---------- III. Order Based on the foregoing, the Board hereby orders DOE, the NRC Staff and the State, together with any other Potential Participants who may wish to respond, to meet, either telephonically or in person, within 20 days of the publication of this order in the Federal Register, for the purpose of developing and agreeing on (a) a joint proposed format for privilege logs and (b) associated procedures for resolving [[Page 4157]] privilege disputes. The joint proposed format for the privilege logs shall cover all categories of privilege or protected status claims available under Subpart J and relevant to this proceeding. See II.A.(1)-(5) above. For each category of claimed privilege (e.g., attorney-client communication, deliberative, Privacy Act), the joint proposed format for that particular privilege log should specify and define the sub-elements of information that must be provided in order to enable other parties to assess the applicability of the privilege or protection without revealing the privileged or protected information itself.\12\ ----------------------------------------------------------------- ---------- \12\ For example, DOE and its litigation support contractor, CACI Inc., are using computer software to screen documents for potential claims of privilege as well as teams of people reviewing and evaluating documents for privilege. See 60 NRC at 318. This software, and DOE's instructions to these individuals, presumably identify the elements of each category of privilege that DOE is claiming. The NRC, which made its documents available on the LSN on September 30, 2004, presumably developed similar criteria and went through a similar process in evaluating which documents qualified for a privilege. ----------------------------------------------------------------- ---------- The jointly agreed procedures associated with privilege claims and disputes shall be based upon the regulatory requirements and procedures of Subpart J and provide any suggested additional measures or procedures that will avoid, or expedite the resolution of, privilege disputes.\13\ For example, the procedure may call for additional conferences between the parties, or for a mechanism for the redaction of small amounts of ``privileged information'' from an otherwise unprivileged document, in lieu of the blanket exclusion of a document. To the maximum extent possible, the privilege logs and procedures should encourage the prompt resolution of privilege disputes by the parties themselves. The proposed procedures should distinguish between those privileges that are absolute, and those that are qualified. The proposed procedures shall maximize the effective use of the LSN. ----------------------------------------------------------------- ---------- \13\ Appointment of a discovery master, authorized under 10 CFR 2.1018(g), merely pushes the discovery disputes to another level and, therefore, would not appear to be a panacea. ----------------------------------------------------------------- ---------- Not later than 40 days after the publication of this order in the Federal Register, DOE, the NRC Staff, and the State shall submit a jointly-agreed proposed case management order to the Board that establishes a proposed format for a privilege log and specifies privilege claim related procedures for this proceeding. They shall allow any other Potential Participant the opportunity to negotiate, to endorse and/or to join in the joint submission. In addition, such other Potential Participants may develop and submit their own joint or individual alternative proposed case management orders on the subject of privilege log formats and procedures. If DOE, the NRC Staff, and the State are unable to agree upon a joint proposed case management order prescribing the format for a privilege log and associated procedures, then, 50 days after the publication of this order in the Federal Register, each of them, and any other Potential Participant shall submit separate proposed case management orders on this subject. In such case, 65 days after publication of this order in the Federal Register, each person or entity filing a proposed case management order shall file a supplement identifying and explaining the material differences between its proposed order and the other proposed orders. It is so ordered. January 24, 2005, Rockville, Maryland. The Pre-license Application Presiding Officer Board. Thomas S. Moore, Chairman, Administrative Judge. Alan S. Rosenthal, Administrative Judge. Alex S. Karlin, Administrative Judge. [FR Doc. 05-1575 Filed 1-27-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-U ***************************************************************** 22 SFBV: A dangerous gamble: Nuclear power, earthquakes and tsunamis San Francisco Bay View - National Black Newspaper of the Year 1/26/05 by Janette Sherman, M.D. Radiation and Public Health Project Though 60 people died and 500 homes were destroyed by the Dec. 26 tsunami in the adjacent employees’ township, the Times of India reported two days later that the Kalpakkam nuclear power plant is safe and not leaking radiation. There is a push to revive the use of nuclear energy, given increases in oil prices and problems with war-torn countries sitting on oil reserves. The increasing likelihood of a terrorist attack upon a nuclear reactor, or its spent fuel depot, seems not to deter development, but the recent earthquake and subsequent Indian Ocean tsunami ought to provide reasons to stop nuclear power development. The Indian Ocean earthquake and tsunami The earthquake and subsequent tsunami in the Indian Ocean directly killed close to 300,000 people. It is not known how many more will die as a result of injuries, disease and starvation over the long run. Unknown are long term effects from the tsunami on the Kalpakkam nuclear complex, located on the south coast of India, 80 km from Chennai, a city of 7 million, the fourth largest metropolis in India. At the complex, some 500 homes were destroyed, 60 people killed in the employees’ township and another 250 killed in the rest of the area. Given the military nature of all nuclear sites, information on nuclear releases related to the tsunami is hard to get. We do know that prior to the tsunami, for the period May to October 2003, multiple cancers of the blood and bone in the age group 15 to 50 was 3.0 per 100,000, slightly less than twice the national average, which was 1.7 per 100,000 (J.S. Raman, sriraman_j@yahoo.com). Whether the decision by the Indian government to reject all foreign aid is dictated by its own reserves of funds – hard to believe, given the grinding poverty of most of India – or is a way to limit access to critical areas such as the nuclear power plants damaged by the tsunami is in question. The Madras Atomic Power Station in Kalpakkam, near Chennai in the state of Tamil Nadu, is a comprehensive nuclear power production, fuel reprocessing and waste treatment facility that includes plutonium fuel fabrication for fast breeder reactors. Two pressurized heavy water reactors at Kalpakkam started commercial operation in 1984 and 1986. They were designed, built and operated with indigenous expertise, establishing Indian capabilities in the design, construction and operation of nuclear power plants. Construction of the waste immobilization plant in Kalpakkam started in 1983, with commissioning in 1993. An interim storage facility is also located in Kalpakkam. Plutonium for nuclear weapons, which is also the fuel for the second stage reactors of the Indian nuclear power program, is obtained from spent uranium fuel from the pressurized heavy water reactors. Fuel reprocessing aims at recovering the reusable fissile and fertile component of the spent fuel (http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/india/kalpakkam.htm). Plutonium emits powerful alpha radiation and is one of the most dangerous elements, with a half-life of 500,000 years. An earthquake at a nuclear plant has the potential to kill millions of people and contaminate land and water for centuries. Many nuclear facilities are built near earthquake faults and close to major bodies of water. An earthquake can easily destroy backup safety equipment, preventing the shutdown of a nuclear plant, disrupt the integrity of a containment structure, rupture spent fuel rod storage pools and allow highly radioactive material to escape into the surrounding land, water and air. Compounding the force of an earthquake with that of a tsunami increases the damage and spreads further the deadly radioactive materials. Nuclear power plants situated near large bodies of water The San Onofre Nuclear Power Plant in California is situated between the ocean and Route 5, a major six-lane highway connecting San Diego and Los Angeles. Los Angeles County, with its population of 9.5 million, is located within 100 miles of the reactor. The Davis Besse Nuclear reactor is located on the shore of Lake Erie, close to Cleveland, Ohio, and Detroit, Mich. If the recent damage to the Davis-Besse containment vessel had eroded all the way through, there was the likelihood that release of nuclear materials would contaminate the Great Lakes from Lakes Erie and Ontario to the St. Lawrence River and on to the Atlantic Ocean. When we comprehend that the Richter scale is a log scale, which means that an earthquake of 7 is 10 times as strong as a quake of 6, and a quake of 8 is 100 times stronger than a quake of 6, we can appreciate the fact that nuclear power installations sited near earthquake faults and large bodies of water are a threat to humanity and the health of the environment globally. Nuclear weapons testing to resume in the U.S. In order to restart underground nuclear testing in Nevada and estimate the risk of seismic damage to high dollar Las Vegas property, the U.S. Department of Energy recently spent $25 million for its “test readiness program”: “Finding no structural harm from 150 kiloton blasts, scientists are trying to help the US Department of Energy’s (DOE) National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) with a scientific and political question: At what explosive yield will most people have no perception of a nuclear test at all? ... There are hints that the NNSA might consider dropping its explosive test yields to as little as one-tenth of the limit, or 15 kilotons, to avoid any human perception and lessen local political resistance to testing” (Oakland Tribune, 1/04/05, http://www.insidebayarea.com/oaklandtribune/ci_2508598). In other words, perception is the watch word. According to John Louie, University of Nevada seismologist and associate professor, “It’s a far easier public relations problem for the DOE if the tests are not felt” (Ibid.). The problem of nuclear waste disposal The U.S. government has indicated plans to entomb nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain in Nevada. Yucca Mountain is located in an earthquake-prone region. Only California and Alaska surpass Nevada for dangerous, life-threatening tremors. Scientists at the University of Nevada in Reno indicate that Las Vegas ranks seventh among cities outside California for potential property losses due to earthquakes. The greater Las Vegas area rests on at least eight earthquake faults (ibid.). U.S. “national sacrifice” zone It appears that the perception of risk takes precedence over actual harm from an earthquake in an area with tons of radioactive debris left after nuclear bomb tests, or from the future release of radioactive materials during new tests. And perception can be controlled by public relations and secrecy. The DOE’s stated mission is to do the impossible, in an active volcanic and tectonic region, which is to make the Yucca Mountain storage facility “safe” for 10,000 years. Compounding that difficulty, the half-life of plutonium alone is 500,000 years. Few of us have a concept of life 100 years ago; how can we possibly envision conditions 10,000 years in the future? What right do we have to leave such a toxic legacy to our children and grandchildren for centuries to come? There are safer, less costly and some renewable ways to generate electricity. These include solar, wind, natural gas and hydroelectric power. Currently, solar power is safer, non-polluting and initially more costly than other forms of energy, but those involved in solar energy development have not reaped the millions of dollars in subsidies which have been handed out to nuclear energy corporations. Conservation is part of the answer Lastly, conservation is perhaps the most important factor in the energy issues and an option that citizens can implement themselves. Some 15 to 20 percent of U.S. electrical power comes from nuclear plants. It is very likely that if the public understands the contribution of nuclear power to cancer and other radiation related diseases in children and adults, including infant mortality and foetal losses, most citizens would be more than willing to cut their use of electrical power by 20 percent to prevent the illnesses and losses that so many are currently bearing. After all, California consumers have already demonstrated that they can. California electricity consumers voluntarily cut energy consumption by 20 percent in the first three months of the California energy crisis in 2001. When energy costs tripled in that short time, it came down to a choice for many of eating or turning on the lights. John Gofman, M.D., Ph.D., has called nuclear contamination “random murder.” If we continue to manufacture and test nuclear weapons in civilian settings, continue the illegal use of depleted uranium weaponry in war zones and continue to operate nuclear power plants … does anyone have a better definition of widespread radioactive pollution than “random murder”? Janette D. Sherman, M.D., specializes in internal medicine and toxicology. Her website is www.janettesherman.com. sfbayview.com San Francisco Bay View National Black Newspaper 4917 Third Street San Francisco California 94124 Phone: (415) 671-0789 Fax: (415) 671-0316 Email: ***************************************************************** 23 St. Joseph News-Press: Cooper released from oversight www.stjoenews-press.com 1/27/2005 BROWNVILLE, Neb. — Federal regulators have removed the Cooper Nuclear Station in Southeast Nebraska from its oversight list of power plants monitored for unsafe operations. The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission met with officials from the Nebraska Public Power District Tuesday night at the Brownville Concert Hall to discuss steps the plant had taken recently toward improved safety. In April 2002, the agency had given Cooper Nuclear the lowest possible rating without the chance of a forced shutdown. In January 2003, the commission had written a letter to the district that mandated the improvements. The safety issues outlined by the government focused on internal procedures at the plant — in emergency preparedness, employee performance and equipment — and had no bearing on public health concerns. Commission members acknowledged that the plant had made strides toward improvement. “We inspected you often and thoroughly and you passed the test,” said Bruce Mallett, the agency’s regional administrator, “but you have to continue your journey of improvement so your performance does not decline.” A district official indicated that changes made at the plant because of the increased scrutiny signaled a future trend of improvements. “We are emerging from this process with a culture of quality performance, can-do attitudes and higher expectations for ourselves,” said Bill Fehrman, Nebraska Public’s president and chief executive officer. “We cannot settle for less when we have come so far.” Lifting the plant from the increased observation halts quarterly performance inspections the government had been conducting at Cooper, with the resumption of a normal inspection schedule. --> Content © 2005, The News-Press, St. Joseph, Missouri ***************************************************************** 24 DECATUR DAILY: Waste, shame to can Browns Ferry plant www.decaturdaily.com FRIDAY, JANUARY 28, 2005 EDITORIAL The Tennessee Valley Authority would not have spent about $4 billion updating Units 2 and 3 at Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant and be on the way to a $1.8 billion restart of Unit 1 if officials thought that in less than a decade the government would start to close them. Nevertheless, TVA is going through the process of asking the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to extend the lives of the units 20 years beyond the original 40-year licensing period. Hearings in Athens this week allowed the public to join the debate, which it did. Officials heard that the impact of extending lives of the units will have less negative impact on the environment than closing them and building new ones or burning more coal to make electricity. One opponent voiced concern for the additional nuclear waste that someday the NRC must transfer from on-site storage to Nevada. Forty years seemed a prudent time to keep the stresses of radioactive materials contained back when nuclear plants were first being planned and built. Today, with major updating and a history of nuclear plants to use in developing new NRC guidelines, the plants should be good for at least the time asked for in the licensing. The nation must continue to develop and expand alternate sources of energy. Nuclear energy is an important part of weaning the nation off petroleum. Sure, there are concerns about storage of spent fuel rods and rising costs. Yet, having the nation less dependent on foreign oil will be cheaper in the long term. The nation should proceed, but with caution, in expanding use of nuclear energy. TVA's approach to bringing Browns Ferry's three units back to life and asking for a new license falls within that framework. The Valley needs Browns Ferry's reliability in building the region's future. Copyright 1999 THE DECATUR DAILY. All rights reserved. THE DECATUR DAILY 201 1st Ave. SE P.O. Box 2213 Decatur, Ala. 35609 (256) 353-4612 webmaster@decaturdaily.com ***************************************************************** 25 St. Petersburg Times: Four Hunger Strikers Fall Ill - #1039, Friday, January 28, 2005 THE ST. PETERSBURG TIMES Four of 10 men who helped clean up the 1986 Chernobyl nuclear power station disaster and who began a hunger strike 16 days ago in the St. Petersburg suburb of Sestroretsk seeking higher compensation, had been hospitalized by Thursday. "One of them, who had pneumonia, has been sent home," Sergei Kulish, the group's leader, said Thursday. "Three others, including one, who was hospitalized today, are still in the hospital." The three have heart and blood complaints and one has complications related to diabetes. Doctors recommended some of the remaining strikers to be hospitalized too, but they refused, he said. "We spend most of the time lying on beds and mattresses," Kulish said. The strike could end Friday, if federal and local officials fulfill the demands of the strikers, but it will otherwise continue, he said. The 10 men, who became invalids after being exposed to unhealthy levels of radiation during the Chernobyl clean up. Their benefits have not been increased in line with rising costs since 1997, they say. Most of the group began a hunger strike in December, but broke it off after receiving promises from officials. They complain that the promises have not been kept. The Supreme Court, which considered raising Chernobyl liquidators' compensation on Jan. 18, decided to seek amendments before taking any action. About 47,000 Chernobyl liquidators do not receive the compensation they deserve and need to survive, Kulish said. [Copyright] copyright The St. Petersburg Times 1993-2004 ***************************************************************** 26 DECATUR DAILY: Browns Ferry Unit 1 on track, NRC head says www.decaturdaily.com FRIDAY, JANUARY 28, 2005 By Eric Fleischauer DAILY Staff Writer eric@decaturdaily.com · 340-2435 The recovery of Browns Ferry Unit 1 is progressing well, according to the chairman of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission in a rare visit to the plant Thursday. The Tennessee Valley Authority has solved problems that caused Unit 1 to fail an NRC inspection in April, according to Nils J. Diaz, who was appointed to the chairmanship by President Bush. The problems included improperly applied epoxy paint that could have clogged water-release drains and defective welds. "There were problems. Those problems have been resolved," Diaz said. "The NRC believes the modifications are on track." Diaz said Unit 1 is getting particularly intensive scrutiny because the NRC is using the project to "train a new generation of inspectors and engineers." "We are so intrusive and so thorough," Diaz said, "that we are a pain in the neck. We take this process very seriously." "TVA is pretty savvy," Diaz said. "They have tremendous amounts of lessons they have learned." He said TVA opted to replace most systems in Unit 1 rather than repairing them, a practice he said increases the plant's safety. TVA is installing aboveground casks to store nuclear waste, a step necessitated by delays in the opening of a planned repository at Yucca Mountain in Nevada. Diaz said the casks are safe, but NRC prefers a national geological repository. Existing nuclear waste in the United States would already exceed Yucca Mountain's capacity, Diaz said. Diaz said the NRC has been able to handle budget cuts through increased efficiency, "but we're getting pretty thin. ... We find ourselves looking for relief." "The thing we are not going to reduce, however is our oversight," Diaz said. Diaz said his duties since Sept. 11, 2001, have largely involved increasing the security of nuclear plants. "We're very confident, very responsive to the present threat," he said. TVA is spending $1.8 billion to restart Unit 1. It was last operated 18 years ago. Once it is recovered, TVA expects it to generate enough power for 650,000 homes. The restart is slated for 2007. Copyright 2005 THE DECATUR DAILY. All rights reserved. THE DECATUR DAILY 201 1st Ave. SE P.O. Box 2213 Decatur, Ala. 35609 (256) 353-4612 webmaster@decaturdaily.com ***************************************************************** 27 Rediff: No tsunami effect on nuclear plant The Rediff Interview/Nuclear expert L V Krishnan January 07, 2005 In these difficult hours in South Asia after the deadly tsunami, there is something to be proud of for India. It's time to acknowledge the achievement of Indian scientists who designed and built the Kalpakkam nuclear power reactors without foreign assistance. The nuclear station withstood the devastation of the Big Wave because it is not even imaginable what would have happened had the tsunami damaged the two nuclear power units situated on the shore. L V Krishnan, former director, safety research and health physics at the Indira Gandhi Centre for Atomic Research at Kalpakkam, explains how the great disaster was forestalled because of scientific planning. A veteran of the Department of Atomic Energy for 40 years, he retired from Kalpakkam nine years ago and is a well-known safety expert on nuclear plants. For many years, Krishnan, has been closely associated with the Kalpakkam nuclear power generating plants. He continues to advise DAE in selective matters. He visited Kalpakkam immediately after the tsunami hit the town killing 56 people including 5 nuclear scientists. In an interview to Senior Editor Sheela Bhatt, he not only gives his account of how the Kalpakkam nuclear power plant withstood the tsunami but also suggests how India's nuclear assets can be protected in the case of a similar disaster. Was a tsunami taken into consideration when the Kalpakkam nuclear power reactors were being built? No, tsunami was not taken into consideration. Nowhere in India people had thought a tsunami could strike the Indian coasts. But we had taken into account the worst cyclonic storm surges. Before a cyclone hits, a storm surge comes. We had provided for the worst cyclone that could hit the coast looking at historical statistics. The maximum water level that could be expected if the cyclone coincided with highest of high tides was estimated at 6 metres or so. The Kalpakkam plant site is built to withstand that. The construction of Kalpakkam began in about 1968 but it was completed in 1983 because around 1974 outside help was discontinued and we found that we will have to build the plant indigenously and that took some time. The first unit of Kalpakkam was commissioned in 1983 and the second was commissioned in 1984. Since then, it is functioning extremely well. The tsunami storm surge that we saw on that day was not much more than that, in fact it (intensity of tsunami storm surge) was less than that! Really? Yes. These nuclear reactors, for cooling purposes, draw water from the sea; that is why they are located in the coastal area. In Kalpakkam, half a kilometre into the sea there is a huge well that has been dug. That well is connected to another well on the shore on land. These two wells are connected by an under seabed tunnel. As the storm surge comes in and the water level rises in the well in the sea, the level of water also rises in the well on the shore. The moment the water level rises beyond prescribed limits in the well on the shore, the seawater pump trips. The moment it trips the operator sitting in the control room knows that something is wrong and he trips the reactors. Even before the wave hits the shore, I would say, that the reactors were shut down. Imagine if the waves would have been higher than what was anticipated by planners and if they would have come in, then, what would have happened to the reactors? Nothing at all. The well in the sea and well on the shore are also connected by a jetty. On the shore there is a horizontally spread building that has turbines installed inside. Behind the turbine building lie the domes of two reactors. Even if the tsunami waters had come in they would have hit the turbine building first, not the reactors. And the reactor buildings have walls that are one metre thick (http://www.npcil.org/maps.asp). So even if waves had affected the site, sea water simply could not have entered the reactors. The reactors are pretty safe. It so happened that this time the water didn't even enter the turbine building. Even the turbine building is so designed that the ground level is sufficiently raised to withstand earthquakes and storms. Also, all our reactors have a buffer zone of one-and-a-half kilometres between residential localities and the reactor building. If that buffer zone had existed in Bhopal, the death toll would not have been so high. I know from my experiences that district collectors are worried more about oil refineries than the nuclear reactors' safety measures. What were the reasons for the high number of casualties in Kalpakkam? The casualties were not at the plant site at all. The causalities were in the township. In the construction of the township we have not taken into account all of these things. Why? We had no fears of radiation there. Second, as I said we had not anticipated a tsunami. As far as a cyclone is concerned, one always gets advanced warning. But in the case of a tsunami if you don't have any advanced warning, the sea comes in silently. Many more people would have died if the tsunami had hit at 5 am instead of 9 am. What kind of earthquakes did you take into account when the final designs were made? All earthquakes don't cause tsunamis. Certainly we didn't take into account earthquakes of a magnitude of 8 or more. While planning, we take more into account the earthquakes on land. We thought the fault line near Indonesia is quite far away from the Indian coast. Also, historical statistical data didn't suggest that a magnitude of 9 is a possibility and we didn't anticipate it. After this event I have read only two reports on the historical data of tsunami in the Indian context. R N Iyengar, professor at the Indian Institute of Science, said on November 28, 1945, Pasni, a trading town about 100 kms from Mekhran, was washed away by a wave of about 15 meters, after an earthquake measuring 6.7 on the Richter scale hit the coast which is now in Pakistan. But that could not have been the basis of our designers in Kalpakkam. Another report claimed that a tsunami once hit some parts of Bangladesh. Is Kalpakkam absolutely safe after the tsunami? It is safe. I visited the plant site two days after the tsunami hit us. Water had come in some places but it had just wet the ground. It didn't enter the building, it came just outside it. There are two reactor units in the Madras Atomic Power Station at Kalpakkam. One unit was already shut down for maintenance and the other was operating and the sea water pump house of that unit had registered the higher level of water. Adjacent to the Madras Atomic Power Station a new fast breeder reactor is under construction. To make such vital buildings withstand earthquakes, first a large concrete base mat is built. So if the structure moves it will move all together without getting cracked. On the location of the fast breeder reactor they had dug up a huge area several metres below the ground level for the base mat. Sea water have flooded that place. Now, they will have to pump out the waters and start construction again. The operator of the operating nuclear reactor unit was alert which saved the situation. Right? What about the people in the pump house? There is no need to have operators present in the pump house all the time. Once the water level goes up there are water level indicators that trip the pump. And once the pump trips the reactors have to be shut down. As the water level rose in the well on the shore, the pump tripped and the operator saw it and he tripped the reactors. The operator's action is automatic. How is the situation at the Kudankulam Atomic Power Project? I have not been there but Mr S K Jain, chairman and managing director of the Nuclear Power Corporation of India, was present at Kudankulam when the tsunami struck. The Kudankulam Atomic Power Project is under construction with the help of Russian scientists and he said the same thing -- that none of the building is affected. If somehow the water had entered the turbines building what would have happened In the turbine hall there is no radioactivity. The turbines are at a high level. Waters could only enter in the condensers and not in turbines. Now, if any part of the entire system is affected reactors will automatically shut down. And once the reactors stop functioning there is no risk. And if tsunami waves would have entered the nuclear reactors building, then? There is no way waters could get into the reactors buildings. The reactor will shut down automatically before water enters the building. The in-built system is such. We know nature is mighty. But we know the upper limit of what all nature can do. At least we can estimate. I agree scientists didn't anticipate a tsunami so the devastation has followed. But the cyclone was well anticipated and was taken into account. We anticipate something and then built the building. In Japan earthquakes are common but their nuclear reactors are safe and ongoing because of their designs of structures. Because man can anticipate safety is possible. But we cannot even think of a scenario if a tsunami had hit it badly. Yes. We too think like laymen and ask questions. Somebody designs the reactors. Another group builds it. And another group which is independent of it keeps asking questions as you do. What if the instrument fails? What if the operator makes mistakes? What if the back-up system fails too? We make sure that even if all these errors occur together the reactors will not release radioactive material. Since the tsunami has hit India so badly that doubts keep rising about the safety issue? The tsunami has hit India in the most vulnerable part. But if you are well protected you are safe. It so happened that our plants were well protected but our township was not so we lost 30 people. We didn't anticipate a tsunami but we anticipated a cyclone of this nature and it helped us tremendously. This time the velocity of water may not be as much as it is during cyclones but the volume of water was tremendous. See, the cyclone will have much higher wind speed as well. In Kalpakkam, the massive turbine building is able to protect the reactors. I can assure you on the safety of Kalpakkam because often I am asked to assess the safety by the Atomic Energy Regulatory Board. I cannot afford to be lax on safety issue. I have to speak honestly. I don't see any problem at Kalpakkam in the post-tusnami period too. I don't know however, what will be the case if an earthquake of magnitude 10 occurs in the Sumatra region. It is not enough to anticipate an earthquake, it is not enough to predict that an earthquake can cause a tsunami. It is also necessary to find out the impact of the tsunami along the coastline. If you have an earthquake there, its effects may not be uniform everywhere on our coast. Along the coastline the depths of the sea are different. At some places sand gets piled up forming contours. The depths can be shallow there. The energy of the tsunami waves can be focused differently at particular point because depth varies along the coastline. In India's coastline, the intensity of the tsunami is variable at different points along the coastline. Now, it is important to find out if there is likelihood of magnified impact because of the contour of the seabed underwater. Now the measurement of depth in the sea is necessary. The bathymetric data of the sea ahould be available. We need to have it now to estimate wave heights and design accordingly. India will have to measure the depth of the sea and contours on the seabed. Then, we will be able to project the severity of waves and its impact at any particular point. What will be your advice for the other power plants now? I am sure the Atomic Energy Regulatory Board will begin a review of the safety aspects. It is their objective. Every event of the country where unforeseen things have occurred, they assess and take corrective steps if necessary. Even in our reactors when some surprises are noticed or when some component fails, immediately we shut down all other reactors which may have similar components. Only when we have understood why it failed, we restart the reactors. This is a common practice, everywhere in the world. In this case, an earthquake of magnitude 9 will have to be taken into account. The mean return period of earthquakes of these magnitudes will be calculated. If something is likely to happen in the next thousands years we take that into account. But something is likely to re-occur in say the next 5,000 years, you have to give less importance because somewhere you have to draw a line. On the basis of historical data, we will have to project the future of tsunami re-occurrences and also have to look at the possibility of an earthquake measuring 9.5. This is called extreme value analysis. As I told you we will have to take into account seabed contours and its effect on the tsunami wave height. I am sure AERB will re-examine seismic designs of all the vital structures. Importantly, we will have to review the communication network. Meanwhile, what we can do best is to observe also the movement of the seabed. There we should have buoys that have sensors on the seabed. If the seabed sensors move up because of earthquakes then they immediately relay the information to you. We don't have this system yet. We should also be prepared for the events we cannot anticipate. We didn't anticipate a magnitude of 9. It's a huge earthquake. The fault lines off Sumatra extend from 2 degree to 10 degree north latitude. All along the fault line there is a disruption. It's mind-boggling. Nobody disputes that nature is superior to man but preparedness is possible. Safety is a question of attitude. When I visited Kalpakkam, scientists were happy that the design has withstood the tsunami and the reactors could be brought back in line. They had full faith in their own systems. The Rediff Interviews Copyright © 2004 rediff.com India Limited. All Rights Reserved. ***************************************************************** 28 NRC: Company Agrees to Additional Corrective Actions at Puerto Rico Irradiation Facility Under Alternate Dispute Resolution Settlement News Release - Region I - 2005-00 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Office of Public Affairs, Region I 475 Allendale Road, King of Prussia, Pa. 19406 No. I-05-005 January 26, 2005 CONTACT: Diane Screnci (610) 337-5330 Neil A. Sheehan (610) 337-5331 E-mail: opa1@nrc.gov As part of an agreement reached with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Baxter Healthcare Corp. has agreed to take additional corrective actions at a commercial irradiation facility it operates in Puerto Rico. The agreement was achieved through the NRCs Alternate Dispute Resolution (ADR) Process, during which the agency and the company discussed the terms of a $44,000 civil penalty levied against the company last year. That action stemmed from an event last April in which two workers failed to follow procedures at the facility, creating the possibility of a lethal exposure to radiation for the employees. Under the agreement, Baxter has agreed to implement additional corrective actions, specifically reviews of irradiator operations, maintenance, radiation safety and the Radiation Safety Officer (RSO) and Assistant RSO functions by a qualified consultant. Those reviews will last at least until sometime in 2007. The settlement also calls for the NRC to change the amount of the proposed civil penalty for violations of agency requirements to $31,200. The new terms of the enforcement action have been confirmed via a Confirmatory Order issued by the NRC to the company. This demonstrates once again that the Alternate Dispute Resolution Process can work and achieve a result that protects the public health and safety while at the same time improving the efficiency and effectiveness of the enforcement process, said Frank J. Congel, Director of the NRCs Office of Enforcement. Baxter requested the use of the ADR Process after the NRC issued the proposed civil penalty to the company on Oct. 25, 2004. ADR is a process in which a neutral mediator with no decision-making authority assists the NRC and licensees in reaching an agreement resolving any differences regarding an enforcement action. An ADR mediation session between the NRC staff and Baxter representatives led by a professional mediator arranged through Cornell Universitys Institute of Conflict Management was held on Dec. 13, 2004, in Philadelphia. That session led to the settlement agreement. The event that prompted the enforcement action occurred on April 21, 2004, when an irradiator operator and an assistant were performing work at Baxters Puerto Rico irradiator, which is used to sterilize medical equipment. To ensure that workers are not exposed to unacceptable levels of radiation, such irradiators are equipped with safety interlocks designed to prevent entry when the radioactive sources are in the unshielded position. During this event, however, the interlocks were bypassed, or temporarily disabled. Consequently, the workers entered the irradiator at a time when a radioactive source rack was stuck in the unshielded position. They quickly left the area after a radiation monitor carried by the irradiator operator indicated elevated radiation levels. The problem for which the fine is being issued involves a failure by Baxter employees to follow emergency and abnormal event procedures after the source rack fault indicator on the console was illuminated and the source travel alarm sounded for an extended period; the operators failure to adequately check the irradiator cell radiation monitor and radiation levels outside prior to entering the irradiator, and to perform other surveys; and a failure to supply an individual radiation monitoring device to a worker (the assistant operator) entering the irradiator and to require its use. The NRC staff and Baxter have agreed to disagree on whether the last violation was willful. Last revised Thursday, January 27, 2005 ***************************************************************** 29 The Spectrum: Utah officials attack Pentagon study thespectrum.com Friday, January 28, 2005 Gov. Huntsman, Rep. Matheson critical of Defense proposal to transport mustard gas to Tooele plant By ED KOCIELA ekociela@thespectrum.com CEDAR CITY -- A Department of Defense proposal to study the possibility of transporting mustard gas from a government storage site in Pueblo, Colo., to the military's chemical incinerator in Tooele was sharply attacked Thursday by Gov. John Huntsman Jr. and Rep. Jim Matheson, D-Utah. "Congress passed a law saying (the Defense Department) is not going to move these chemicals across state lines, now I hear the Pentagon is studying moving them," Matheson said. "I'm not happy, I don't want them bringing it here and I don't want Utah to be a dumping ground. It's consistent with a theme that has run for years that we are a small state in the West and everyone can take advantage of us." Huntsman, in a prepared statement, said the safest place to store or destroy mustard gas is at the Army bases where it is currently stored. "There is no way this governor will ever support transporting such toxic chemicals into Utah," Huntsman said in his prepared statement. "We will utilize all means to prevent any quantity of mustard gas from moving into the state of Utah." The stand is consistent with Huntsman's declaration during his State of the State address last week that he would fight any effort to allow Class B or C nuclear waste into the state. Matheson has also been a longtime opponent to shipping nuclear waste to or through Utah. Mustard gas, also known as sulfur mustard, is a chemical weapon that was used extensively during World War I. Although not usually fatal, it can incapacitate humans, damaging the skin, eyes and respiratory system, according to the Centers for Disease Control. Former Parowan Mayor Amos Hatch, who served in Europe during World War I, was a victim of mustard gas. Although he lived to age 92, he had respiratory problems associated with being sprayed with the gas during the war, said his daughter, Margaret Hatch-Knight. "He used neosynepherine to clear out his head all the time," she said. "It helped him breathe better." The international community has condemned mustard gas and other chemical weapons and, during the Cold War, treaties were formed to not only forbid their use, but provide for the destruction of the gases. Since then, chemical weapons have been either stored or incinerated at the Tooele facility. However, because of the possibility of leakage, which could result in widespread health problems, the Congress eventually banned transportation of all chemical weapons across state lines. The latest proposal by the Defense Department would fund a $150,000 study to determine the feasibility of moving 2,600 tons of mustard gas from the Pueblo facility to Tooele. In a letter to Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, Matheson questioned if the study "is a prudent use of taxpayer funds to study -- yet again -- alternatives to construction of a chemical weapons disposal facility" at the Pueblo site. "Department of Defense short-term budgetary considerations should not be more important than the safety of our citizens and complying with federal law," Matheson wrote. "Given the hazardous nature of these munitions and the risk associated with transporting them to Utah, I am opposed to any proposal that would lead to relocation." Jason Chaffetz, Huntsman's chief of staff, said this is an issue that has been out there for some time. "Because we're new to office, we had to learn more and do due diligence," he said. "The more we dove into it, the more evident it became that this is so dangerous and detrimental to Utah that we had to take a hard stand. "It's a statewide issue, it's a national issue. The transportation of chemical and nuclear weapons? We cannot put up with that or accept it. We will have to fight the federal government at every level and every step to make sure Utah is not the final resting place or the transportation corridor for these weapons. "There are terrorism threats, accidents. We can't risk that, no matter how much they are willing to pay us." Originally published Friday, January 28, 2005 ***************************************************************** 30 BBC ON THIS DAY | 28 | 1968: Radiation alert following B-52 crash bbc.co.uk 1968: Radiation alert following B-52 crash A recovery team is searching for wreckage from an American Air Force B-52 bomber armed with four hydrogen bombs which crashed into the sea near the Arctic air base of Thule in Greenland. Investigators are searching the area eight miles west of Thule for radioactive debris. The accident happened a week ago when the plane caught fire and the crew bailed out before the plane crashed through the ice. The United States defence department says parts of the bombs have been found. But it is thought the radioactive detonators are still missing. A team of 47 men with dog sleigh teams have been brought in to clear the wreckage. The sea surrounding the crash site has since re-frozen. One of the scientists involved in the operation said all the wreckage was emitting low level radiation but there was no evidence of radiation on the snow. The risk of contamination is said to be slight - except to those working on the spot who are equipped with protective clothing. Two years ago, there was a similar accident involving a B-52 over the sea off Palomares in south-east Spain. The plane dropped its bombs over the Spanish coast. It took nearly 80 days to recover the last of the four bombs on board that plane. The Spanish subsequently banned flights carrying nuclear weapons over their territory. Plutonium specialist Dr Wright Langham, who is serving as a consultant to the recovery operation at Thule, said preliminary indications of the radiation levels showed two of the four weapons had broken. He said: "One point to make is that since the count level is comparable to what we saw in Spain we can equate what we have here to what we had in Spain." Dr Langham has insisted radiation is not a hazard at Thule. Most of the crash site has now been cleared of radioactive debris. In Context The American defence department did not release details of the Thule crash for 18 hours. It feared "serious political difficulties" with Denmark over the crash. The Danish authorities, which control Greenland, were informed in 1965 that the Americans had been storing nuclear weapons at Thule - against their wishes. Although Thule was no longer used as a weapons store, it was still embarrassing for the US to admit planes carrying nuclear weapons were regularly flying in Danish airspace. It took 700 men over nine months to remove all the contaminated material including snow from the crash site. America subsequently ended the airborne alert which kept some B-52 bombers in the air at all times in case of surprise nuclear attack. ***************************************************************** 31 Bellona: Relatives of Kursk submarine crew appeal to European Court The families of the crewmembers of the Kursk submarine which sank in the Barents Sea in August 2000 have filed an appeal to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, the RIA-Novosti news agency reported on January 20. 2005-01-28 18:16 The agency cited Boris Kuznetsov, a lawyer representing the relatives of the dead sailors, as saying that the appeal had been filed in connection with the Russian courts’ refusal to launch an additional investigation into the tragedy. In June 2004 the Moscow District Military Court refused to fulfil a request to start a new investigation into the Kursk submarine’s sinking. The court turned down Kuznetsov’s protests over the results of the expertise concerning the time of death of the crewmembers in the acoustic compartment and also the examination of the SOS signals. The criminal case into the Kursk tragedy was stopped in July 2003 after a special commission ruled that the explosion on board the submarine was caused by a torpedo accident in the course of a training launch. The Kursk nuclear submarine sank on Aug. 12, 2000 in the course of large-scale naval exercises. All 118 crewmembers were killed in the disaster. Publisher: Bellona Foundation, President: Frederic Hauge Information: info@bellona.no, Technical contact: webmaster@bellona.no Telephone: +47 23 23 46 00 Telefax: +47 22 38 38 62 * P.O.Box 2141 Grunerlokka, 0505 Oslo, Norway ***************************************************************** 32 ITAR-TASS: Customs service seizes depleted uranium in Russia region 28.01.2005, 13.28 MOSCOW, January 28 (Itar-Tass) - The customs service in a Volga region has seized more than 37 kilograms of depleted uranium. A spokesman at the Federal Customs Service told Itar-Tass on Friday that workers of the Orenburg customs service spotted the dangerous cargo on Wednesday during examination of a car with a radiation detector. The radiation-emitting object was a cylindrical protective container intended for remote manipulation with radioactive substances. It contained 37.5 kilograms of uranium-238, which is a depleted form. An owner of the container described it in a customs declaration as a “dumb-bell”. He said he had found it at a dump and used it for exercise and sometimes straightened nails with it. Specialists are looking for the origin of the container. A criminal case on an attempt of contraband of a radioactive substance has been opened. Specialists of the Russian Agency of Atomic Energy told Itar-Tass that neither a conventional nor “dirty” bomb could be made from the confiscated amount of uranium. Uranium-238 is one of the most available elements in the earth crust. About 60,000 tonnes of uranium a year is extracted in the world. © ITAR-TASS. All rights reserved. You undertake not to copy, ***************************************************************** 33 Mos News: Russian Customs Seize Depleted Uranium on Kazakhstan Border - NEWS - MOSNEWS.COM Created: 28.01.2005 14:06 MSK (GMT +3), Updated: 14:06 MSK Customs in the southern Russian city of Orenburg have seized a container with 37 kilograms of depleted uranium heading to Kazakhstan, the RIA-Novosti news agency reported on Friday. The agency cited the chief customs inspector in charge of media relations, Maksim Prytkov, as saying that the container had been detected by a special radioactivity sensor installed at the customs post. The car was searched and the metal container with 37 kilograms of uranium-238 was found. Curiously, the container was mentioned in the customs declaration as a sports weight. The owner said he had found it in a dump and used it as a training weight for some time. A criminal case has been instigated. Uranium-238 cannot be used to produce nuclear weapons, but it is a radioactive and highly toxic substance that can be used to make a so-called “dirty bomb” and also can be enriched to produce weapons-grade plutonium-239. Write us: info@mosnews.com Copyright © 2004 MOSNEWS.COM ***************************************************************** 34 The Australian: Let them eat yellowcake [January 29, 2005] Andrew Trounson YELLOWCAKE, nukes, meltdowns, The China Syndrome, radiation, proliferation, Chernobyl, Three Mile Island, terrorism. There are few more emotive topics in the world of politics or business than uranium. And few countries have a greater potential role to play than Australia in the future trade and exploitation of element 92 on the periodic table - the twin source of nuclear power and nuclear weapons. Until last year's hostile $7.4 billion foreign takeover bid for venerable Melbourne mining house WMC, the old Western Mining Corp, it was a little-known fact that Australia is the world's single largest repository of uranium. Beneath our sunburnt soil lies more than one-third of the world's known resources of the radioactive mineral, the vast bulk of it almost a kilometre underground at WMC's giant Olympic Dam copper and uranium mine at Roxby Downs in outback South Australia. The price of uranium has been surging, buoyed by expectations that ex-military stocks are drying up. "We have seen this hot up over the last year or two as the interest in uranium picked up," says WMC chief executive Andrew Michelmore during a break from plotting his defence against Swiss-based suitor Xstrata. He says customers and rival suppliers have approached WMC, keen to lock up supplies as the miner contemplates a $5 billion expansion of the mine that would treble production to 15,000 tonnes a year from 2010. The world's two largest producers, Canada's Cameco and French government-owned nuclear company Areva, are keen on Olympic Dam's supplies, as are the energy-hungry Chinese. Now Xstrata, fresh from its $4.9billion takeover of Queensland coal and copper miner MIM in 2003, wants to buy Olympic Dam and the rest of WMC's assets, which also include the world's third-biggest nickel operation in Western Australia. WMC has rebuffed Xstrata's bid as too cheap and has put Olympic Dam at the centre of its takeover defence, talking up the prospects of its expansion based on a bullish, but far from certain, outlook for uranium prices. In the midst of this corporate brawl sits Treasurer Peter Costello, who is being lobbied to block the takeover amid claims that Olympic Dam's uranium is too strategic an asset and its exports too much of a security risk to be entrusted to Xstrata. Xstrata chief executive Mick Davis met Costello on Thursday before flying back to London yesterday. Costello is no stranger to the situation. Back in 2001 he shocked the business community by vetoing Anglo-Dutch oil giant Shell's $10 billion bid for Australian oil and gas company Woodside Petroleum. At the heart of that decision were concerns that the takeover could deliver Shell decisive control over the North West Shelf liquefied natural gas operation in northwestern Australia, the country's single largest resources project. The fear was that a multinational company like Shell could, perhaps for strategic reasons, hold back the development of the Shelf in favour of other of its gas projects around the world. This time around it is the unique security risks posed by uranium, and aspersions cast over the suitability of Xstrata's major shareholder - the notoriously private and hard-headed Swiss commodities trading house Glencore - to be involved in Australian uranium. Michelmore and WMC have stayed out of the national interest debate, saying it is up to the Government. But for his part Michelmore doesn't believe that uranium represents a special case in itself. While recognising concerns over nuclear weapons proliferation, Michelmore says "the public can rest assured" that government and international safeguards ensure that Australian uranium won't end up in the wrong hands. But the anti-nuclear movement is sceptical, pointing out that the step from being a civilian user to being a military user is too easy a one to make, and that the world's track record on proliferation isn't good, with nuclear weapons now extending to such countries as North Korea, India, Pakistan, Israel and soon possibly Iran. "It is a dual-use technology," says Australian Conservation Foundation campaigner David Noonan. "The presence of a civilian nuclear power industry provides a country with the option to become a nuclear weapons state." The takeover question has put into focus a swag of issues surrounding uranium mining in Australia, including environmental and health concerns, the risk of terrorist attacks, the safety of nuclear reactors and the storage of radioactive waste. More than any other mineral, with the possible exception of oil, uranium breeds a complicated set of contradictions. The nuclear industry is actively promoting itself as the answer to tackling climate change by cutting fossil fuel emissions. But Green groups counter that nuclear power's climate-friendly credentials are far outweighed by the health and security risks. In Western Australia, Premier Geoff Gallop's Labor Government has banned uranium mining, saying the debate has been fought and won, and uranium mining lost. But just over the border in South Australia his Labor colleague, Premier Mike Rann, is pushing with all his might for Olympic Dam to be doubled in size, to make it the world's biggest single producer of uranium. Further east in Melbourne, prominent businessman and former Liberal Party treasurer Ron Walker came close to embracing leftist nationalisation in calling for government to consider taking ownership of Olympic Dam's uranium to stop it falling into the hands of foreigners such as Xstrata. While Xstrata's Davis battles a national interest backlash, WMC's Michelmore is busily promoting the prospect of selling his expanded uranium production to China, which has a controversial nuclear weapons program and a dismal record on human rights. He has also given France's Areva a guided tour of Olympic Dam as he explores possible joint ventures and long-term sales deals to underwrite the expansion. This is the same France to which we once banned uranium sales because of its nuclear weapons testing in the South Pacific, and the French penchant for blowing up protest boats in neutral countries such as New Zealand. Sales to France didn't fully return to normal until October 1996, when it finally signed the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. Because of the metal's radioactivity and end use, uranium mining has been dogged by controversy. In 1984 the Hawke Labor government adopted the so-called Three Mines policy which banned any new uranium mines. After the 1988 closure of the Narbarlek mine in the Northern Territory it was effectively a two mines policy - Olympic Dam and the Ranger mine in the Northern Territory, which is now owned by London-based Rio Tinto. John Howard scrapped the policy when he came to power in 1996, and in 2000 US-based General Atomics started up uranium production at its Beverley project in northeastern South Australia. Canada's Southern Cross Resources has advanced plans to start production at its Honeymoon Well deposit, also in the state's northeast. But even with the scrapping of the Three Mines policy, uranium mines continue to be regularly opposed by Green groups. In 1999, North Ltd, the former owner of Ranger, was forced to abandon plans to develop the nearby Jabiluka deposit within Kakadu National Park after a massive protest campaign. While the campaign was motivated by concerns over environmental damage to Kakadu and by the opposition of the traditional Aboriginal owners, the fact that uranium was concerned was also a factor. Most recently the sensitivity of uranium mining in Australia was recognised in last year's Free Trade Agreement with the US. Under the FTA, the threshold requiring Foreign Investment Review Board approval for acquisitions by US companies in Australia was raised to $800 million from just $50 million. Uranium, however, was specifically excluded from the threshold cut. According to Ron Huisken at Australian National University's Strategic and Defence Studies Centre, suggestions that Xstrata's ownership of Olympic Dam could represent a security risk don't stack up, because the Government already maintains tight controls over uranium exports. "We are among the most meticulous in trying to ensure that the end users are who they say they are ... and there have been no significant glitches to my knowledge," Huisken says. "Those controls would remain in place whoever owns it." Australia's uranium mines produce a powder called yellowcake - unprocessed uranium oxide - which is then concentrated on-site into an extremely heavy greenish powder for export. It is 1.7 times denser than lead and a 205-litre drum two-thirds full weighs 400kg. Sales are made under the strict control of the Australian Safeguards and Non-Proliferation Office (ASNO), within the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, to ensure the uranium is used only for peaceful purposes, mainly in reactors to produce electricity. At Olympic Dam the uranium oxide is packed into steel drums and loaded into shipping containers that are then trucked to Port Adelaide to be loaded directly on to ships. Recently, Olympic Dam started a three-month trial transporting uranium to Darwin on the new Adelaide-to-Darwin rail link. Unlike spent fuel from nuclear reactors or high-level radioactive waste, uranium oxide emits only low levels of radiation, or energy waves from unstable atoms, which are further shielded by the steel drums and shipping container. "People just lose perspective on these things and any amount of radiation is seen as insidious," says Ian Hore-Lacy, general manager of the Melbourne-based Uranium Information Centre. He says granites on Adelaide's North Terrace emit greater amounts of radiation than 98 per cent of the waste that would have gone into the proposed nuclear waste dump at Woomera in the South Australian desert. The federal Government's key concern is to prevent our uranium ever feeding weapons programs, and accordingly we sell only to countries which have signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and with which we have a bilateral agreement. Australia has 18 such agreements covering 35 countries, and its biggest customers are the US, Japan, South Korea, France and Britain. In co-operation with the International Atomic Energy Agency, ASNO monitors uranium sales through the nuclear fuel cycle. A few years ago WMC and its shareholders wouldn't have cared much about uranium, which is actually produced as a by-product of Olympic Dam's copper production. But in recent times, once moribund uranium prices have surged. In the late 1970s spot uranium prices were more than $US40 a pound. But the price slumped in the wake of the Three Mile Island nuclear accident in Pennsylvania in 1979, when what eventually proved to be low levels of radiation leaked from the plant during an emergency shutdown. Public confidence in nuclear energy plummeted, putting the brakes on new reactors and sending the uranium price south. The public mood wasn't helped by the 1986 Chernobyl disaster in Ukraine. In the 1990s the collapse of the Soviet Union led to a sharp increase in the supply of ex-military uranium as nuclear weapons were decommissioned, sending prices down below $US10/lb. But in the past three years spot uranium prices have trebled from about $US7/lb to more than $US20/lb on expectations of a supply shortage as the supply of ex-military stocks slows and a lack of new mine production starts to bite. On the face of it the outlook for uranium prices is strong, especially since fuel costs represent only a small proportion of the overall cost of nuclear power, where the bulk of the costs come from building the reactor. But the long-term outlook for uranium prices is far from certain. On the supply side there is the potential for the faster release of ex-military material from the former Soviet Union than currently agreed, while there is also the potential for further nuclear disarmament to increase supplies. Then there is the unpredictability of nuclear power demand. Nuclear's share of worldwide electricity demand has been stagnant at about 16 per cent since 1987. In the wake of Three Mile Island and Chernobyl, the construction of new nuclear reactors in the West and the USSR stalled, with some countries, such as Germany, planning to phase it out. While the world's growth engines, China and India, have embarked on nuclear programs to help meet their fast-growing energy demand, the IAEA is forecasting nuclear's share of world electricity power generation to fall to just 12 per cent by 2030. But this is the IAEA's low projection and assumes a "business as usual" scenario under which existing plants will close on schedule, and that no new plants will be built beyond those already under construction or firmly planned. This scenario ignores the potential for nuclear power to be embraced more widely as a solution to cutting fossil fuel emissions, especially in the wake of an improved safety record. An oil price at $US50 a barrel will also encourage countries to look at alternative energy sources such as nuclear. Incorporating a wider market analysis, the IAEA has said a median forecast could be for nuclear power generation to increase by 2.5 times by 2030 to account for 27 per cent of world electricity generation, and for nuclear power output to quadruple by 2050. It is this latter scenario that WMC is banking on in promoting Olympic Dam as the centrepiece of its bid defence. But whether WMC's shareholders even get the chance to decide on the bid will be up to Costello, and the contradictory chain reactions that go with uranium mining. © The Australian ***************************************************************** 35 The Australian: US critics reject our deal on N-waste [January 29, 2005] Amanda Hodge, Robert Lusetich AUSTRALIANS do not want nuclear waste in their backyards, and many Americans don't want it either - despite an agreement by the US Government to take four shipments of Australian waste in the next decade. About 800 spent nuclear fuel rods will be shipped from NSW to South Carolina in four loads before 2019 under the deal negotiated with Washington. The Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation, which runs the country's only nuclear reactor at Lucas Heights in Sydney, said the spent nuclear fuel would most likely end up at the proposed Yucca Mountain store in Nevada. But not according to Nevada Governor Kenny Guinn, who said his state would be no more willing to accept Australian nuclear waste than American. "We understand Australians don't want nuclear waste in their backyard, but - and please don't take this the wrong way - neither do we want your waste here in Nevada," a spokesman for Mr Guinn told The Weekend Australian. "And it's our great hope we'll never see any of it here." The US Department of Energy already accepts spent fuel containing uranium enriched in the US from 41 countries, including Australia, to reduce the risk of residual uranium being extracted for use in nuclear weapons. The Australian revealed last week that the US had extended that program for another 10 years and included waste generated from Australia's proposed new reactor, previously excluded from the deal. The Australian deal is drawing attention and criticism in the US, where there are growing doubts whether the US Government can safely manage its own huge stockpile of high-level nuclear waste. All spent nuclear fuel imported from other countries is now stored at Savannah River in South Carolina. But there are serious safety concerns about the store facility after a federal inspection last year found 15 of 51 tanks holding deadly waste from nuclear weapons were cracked, rusted or leaking. The US Energy Department has admitted the 1950s store is ageing and says it "will not last forever". Blue Ridge Environmental Defence League spokesman Louis Zeller went further, saying Savannah River was already unsafe and "nothing against Australia, but this just adds to the problem". "The way things are going at Savannah River I don't think it's guaranteed more waste can keep being sent there." he said. The respected Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists has also weighed into the debate. It posted a story on its website this week saying the US had "enough of its own nuclear waste problems" without agreeing to become Australia's dumping ground. But ANSTO spokesman Steve McIntosh said it made no difference to Australia whether the Yucca Mountain store went ahead or what decision was made about Savannah River, because the US deal was already done. "Foreign research reactor fuel is a small element of what's at Savannah River," he said. "The fuel we're sending over is solid and should not be posing an environmental hazard from leakage." In any case, Australian nuclear waste became the US Government's responsibility as soon as it passed into its territorial waters. © The Australian ***************************************************************** 36 Las Vegas RJ: Berkley urges withholding bonus pay for Yucca work Friday, January 28, 2005 By STEVE TETREAULT STEPHENS WASHINGTON BUREAU WASHINGTON -- The management company for Yucca Mountain should collect no awards after missing a deadline to finish a segment of the nuclear waste project, incoming Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman was told on Thursday. Rep. Shelley Berkley, D-Nev., wrote to Bodman criticizing the Energy Department's $1.8 billion contract with the firm, Bechtel SAIC Co., LLC. The contract included a series of payments tied to the company meeting specific deadlines and performing to quality standards. Bechtel SAIC would have qualified for a $15.3 million "performance based incentive" by handing DOE a completed license application for the Nevada nuclear waste repository by Nov. 30. But the department announced in November the application would be delayed. Yucca Mountain deputy director John Arthur said some of the causes were not the company's fault, and the parties continue to negotiate a partial payment, a DOE spokesman said this week. Berkley urged Bodman to reconsider any payment to Bechtel SAIC. "It is especially egregious that this company may receive bonuses, even though the company has failed to meet basic contract obligations," Berkley said. DOE spokesman Allen Benson said he could not comment on the matter. Copyright Las Vegas Review-Journal ***************************************************************** 37 Platts: Debate on waste management planned in France [The McGraw-Hill Companies] + France's industry minister will order a public debate on waste management. Minister Patrick Devedjian told a parliamentary hearing in Paris today that he and his colleague at the environment ministry, Serge Lepeltier, are preparing a formal request to the National Commission on Public Debate to organize a debate this fall on "general options concerning management of high-level and long-lived (nuclear) waste." The government, for its part, is preparing a white paper on waste management. Devedjian stressed the government's support for the reprocessing-recycling option and for research permitting transmutation of plutonium and minor actinides in "new (generation) nuclear reactors" beginning in 2040. Because transmutation can't eliminate all long-lived waste, however, "interim storage facilities and disposal facilities will be needed," Devedjian said. The debate, he said, will seek answers to questions of timing of such facilities, what kind of waste should be put there, whether "retrievable disposal" can replace interim storage facilities, and whether one underground waste laboratory is sufficient or whether a second is needed, as stipulated by French law. Paris (Platts)--27Jan2005 Copyright © 2005 - Platts, All Rights Reserved [The McGraw-Hill Companies] ***************************************************************** 38 Las Vegas SUN: DOE unveils details of above-ground storage plan January 28, 2005 Up to 21,000 metric tons of nuke waste could sit at Yucca for years By Benjamin Grove SUN WASHINGTON BUREAU WASHINGTON -- The Energy Department today unveiled new plans for a 500-foot-by-500-foot "aging pad" where nuclear waste would be stored above ground at Yucca Mountain until it was ready for placement in the underground repository. The department has long planned to collect waste at a surface holding facility at Yucca, where waste could be sorted and stored, in some cases for years. Some of the waste could be relatively fresh from nuclear plant reactors and more radioactive, or "hotter," than waste that would have been cooling for far longer in pools at the plants. The department had considered an aging pad with storage for up to 40,000 metric tons of waste -- over half the planned 70,000-metric-ton capacity of Yucca's repository tunnels, Energy Department repository systems engineer Paul Harrington said today at a nuclear waste issues conference here. But that plan was scaled back, he said. Design plans now call for a pad with capacity for 21,000 metric tons of waste. Waste would be stored in roughly 2,000 above-ground casks, Harrington said. It's hard to know how long a typical waste package would sit there, but it could be five, 10, even 15 years, he said. The pad likely would be used for about 50 years -- about the amount of time it would take to fill Yucca. The aging pad would allow the department to accept waste at the Yucca site before construction of the repository is complete, Harrington said. Energy Department officials aim to begin accepting waste at Yucca by 2010, although critics say that target is unlikely to be met. Nevada lawmakers have battled back proposals in Congress to construct a "temporary," or interim, waste site at the Nevada Test Site until Yucca is complete. Harrington said the aging pad is not defined as a temporary storage facility because the waste would not be stored temporarily -- it would be held awaiting placement in the permanent repository. "Interim storage doesn't have a disposal component," Harrington said. Yucca critics have said that is a matter of semantics. They note that federal law prohibits interim waste sites in Nevada if the state is to be home to a national permanent waste repository. Such a large pad would enable the department to ship hotter waste earlier than planned, said Kevin Kamps, a nuclear waste specialist with Nuclear Information and Resource Service. "That really increases transportation risks," Kamps said. Nevada officials plan to challenge the Energy Department's attempt to construct such a large aging pad. They say that a pad that size should be licensed separately by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. "We think that a facility that holds that quantity of waste is an independent fuel storage facility," said Bob Loux, executive director of the Nevada Nuclear Projects Agency. Yucca critics also have been critical of plans to store so much waste above ground because it would be vulnerable to aircraft accidents or even terrorist attacks. "If you have waste sitting there for 10 or 15 years -- that's a long time," said Michele Boyd, an analyst for Public Citizen who tracks Yucca issues. "That's one of the most dangerous aspects of Yucca Mountain." Nevada officials are keeping a close eye on the NRC, which has raised questions about the security of "temporary" waste sites. The NRC has delayed licensing a temporary above-ground waste site in Utah in large part due to concerns about aircraft crashes. That case may have implications for the aging pad at Yucca, Yucca critics said. The Yucca pad could be surrounded by a 300-foot barrier that would offer protection from, among other things, aircraft "skid-ins," Energy Department officials say. But Harrington today said that for security reasons, officials could not offer details about security measures that would be taken at the site. "There would be security, certainly," he said. All contents copyright 2005 Las Vegas SUN, Inc. ***************************************************************** 39 Salt Lake Tribune: One count against Goshutes' Leon Bear dropped Article Last Updated: 01/28/2005 01:23:02 AM Charges: The disputed leader is accused of tax fraud and stealing tribe money By Patty Henetz The Salt Lake Tribune Leon Bear A federal judge on Thursday dismissed one of the criminal counts pending against Leon Bear, the disputed leader of the Skull Valley Band of Goshutes who is accused of stealing tribal money and cheating on his federal income taxes. U.S. District Judge Bruce Jenkins ruled the crimes alleged already were included in a second count, which encompasses a longer time span. Bear's attorneys had argued that allowing both charges to stand would be a kind of piling-on that could prejudice a jury. The judge also granted a request to delay Bear's trial - for the second time - to allow defense attorneys to digest information they have received from the U.S. Attorney's Office regarding an immunity deal with tribal members Rex and Mary Allen, who will be the government's star witnesses during Bear's two-week trial scheduled to begin April 18. Bear and the Allens, who are siblings, made up the tribe's executive committee in 1997 when they signed a lease with Private Fuel Storage, a nuclear power consortium that wants to store up to 44,000 tons of spent nuclear fuel on the reservation. The Allens now are among Bear's fiercest critics, claiming he has no authority to lead the tribe. Rex Allen on Thursday said he was looking forward to testifying against Bear. "Finally, someone is listening, opening their ears and listening to us," he said. In December 2003, Bear, 48, was indicted on three counts of embezzling $160,952 from tribal programs and three counts of tax fraud. Prosecutors allege Bear reported being unemployed on his personal tax filings but was paid more than $192,316 for tribal business. Bear, who during Thursday's testimony again denied any wrongdoing, has been involved in tribal power struggles since striking the deal with PFS. The Allens and others claim he is not the chairman and has no authority to conduct tribal business. The state of Utah opposes the multibillion dollar PFS proposal, and has asked the U.S. Supreme Court to intervene in the dispute with the sovereign Goshute Nation. The federal Atomic Safety Licensing Board is considering the PFS license application, with a decision expected by mid-February. Bear's attorneys last week issued subpoenas to the governor's office and three state agencies - the Environmental Quality and Public Safety departments and the Attorney General's Office - asking for any information they may have compiled on Bear. "We're interested in knowing the interconnect between the [federal] government and the state," said Joseph Thibodeau, Bear's Denver-based attorney. In particular, defense attorneys want to know if the state paid the Allens' legal fees, Thibodeau said. The indictments were a joint effort by the FBI and investigative arms of the Internal Revenue Service and the Interior Department Inspector General's Office. Prosecutors have said they began the case in the spring of 2001, around the time the state's attorneys began documenting allegations of wrongdoing by the Bear administration in connection with the PFS license review. © Copyright 2005, The Salt Lake Tribune. ***************************************************************** 40 Deseret news: Utah leaders adamant on blocking toxic waste [deseretnews.com] Friday, January 28, 2005 By Joe Bauman Deseret Morning News Amid growing political opposition to any such study, the office of Gov. Jon Huntsman Jr. confirmed Thursday that the Army has contacted the state on its study about moving deadly mustard agent from Colorado to Utah. Huntsman, Sen. Bob Bennett, R-Utah, and Rep. Jim Matheson, D-Utah, came out swinging Thursday against shipping the material to the state. "There is no way this governor will ever support transporting such toxic chemical weapons into Utah," Huntsman said in a written statement. "We will utilize all means to prevent any quantity of mustard gas from moving into the state of Utah," he added. The safest place to store the agent is in the bases where it already is, he added. "Conversely, the most dangerous option would be to ship the mustard gas interstate on a publicly accessible rail route through populated areas." The governor said he made a campaign pledge to prevent Utah from becoming a dumping ground for such potentially dangerous material, "and I don't intend to back down from that position now." Mary Jane Collipriest, spokeswoman for Bennett, said in 1996 Bennett "added language to a defense spending bill which blocked funding for a study to transport chemical weapons across state lines." "His position remains the same as in '96, and consequently, he's signed on as a co-sponsor to Sen. Allard's bill which is similar in language and intent." On Wednesday, Colorado Sens. Wayne Allard, a Republican, and Ken Salazar, a Democrat, joined forces to sponsor a bill to block further funding of the study to ship chemical weapons out of Colorado. Matheson's opposition came in a letter to Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. "A decision to relocate this material would be contrary to the requirement that Congress included in Section 143 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1995," he wrote. Matheson questioned spending tax money for the study. "Department of Defense short-term budgetary considerations should not be more important than the safety of our citizens and complying with federal law," Matheson wrote. Jason Groenewold, director of the Health Environment Alliance of Utah, said it's good to "finally see someone from the Utah delegation speak out. I'm disappointed the others haven't so far." Contributing: Jerry Spangler E-mail: bau@desnews.com © 2005 Deseret News Publishing Company ***************************************************************** 41 Guardian Unlimited: Report: 'Missing' Lab Disks Didn't Exist From the Associated Press [UP] Saturday January 29, 2005 1:46 AM By LESLIE HOFFMAN Associated Press Writer ALBUQUERQUE, N.M. (AP) - Two computer disks that supposedly disappeared last summer, prompting a virtual shutdown of the Los Alamos National Laboratory, in fact never existed, according to report released Friday. In a harshly worded review that described severe security weaknesses at the nuclear lab, the U.S. Energy Department concluded that bar codes were recorded for the disks but the disks themselves were never created. A separate FBI investigation supported that finding, according to the report. ``The weaknesses revealed by this incident are severe and must be corrected,'' according to the report. As punishment for the problems, the Energy Department slashed by two-thirds the management fee it paid to the University of California for running the Los Alamos National Laboratory. Out of a possible $8.7 million, UC will get only $2.9 million; it is the largest fee reduction ever imposed on a national laboratory. ``Although multiple investigations have confirmed that the `missing' disks never existed, the major weakness in controlling classified material revealed by this incident are absolutely unacceptable and the University of California must be held accountable for them,'' National Nuclear Security Agency Administrator Linton Brooks said in a statement. UC officials on Friday accepted responsibility for the problems but pointed to the months of work they and lab officials have done reviewing Los Alamos' safety and security procedures since the initial shutdown. ``We got walloped. Unfortunately, we deserve this,'' UC spokesman Chris Harrington said. ``But what we have done is correct the problems and put the right system in place so that we don't have to take this type of hit again.'' In the wake of the supposed disk disappearance, four Los Alamos workers were fired and one resigned. The problems also drew criticism from Congress and senior officials at the Energy Department. About 12,000 workers were idled during the July shutdown. ^--- Associated Press Writer H. Josef Hebert contributed to this report from Washington. Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2005 ***************************************************************** 42 Guardian Unlimited: U. of Calif. Loses $5.8M Over Los Alamos From the Associated Press [UP] Saturday January 29, 2005 1:01 AM By H. JOSEF HEBERT Associated Press Writer WASHINGTON (AP) - The Energy Department slashed by two-thirds the management fee it paid to the University of California for running the Los Alamos National Laboratory as punishment for security and safety problems at the lab. The National Nuclear Security Administration, which oversees the government's weapons labs, said Friday the university would received only $2.9 million instead of the maximum $8.7 million it could have received in fees for managing the lab in New Mexico for the fiscal year ended last Sept. 30. The agency cited severe management failures at Los Alamos including the disappearance of classified computer disks that forced the shutdown for months of the labs' most sensitive weapons-related activities. ``Although multiple investigations have confirmed that the `missing' disks never existed, the major weakness in controlling classified material revealed by this incident are absolutely unacceptable and the University of California must be held accountable for them,'' NNSA Administrator Linton Brooks said in a statement. The university manages the Los Alamos and Lawrence Livermore laboratories under contract with the Energy Department. Largely because of the computer disk fiasco and separate safety problems, the Los Alamos lab's operation was rated ``unsatisfactory'' for fiscal year 2004, according to the agency. As a result, the university forfeited its performance-based fees and incurred an additional penalty, said the agency. ``We got walloped,'' said Chris Harrington, a university spokesman in its Washington office. ``Unfortunately we deserved this. We've corrected the problems and put the right systems in place so that we don't have to take this type of hit again.'' The university has managed Los Alamos for 62 years, dating from the Manhattan Project, which developed the atomic bomb. But last year the department said for the first time it would open the Los Alamos management contract to bids. The University of California's contract expires this fall. The lab has been plagued by security lapses including the reported disappearance of two computer disks last summer that contained classified nuclear weapons information. The lab also came under criticism when an intern suffered an eye injury in a laser experiment, and two years ago it became embroiled in a credit card buying scandal. Suspicion that classified information was being mishandled led to the shutdown of weapons activities. Recently, Los Alamos officials announced that the lab would return to normal operations next week. Los Alamos spokesman Kevin Roark said that the security review had identified more than 3,000 problems that needed improvement, including training, storage and tracking of computer disks and the laboratory's safety program. The Los Alamos lab has a $2.1 billion budget, including federal and private funds. The management fee is what the government pays the university as compensation. ^--- On the Net: National Nuclear Security Administration: http://www.nnsa.doe.gov Los Alamos National Laboratory: http://www.lanl.gov Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2005 ***************************************************************** 43 AFP: Egypt admits failing to report nuclear research to UN watchdog agency Reuters | AFP | Sky News | Photos Thursday January 27, 06:06 PM VIENNA (AFP) - Egypt admitted to failing to report a "number of research experiments" to the UN atomic energy agency, after diplomats said the agency was investigating an Egyptian lab that could be used to make plutonium, a nuclear weapons material. But "Egypt is cooperating with the IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency)" and feels the "research experiments and activities ... most of which took place in the distant past are consistent with the NPT," the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, the Egyptian embassy said in a statement released in Vienna. The statement said stronger safeguards measures by the IAEA "since the 1990's have resulted in not reporting to the agency, in an appropriate and timely manner, a number of research experiments and activities." Egyptian ambassador Ramzy Ezzeldin Ramzy told AFP it was a case that with "strengthened safeguards, countries sometimes don't know what they are required to report." He said news reports of Egyptian safeguards failures were "exaggerated" and that Egypt has a strictly peaceful nuclear program. The statement said "Egypt understands that the agency is aware of the limited scope of the issue" and feels that the "agency values the level of cooperation Egypt is extending." Egypt has not however signed an additional protocol to the NPT that allows for tough IAEA inspections. IAEA officials refused to comment on the investigation. Diplomats had told AFP last week that UN inspectors investigating undeclared nuclear activity in Egypt that could be related to atomic weapons development are checking out a reprocessing lab for making plutonium. The reprocessing laboratory is at Egypt's Inshass center, 35 kilometres (20 miles) northeast of Cairo, where there are two research reactors. The lab consists of "hot laboratories, procured from France in the early 1980s, which allow for treatment of spent fuel and laboratory-scale plutonium separation," a diplomat said. Ramzy said: "Hot cells can also be for research and this situation will be clarified within the next few weeks," apparently referring to when the IAEA publishes the results of its investigation. The diplomat said the IAEA had last October "checked, among other things, the historical records of the nuclear material in the hot cell labs and in the nuclear waste management center," in addition to interviewing people involved in research work. The lab, which apparently has never been used for reprocessing, raises questions about an Egyptian nuclear program which is peaceful but may also be carefully structured to be able to move towards weapons development if Cairo decided to take this step, diplomats said. But a diplomat close to the IAEA, who asked not to be named, said Egypt's undeclared work was small scale and not even comparable to South Korea, a non-atomic-weapons state which has admitted carrying out rogue nuclear experiments. The IAEA has been intensively investigating Egypt since the middle of 2004 after it was tipped off to possible undeclared nuclear experiments, with much information coming from open-source scientific publications by Egyptian scientists, a diplomat said. The experiments the IAEA is looking into involve making uranium metal, which could be used to make weapons-grade plutonium, and carrying out the first steps of uranium enrichment by making uranium tetrafluoride (UF4), the diplomat said. Copyright © 2005 AFP AFP. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 44 Las Vegas Business Press: Test site research contributes to global warming debate Friday, January 28, 2005 DRI scientists prepare a desert plot for a Co2 sampling. BY XAZMIN GARZA BUSINESS PRESS The Nevada Test Site, located 65 miles northwest of Las Vegas, is larger than the state of Rhode Island, covering 1,375 square miles. When the site was testing underground nuclear weapons 13 years ago, around 10,000 people were working there. Today, the site employes a mere 2,000 workers and is using 10 percent of the total available land. Those numbers, the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) says, account for the maximum potential use of the site at this time. "We have room to take in more projects out there, but they would have to fit into our prime mission," says Darwin Morgan, spokesperson for NNSA. The site's foremost mission of supporting and maintaining the area for nuclear testing as needed has a direct correlation with homeland security. The mission has tightened the scope for potential projects utilizing the areas, which is why 90 percent of the site is currently unused, Morgan says. Prior to 9/11, the test site was considering a number of commercial uses for the area, says Frank Tussing, executive director for the Nevada Alliance for Defense, Energy and Business. Homeland security projects, however, put those commercial prospects on the backburner. "There were and still are several companies interested in launching recoverable satellites into space from the test site, but we have to support our most immediate need, which is counter-terrorism," says Tussing. One such interested company is Kistler Aerospace out of Seattle. The company has experienced some setbacks of its own with its projected launch, but if Kistler were to propose using space at this time, they would likely be turned down, says Tussing. Although underground nuclear bomb testing hasn't been performed at the site since 1992, if Congress were to mandate it, the site would have to be prepared within two months. Government operations currently using the site with projects related to Homeland Security include military training for soldiers before they head overseas. Also, as Morgan explains, the projects currently using the space are few, but the land they consume is great because of the "buffer room" required for high hazard projects. If and when the site is to resume the underground testing, the same respect to space would be necessary. Even then, it isn't likely the projects would consume the entire space of the site. "I don't know that it's ever been used to its maximum potential, but it's a very unique area," says Tussing. One of the site's most coveted attributes is the fact it is so far from residential areas and offers a vast amount of undisturbed space. Urban smog levels are low and the land is in its original form, which is what made the area ideal for the Desert Research Institute's (DRI) latest study. Taking advantage of the DRI's existing contract with the test site, scientists from the institute have been using roughly 200 acres to test various levels of carbon dioxide in the Mojave desert. Their findings, which will be published by the year's end, reveal data likely to change the public's mind on the role desert ecosystems play in global warming. "Our results indicate that in the future deserts will have less uptake of CO2, up to 30 percent less, from the atmosphere," says Dr. Jay Arnone, III, associate research professor for DRI. It was previously believed that deserts would increase their uptake of the growing levels of CO2 that result from burning fossil fuel such as coal and oil, and so reduce the amount in the atmosphere. The latest DRI findings contradict that assumption. Arnone says the indications are clear and only confirm what his research has told him for years. "We need to look more at what could happen in the future and not just what it will cost the economy. I know that's not the way most businesses or the government makes decisions but all our research points to possible [damaging] consequences of the future," he says. Although there are about 30 other similar studies being conducted across the country, the DRI's is the only one to examine carbon dioxide's effects on desert ecosystems instead of forests, which have long been recognized as carbon sinks. The measurements have been taken using a polyethylene tent the DRI scientists designed themselves. Although the DRI's findings deliver a somewhat bleak outlook, Arnone says there is good news. "Regardless of the global change, our findings demonstrate that deserts take out as much CO2 in one year as forests and grasslands." The significance here lies in the fact 40 percent of the Earth's surface is arid or semi-arid, like the desert. DRI scientists are sampling plots of the desert once a month, but if they receive additional funding they plan to increase that to every three weeks to ensure accuracy. If the test site were given orders to resume underground testing, however, the DRI's study would be stopped. "We have to continue to meet our nation's need," says Morgan. "DRI is aware of this." xazmin@lvpress.com | 702-871-6780 x318 Copyright © 2005 Las Vegas Business Press ***************************************************************** 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: *****************************************************************